Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors on 27 September, 2025
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-11 ,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CC No. 264/19
RC No. RC-11(A)/2014/CBI/AC-III/NEW DELHI
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma & Anrs.
CNR No.: DLCT11-001062-2019
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
1. RAVI MOHAN SHARMA
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan Sharma
The then Director,
Traffic Transportation (Coaching)
Railway Board, New Delhi
R/o: H. No. D-II/75, Kaka Nagar
New Delhi AND H. No. A-49
Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-15
2. RAJESH CHAMPAKLAL JODHANI
S/o late Champaklal Prabhu Das Jodhani
Additional Director,
M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd.
R/o: 13A, Surat Sadan Ville Parle
4th Floor, West Mumbai-56
3. KUMAR VADILAL SHAH
S/o Sh. Vadilal Shah
R/o: H. No. 701, Pinnacle Dream
V.L. Mehta Road, Juhu, Mumbai
CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma & Ors. Page No. 1 of 165
:: 2 ::
4. M/S RAIL TOUR INDIA LLP
Represented by AR, Pratik Shah
701/702, Pinnacle D' Dreams
Sub-Plot B/20 of Plot, 5/1 V.M. Mehta Road
JVPD, Vile Parle (West)
Mumbai, Maharashtra-400049
Date of registration of FIR : 22.10.2014
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 20.12.2014
Arguments concluded on : 11.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.09.2025
Appearance :
For Prosecution : Sh. Avanish Kumar Chand, Ld. PP for the CBI.
For A-1 : Sh. P.K. Dubey, Sr. Counsel assisted by Counsel Sh. Nishank Mattoo.
For A-2 to A-4 : Sh. Anindya Malhotra, Sh. Hemant Shah and Sh. Akshay Rana.
JUDGMENT
27.09.2025
1. The accused persons were sent up for trial on the accusations that they entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, accused Ravi Mohan Sharma accepted an illegal gratification for facilitating the allotment of rail coaches and thereby, committed the offences punishable under the said sections of the PC Act. The allegations against Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, Kumar Vadilal Shah and M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP were CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 2 of 165 :: 3 ::
that they abetted the commission of these offences by offering the illegal gratification and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act.
BRIEF FACTS IN THE CHARGESHEET
2. Ravi Mohan Sharma, a public servant (hereinafter referred to as A-1) is stated to be a 1998 Batch Officer of Indian Railways & Traffic Service (IRTS), who officiated at various ranks before being posted on 14.03.2012 as Director, Traffic Transport, Coaching-I, Railway Board, New Delhi. The present FIR bearing RC No. 11A/ 2014-CBI-AC-III- New Delhi came to be registered against him on the allegations that he abused his above official position and committed the offence of criminal misconduct by extending undue favours to a travel concern by arranging railway coaches in lieu of illegal gratification in the form of cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs.
3. The prosecution's case is built around the allegations that a source information was received by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that A-1 was indulging in corrupt and illegal activities. On the basis of this information, seven (7) telephone numbers, including those used by A-1 and other railway officials as well as the one used by the private individuals managing the travel concern were kept under surveillance after obtaining permission of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 3 of 165 :: 4 ::
the Union Home Secretary, Government of India. The calls made over these telephone numbers were intercepted and the conversations revealed that A-1 was demanding a bribe of Rs.6 lakhs from Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani (hereinafter referred to as A-2) for extending undue favour in making arrangement of special coaches including a special coach for the group tour of the employees of a concern named M/s Ram Krishna Exports. A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani was the additional director of a travel concern named M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd company which was engaged in the business of organising tours and travel for its customers. The office of this company was located in Mumbai and even though there were other directors but the affairs of the company were being managed and looked after by A-2.
4. It has been alleged that M/s Ram Krishna Exports Pvt. Ltd., another Mumbai based company, was in need of a special train comprising of thirteen third AC coaches and two second AC coaches for the return group tour of its employees from Surat to Haridwar and for arranging the same, Vipul Shah, an employee of the company, was in regular touch with A-2. It has been stated that A-1 and the directors of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd. entered into a criminal conspiracy for arranging the fifteen coaches in lieu of the illegal gratification. The intercepted calls revealed CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 4 of 165 :: 5 ::
that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma demanded a sum of Rs.1.50 lakhs from A-2 for arranging the said coaches. The coaches were arranged and the train in which the coaches were allotted departed from Surat Railway Station on 21.10.2014. It was revealed from the intercepted calls that a deal was struck whereby A-1 assured A-2 of arranging similar coaches in other trains and in lieu thereof, A-2 agreed to deliver the illegal gratification of Rs.5 lakhs on 22.10.2014 at the residence of A-1 at House No. B-II/75, Kaka Nagar, New Delhi.
5. In order to deliver the bribe, A-2 contacted his acquaintance Parasmal Jain (PW-8) and requested him to deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs at the residence of A-1. Parasmal Jain (PW-8) was the owner of a company named Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., whose office was in New Delhi. He agreed to deliver the amount with an understanding that equivalent amount shall be delivered to his brother Jayantilal Jain (PW-29) at Mumbai. In view of these facts, the source information was confirmed and the present FIR was registered under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 7, 11, 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act).
6. The prosecution's case proceeds further that after registration of FIR on 22.10.2014, a trap team was constituted on CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 5 of 165 :: 6 ::
the same day by Suresh Kumar, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI (PW-65) to apprehend A-1 red handed while accepting the bribe at his house in Kaka Nagar. Two independent witnesses;
(i) Lakhan Raj (PW-4), an official from Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd.; and (ii) Gajender Singh (PW-64), Accounts Officer, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. were joined in the trap team. The independent witnesses were briefed about the place of transaction and were advised to remain discreet. On 22.10.2014, at around 08:50 AM, the trap team reached at a spot near the house of A-1 and the CBI officials as well as the independent witnesses took position around the area outside the main gate of the house. It has been alleged that Bhanwar Singh (PW-7), an employee of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, collected the bribe from the accountant (PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain) of his company and arrived at the spot at around 09:10 AM on a two wheeler bearing registration number DL-13S-TC-0015.
7. It is the case of prosecution that after reaching the spot, Bhanwar Singh connected a phone call from his mobile number 9873685976 to PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain, who disclosed him the mobile number of A-1 as 9560561430. Bhanwar Singh noted down the mobile number on a paper and wrote along with it 'Rajesh Ji' in Hindi and thereafter, contacted A-1 on the said mobile. The call CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 6 of 165 :: 7 ::
was picked up by the wife of A-1 (Alka Sharma), who disclosed that her husband is in toilet and he would soon call him back. It has been alleged that after few minutes, A-1 returned the call and Bhanwar Singh disclosed him that he is standing outside his house to deliver 'five KG of Rajesh Ji wala'. In response thereof, A-1 told him that he is coming out of the house. After about five minutes, A-1 came out of his house and took the delivery of the bribe money. Bhanwar Singh took out a bag containing the bribe amount from the dicky of his two wheeler (scooty) and handed it over to A-1, who kept it after verifying its contents. Thereafter, to confirm the delivery, Bhanwar Singh connected a call to his employer (PW-8 Parasmal Jain) on his mobile number 9810074314 and made him talk to A-1. Over this call, A-1 confirmed his identity as 'Ravi Mohan Sharma' and also confirmed that he has received the bribe money.
8. On completion of the transaction, at around 09:20 AM, Bhanwar Singh started going towards his two wheeler while A-1 started walking towards his residence but both were apprehended by the members of the trap team. On being asked, Bhanwar Singh disclosed that he had handed over the cloth bag (Kundan Cab printed over it) containing cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs to A-1. On being confronted, A-1 became perplexed and admitted after a CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 7 of 165 :: 8 ::
while that the bag was delivered to him on behalf of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani. The bag containing the bribe money was opened in the presence of independent witnesses and it was found to be containing cash amount of Rs.4,99,500/-. The bag as well as the currency notes were seized and Site Plan was prepared.
9. The prosecution's case proceeds further that after apprehending A-1, CBI officials tried to enter his house but they were obstructed by his wife Smt. Alka Sharma, who closed the entry gate and locked herself inside the house. However, after some time, she opened the gate and a search was carried out at the house. During the search, a cash amount of Rs.6.98 lakhs was recovered from the drainage hole of the bathroom of the house and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E (D-5). Thereafter, the bathroom was sealed and it was searched again after being de- sealed on 29.10.2014 but no further incriminating material was found.
10. It has been further alleged that the Investigation revealed that A-1 was instrumental in arranging various coaches in the trains for the tours organised by A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani on behalf of A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP. The details of the tours and the trains in which the coaches were arranged were revealed as;
(i) FTR Train from Surat to Haridwar from 21.10.2014 to CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 8 of 165 :: 9 ::
01.11.2014, (ii) FTR Train from Ahmedabad to Parsvnath from 23.10.2014 to 04.11.2014, (iii) FTR Train from Abu Road to Parsvnath from 23.10.2014 to 05.11.2014, (iv) FTR Train from Choumela to Shirdi from 23.10.2014 to 30.10.2014; and (v) FTR Train from Aurangabad to Parsvnath from 26.10.2014 to 10.11.2014. The relevant files pertaining to the allotment of the said coaches were seized. Enquiries were made from the railway officials, which revealed that A-1 was instrumental in arranging the coaches.
11. The details of the seven mobile numbers kept under surveillance have been disclosed as; (i) Mobile number 7042903177, issued in the name of Devender Kumar, which was being used by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma; (ii) Mobile number 9560561430, issued in the name of Akash Lalwani, which was also being used by A-1; (iii) Mobile number 9910487468, issued in the name of M/s Rail Tel Corporation of India Ltd., which was the official mobile number of A-1; (iv) Mobile number 9324373686, issued in the name of Vipul Harish Shah, which was being used by him only; (v) Mobile number 9619510566, issued in the name of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, which was being used by him;
(vi) Mobile number 9821153099, issued in the name of Kumar Pal Shah, which was also being used by A-2; and (vii) Mobile number CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 9 of 165 :: 10 ::
9810074314, issued in the name of Parasmal Jain, which was being used by him.
12. Investigation revealed that A-1 was using the mobile number 9560561430 but he managed to conceal the handset of the said mobile and the same could not be recovered. It has been disclosed that the conspiracy was hatched over the phone calls, which were intercepted and recorded with the help of a software.
On the basis of the permission granted by the competent authority, the telephone service provider provided a parallel connectivity to the CBI and the calls were automatically recorded on the servers at the Special Unit of CBI at Jamnagar. The conversations over the intercepted calls were heard by the CBI and were recorded on the servers without human intervention. It has been disclosed that the system wherein the calls were recorded had an inbuilt mechanism to rule out the possibility of tampering.
13. Out of the calls so recorded, conversations of 182 calls were found containing discussion between the accused persons in respect of the arrangement of the coaches as well as the offer and the demand of the bribe. Some of the calls contained conversations between A-1 and other railway employees in respect of the allotment of coaches. Over these calls, more particularly, over calls no. 11, 49, 94 and 175, negotiations were held between A-1 and CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 10 of 165 :: 11 ::
A-2 and the bribe amount was fixed at Rs.5 lakhs. PW-3 Suraj Majumdar burnt the 182 intercepted calls into a Compact Disk (CD) and prepared a similar CD for the investigating officer. He sealed one of the CDs and handed it over to PW-47 G.M Ansari and also handed him over the other CD (IO copy) in unsealed condition. The IO copy of the CD was subsequently played in the presence of independent witnesses and the transcripts of the conversations (D-65) were prepared.
14. The voice samples of the accused persons as well as those of Bhanwar Singh, Parasmal Jain, Kulin Kumar Shah and Jayanti Lal were obtained at the CFSL and were compared with the recorded conversation. The CFSL returned a positive finding that the relevant recorded conversation contained the voices of the concerned persons. CFSL also returned a positive finding in respect of the handwriting of Bhanwar Singh on the paper on which he had noted down the mobile number of A-1. Necessary documentation was done and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Since, A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was a public servant, therefore, the requisite sanction was obtained under Section 19 of PC Act. CBI concluded the investigation qua A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani and filed the charge- sheet in the court mentioning that the role of the other individuals CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 11 of 165 :: 12 ::
including that of other railway officials was being investigated.
15. Thereafter, CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. against A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah, A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP and Smt. Alka Sharma. It was disclosed in the supplementary charge-sheet that A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah is the father of Kulin Kumar Pal Shah, who was one of the directors of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that A-3 played an active role in the conspiracy by settling the bribe amount in the conversation contained in the intercepted calls no. 173 and
176. His voice samples were obtained and matched with the voice in the recorded conversations. The role attributed to Smt. Alka Sharma was that she tried to conceal the evidence by obstructing the CBI officials from entering the house on 22.10.2014 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section 201 of IPC.
16. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge-sheets and the accused persons, except Smt. Alka Sharma, were summoned. Copies of the charge-sheet and the documents were supplied to the accused persons. Arguments were heard and the charges were framed by the Ld. Predecessor. Charges under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act were framed against all the accused persons; Separate CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 12 of 165 :: 13 ::
charges under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of PC Act was framed against A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma; and Separate charge under Section 12 of PC Act was framed against A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah and A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
17. Sixty Six (66) prosecution witnesses were examined.
Sanctioning Authority 17.1 PW-1 Sh. S.K. Aggarwal, Director, E(O)I, Ministry of Railways, deposed that the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was granted on behalf of the President of India by virtue of the powers conferred by the Government of India Authentication (Orders & Other Instruments) Rules, 2022 as notified under Article 77 of the Constitution of India. He conveyed that the sanction was accorded by the Hon'ble Minister of Railways vide order dated 23.01.2015. He mentioned that the file on which the sanction was sought was not sent to the President of India.
Witnesses relating to the intercepted calls 17.2 PW-2 Sunil Kumar, Principal Staff Officer, Office of Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 13 of 165 :: 14 ::
identified the signatures of the officials on the orders dated 08.09.2014, 14.10.2014, 17.10.2014, 21.10.2014 and 22.10.2014 whereby the interception of the seven mobile numbers was authorised. The orders are Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/G (D-11 to D-17).
17.3 PW-3 Suraj Majumdar, Inspector, CBI (Official looking after the call recording system wherein the intercepted calls were recorded), gave a detailed account of the mechanism by which the calls were intercepted and recorded. He deposed that the telephone service provider provided a parallel connectivity on the basis of the permission granted by the competent authority and the conversations on the calls were automatically recorded on the servers. He conveyed that the conversations were heard by the CBI but they were recorded on the servers without human intervention.
He disclosed that the system wherein the calls were recorded had an inbuilt mechanism to rule out the possibility of tampering. He mentioned that seven mobile numbers were put under surveillance and out of the calls made on those numbers, 182 calls were burnt on a CD. He mentioned that he was managing and controlling the recording system. The CD containing the calls was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The call information report is Ex.PW3/B and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 14 of 165 :: 15 ::
Evidence Act is Ex.PW3/C. The CD was produced in a sealed envelope bearing the seal of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) and the witness identified the same as Ex.PW3/P1.
Independent Witnesses 17.4 PW-4 Lakhan Raj (First independent witness of the trap team), supported the prosecution's case. He gave a detailed account of the incident mentioning the manner in which the CBI team reached at a spot near the house of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. He fully supported the prosecution's story and deposed in line with prosecution's case. He mentioned about the arrival of Bhanwar Singh and narrated the manner in which he handed over the bribe money to A-1. His detailed testimony has been discussed in the later part of the judgment.
17.5 PW-64 Gajender Singh, Senior Assistant Officer, Rural Electrification Corporation, Lodhi Road (Second Independent Witness of the trap team), deposed that he was accompanying the trap team at the time when A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was apprehended. He did not support the prosecution's story that the cash was recovered from the possession of A-1. He came up with a version that the bag containing the bribe money was recovered from the possession of Bhanwar Singh. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution. On being confronted CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 15 of 165 :: 16 ::
with his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr. P.C., he conveyed that he cannot correctly tell the entire incident as he was standing behind the other members of the trap team.
17.6 PW-18 Ravi Kumar, Upper Division Clerk, Delhi Jal Board (independent witness in whose presence voice sample of Vimal Kumar Jain was obtained by CBI), deposed that on the directions of his superior, he visited the office of CBI on 27.10.2014. He disclosed that the voice sample of Vimal Kumar Jain was obtained in his presence at the CFSL. The witness identified his signatures on the memorandum prepared at the relevant time.
17.7 PW-19 Manoj Kumar, Lower Division Clerk, Delhi Jal Board (independent witness in whose presence voice sample of Vimal Kumar Jain was obtained by CBI), deposed that on the directions of his superior, he visited the office of CBI on 27.10.2014. He disclosed that the voice sample of Vimal Kumar Jain was obtained in his presence at the CFSL. The witness identified his signatures on the memorandum as well as the other documents prepared at the relevant time.
Nodal Officers and Witnesses of Mobile Connections 17.8 PW-5 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, IDEA Cellular Ltd., deposed that efforts were made to search a mobile number on the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 16 of 165 :: 17 ::
basis of the IMEI Number provided by the CBI but it did not yield result.
17.9 PW-6 Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., deposed that the Customer Application Forms (CAF) and Calls Detail Records (CDR) of two mobile numbers were provided to the CBI along with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The CAF and the CDR of the mobile number 9324373686 of Vipul Shah (who was an employee of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd.) are Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C respectively. The CAF and CDR of mobile number 9958287775 are Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E respectively. The certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW6/F. 17.10 PW-9 Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., stated that efforts were made to trace the mobile connection on the basis of IMEI number but it did not yield result.
17.11 PW-12 Ankit Juneja, Owner of M/s J.T.C. Tele Services, deposed that he was distributor of Bharti Airtel Ltd. He mentioned about the mobile connection bearing no. 9560561430. He stated that the said connection was issued in the name of Akash Lalwani.
The witness explained the process of obtaining a SIM card. He mentioned that an individual intending to obtain a SIM card used CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 17 of 165 :: 18 ::
to submit a form along with documents at M/s Pawan Store. He disclosed that M/s Pawan Store used to process the form and forward it to him. The name of Akash Lalwani can be seen at serial no. 17 in a document of M/s Pawan Store which is Ex.PW12/B. The CAF bearing the stamp of M/s Pawan Store is Ex.PW12/C. 17.12 PW-16 Raju Ram Sukhar, Carpenter, deposed that he was using the mobile connection bearing no. 7042903117 which was issued in the name of his friend Devender Kumar. He conveyed that he accidentally left his mobile phone at the house of Smt. Alka Sharma (wife of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma), where he had gone to carry out some repair work. He explained that he went back to the house of Smt. Alka Sharma after 2 - 3 days to collect the mobile phone but was told by the servant that nobody was at home. He mentioned that he again went to the house after 2 - 3 days and came to know that CBI had registered a case against the owners of the house.
17.13 PW-17 Pawan Kumar, Owner of M/s Pawan Store, deposed that he was running a grocery shop under the name of M/s Pawan Store and he also used to collect forms from the customers intending to obtain mobile connection. He disclosed that Akash Lalwani approached him for obtaining the connection bearing no.
9560561430. He mentioned that requisite documents were CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 18 of 165 :: 19 ::
submitted by Akash Lalwani and his application form was processed by him.
17.14 PW-20 Akash Lalwani, (Customer in whose name the mobile connection no. 9560561430 was issued), admitted that the mobile connection number 9560561430 was issued in his name.
He deposed that he was using the said connection but the mobile phone was misplaced. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but he denied having any connection with A-1. He denied the prosecution's version that the said mobile connection was obtained by him at the request of A-1 and also denied that the same was being used by A-1.
17.15 PW-26 Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., deposed that he handed over CAFs and CDRs of certain mobile connections to the CBI. He deposed about handing over the CAF of mobile number 9560561430 in the name of Akash Lalwani Ex.PW12/C (D-73); CDR of the said connection is Ex.PW26/C; CAFs of mobile numbers 9001040600 to 9001040613 in the name of Group GM (Northern), IRCTC are Ex.PW26/D (colly); CDRs of mobile numbers 9001040613 is Ex.PW26/E (D-74); CAF of mobile number 7042903177 in the name of Virender Kumar is Ex.PW26/F and the CDR of the said mobile numbers is Ex.PW26/G; Subscriber's details of the mobile numbers CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 19 of 165 :: 20 ::
9004490915, 9987640551, 9004490901 & 9987640571 are Ex.PW12/H (colly); CDRs of the said mobile numbers are Ex.PW26/J, Ex.PW26/K, Ex.PW26/L & Ex.PW26/M; CAF of mobile numbers 9810074314 in the name of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW26/P while the CDR of the said connection is Ex.PW26/Q. He has also deposed about the CAFs and CDRs of other mobile connections provided by his service provider.
17.16 PW-44 Rakesh Chandra Prajapati, Nodal Officer, Loop Mobile India Ltd., Mumbai, deposed that he provided the CDR of mobile number 9821153099 to the CBI along with a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The CDR and the certificate are MarkPW44/A (colly.) and the CAF is MarkPW44/B. 17.17 PW-45 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., stated that he provided the CAF and CDR of mobile number 9560561430 to the CBI. He mentioned that he provided the Cell ID Location Chart of the said mobile phone to the CBI. He stated that he also provided the details of IMEI Number 359906050464160 to the CBI. The CAF is Ex.PW45/B while the Cell ID Location Chart is Ex.PW45/C and the CDR is Ex.PW45/D. He disclosed that he provided the details of mobile number 9717680900 to the CBI.
17.18 PW-57 Pradeep Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 20 of 165 :: 21 ::
Delhi Circle, identified the signatures of the Nodal Officer Sh. Anuj Bhatia on the letters dated 18.11.2014 and 13.07.2015 whereby the CAFs and CDRs of mobile numbers 961950566, 9820053116, 9873685976 and 9987033384 were provided to the CBI along with the requisite certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The letters and relevant CDRs are Ex.PW57A to Ex.PW57/F. 17.19 PW-15 Devender Kumar, Carpenter, deposed that he obtained the mobile connection bearing on. 7042903117 and handed it over to his friend Raju Ram Sukhar.
Witnesses from M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 17.20 PW-7 Bhanwar Singh, employee of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., supported the prosecution's case. He mentioned that he was directed by Vimal Kumar Jain to deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to A-1. He narrated the chain of events and mentioned that he delivered the amount to A-1. He admitted being apprehended by the CBI officials at a spot near the house of A-1. His detailed testimony has been discussed in the later part of the judgment.
17.21 PW-8 Parasmal Jain, Owner of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt.
Ltd., supported the prosecution's story. He mentioned that A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani was know to him as he had organised CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 21 of 165 :: 22 ::
one of the trips for his community in the year 2013. He explained that he entered into a mutual arrangement under which it was decided that A-2 would deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to his brother Jayantilal Jain in Mumbai and in lieu thereof, he would deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to A-1 at his residence in New Delhi. He disclosed that the address of A-1 was provided by A-2. He stated that he received the call of Bhanwar Singh on 22.10.2014 at around 09:00 AM and over this call, Bhanwar Singh told him that he had delivered the amount to A-1. He mentioned that he also enquired about the payment from A-1 who replied in affirmative. The recorded conversations of the intercepted calls were played in his presence and he identified his voice as well as the voices of Bhanwar Singh and A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani.
17.22 PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain, Employee of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., supported the prosecution's story. He deposed that he was working as a Manager in M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt.
Ltd. and Parasmal Jain was the Managing Director of the company. He mentioned that Bhanwar Singh was an employee of the company. He deposed that on the directions of Paramal Jain, he provided cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs to Bhanwar Singh, who delivered it at the house of A-1. He narrated the sequence of events mentioning that on 21.10.2014, at around 06.30 PM, he received a CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 22 of 165 :: 23 ::
telephonic call from Parasmal Jain, who enquired from him whether a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was available in the office. He conveyed that Parasmal Jain further told him that the amount needs to be delivered as per the SMS given by him and it was found after reading the message that the cash needs to be delivered to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma at the address disclosed in the message. He deposed having contacted A-1 on 21.10.2014 to confirm about the delivery of the cash amount. He mentioned that he called A-1 and disclosed him that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs needs to be delivered to him on behalf of 'Rajesh Ji' and in response thereof, A-1 replied, 'theek hai'. He mentioned that he disclosed A-1 that he would be sending the cash on the next day after 10:00 AM but A-1 told him that the money should be sent before 10:00 AM. He narrated the chain of events of 22.10.2014. He deposed that on 22.10.2014, he sent a text message to Bhanwar Singh and instructed him to deliver the amount of Rs.5 lakhs at the address mentioned in the message (SMS). He disclosed that he handed over a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to Bhanwar Singh in the morning at around 08.30 AM and Bhanwar Singh left the office in a TVS Scooty. He mentioned that after reaching at the address disclosed in the SMS, Bhanwar Singh called him and requested for the mobile number of A-1. He deposed that he disclosed the mobile number of A-1 to Bhanwar Singh. He mentioned that CBI officials visited his office and CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 23 of 165 :: 24 ::
interrogated him. He also mentioned about his visit to the CFSL and disclosed that his voice samples were obtained. He deposed that the recorded conversations were played in his presence and he identified his voice as well as the voices of Parasmal Jain & A-1. The recorded conversations are Ex.Q1, which forms part of CD Ex.PW3/P1.
17.23 PW-24 Rupesh Kumar, Accountant of M/s Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., deposed that Parasmal Jain was the Managing Director of his company while Vimal Kumar Jain was looking after the administrative work. He mentioned that Bhanwar Singh was looking after the field work of the company. He deposed that he handed over certain documents to the CBI and gave details of those documents. He mentioned that he was looking after the ledger entries, cash accounting, banking and used to prepare vouchers. He identified the printouts of the journal ledgers dated 06.11.2014 and also identified the journal vouchers dated 22.10.2014 (D-30). He identified the documents of the scooty on which Bhanwar Singh went to the house of A-1 as Ex.PW24/B. He mentioned about the attendance register Ex.PW24/X (D-31) and the payment register of the company. He mentioned that the journal ledger, voucher, attendance and payment registers were duly maintained in the ordinary course of business of the company.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 24 of 165
:: 25 ::
17.24 PW-29 Jayantilal, Brother of Parasmal Jain, deposed having received the money from A-2 Rajesh Champaklal Jodhani in Mumbai. He supported the story of prosecution about the reciprocal arrangement. He mentioned that A-2 delivered him a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in Mumbai and on receiving the same, he conveyed it to his brother Parasmal Jain in Delhi, who directed him that he should bring the same as and when he happens to visit Delhi. He identified the voice of his brother as well as the voice of A-2 in the intercepted call no.152,166,168,169,177 and 178, which were played in his presence from the CD Ex.PW3/P2.
Witnesses from M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd. 17.25 PW-10 Latif Aiyub Piyarji, employee of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd, deposed that documents pertaining to his company were seized by the CBI vide seizure memo dated 15.11.2014, which is Ex.PW10/1. The seized documents were Article of Association and Memorandum of association of the company and the same are Ex.PW10/2.
17.26 PW-14 Rajni Kant, Employee of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd, deposed that mobile connection bearing no.
9820053116 was being used by the employees of his company.
17.27 PW-63 Samir Vinod Chandra Shah, Manager, M/s Kulin CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 25 of 165 :: 26 ::
Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd., failed to identify the voice of A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah in the intercepted calls. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution.
Witnesses from IRCTC and Railways 17.28 PW-11 Sachin Ramesh Bhavsar, Data Entry Operator, IRCTC, deposed about the application submitted by A-2 in respect of the rail coaches. He mentioned that A-2 submitted the applications dated 15.04.2014, 22.04.2014 and 23.04.2014, which are Ex.PW11/1, Ex.PW11/2 and Ex.PW11/3. He stated that the applications were forwarded to the Supervisor for further processing. He identified the voice of A-2 in the recorded conversations of the intercepted calls.
17.29 PW-13 Rajesh Ram, Assistant General Manager, IRCTC, deposed about the documents handed over by him to the CBI. The documents including the register pertaining to the FTR Special Train of A-4 Rail Tour India LLP are Ex.PW13/A to Ex.PW13/D. 17.30 PW-39 Pardeep Kumar Nimani, Supervisor, Tourism, IRCTC, Regional Office, Jaipur, stated that he handed over the original file pertaining to A-4 Rail Tour (India) LLP to the CBI.
The file is Ex.PW39/B (D-49). He mentioned that he used to talk to A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani in respect of booking of trains CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 26 of 165 :: 27 ::
and the status of trains of A-4. He conveyed that he also spoke to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in respect of the release of a train order. He identified his voice and the voice of A-2 in the intercepted calls no. 17, 87 and 158 and also identified the voice of A-1 in intercepted call no. 161.
17.31 PW-40 Pallavi Pole, Senior Supervisor, Tourism, IRCTC, Mumbai, deposed that A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani used to visit the office and make enquiries in respect of FTR trains. The witness identified her voice as well as the voice of A-2 in the intercepted calls no. 119, 124 and 133.
17.32 PW-62 Mahavir Prasad, Assistant Manager, Tourism, IRCTC, Mumbai, deposed in respect of the letters submitted by A-4 Rail Tours (India) LLP for booking the trains. The two letters dated 22.04.2014 whereby demand of 18 coaches was raised on each occasion are Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C. 17.33 PW-22 Pawan Kumar, Senior Ticket Examiner, Railways, is the witness in whose presence the e-mail accounts of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani were accessed on the basis of the password provided by them and the printouts of the relevant e-mails were obtained. The witness has deposed that these printouts were taken vide two separate CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 27 of 165 :: 28 ::
memorandums (both dated 25.10.2014) which are Ex.PW22/A (D-19) and Ex.PW22/B (D-20).
17.34 PW-27 Mohan Lal Atar, Assistant Coaching Section of Railway Board, deposed that he handed over a file to the CBI. The file is Mark PW27/X and the same was seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW27/A. The file contains the relevant documents and the noting in the handwriting of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. The witness has identified the handwriting of A-1 in these noting.
17.35 PW-23 Bikram Singh Negi, Deputy Manager (HR), NBCC, Lodhi Road, deposed that he went to the CFSL on the directions of the CBI officials where his voice samples were obtained by an expert. The witness was declared hostile and he was cross-
examined by the prosecution. He admitted in cross-examination that the voice sample of Jayantilal was also obtained in his presence and he identified the voice of the said individual.
17.36 PW-25 Manjit Singh, Chief Passenger Traffic Manager, identified his voice and the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in call no. 30 of the intercepted calls.
17.37 PW-28 Ashok Kumar Sodhi, Personal Secretary to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma, identified the voice of A-1 in two CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 28 of 165 :: 29 ::
conversations contained in files no. 10-147236-0-09-20140913- 184338 and 10-147236-0-22-20140917-191454 but failed to identify his voice in the other relevant intercepted calls. He expressed his inability to identify the voice of A-1.
17.38 PW-30 M.V. Murli, Deputy Chief Operations Manager, Coaching, Southern Railway, Chennai, deposed about his conversation with A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in respect of arrangement of coaches for Western Railways. He mentioned that A-1 called on his official mobile number and requested for the arrangement of AC-II Tier and AC-III Tier Coaches. He conveyed that on the request of A-1, a message was issued through Coaching Operation Information System (COIS) to Southern & South Western Railways for the movement of AC Coaches to meet the demand in Western Railways. The copy of the message is Mark PW30/X. He deposed that he arranged three AC-III Tier Coaches on the request of A-1 from Southern Railways to Western Railways. He identified his voice and the voice of A-1 in call no. 35 of the intercepted calls contained in file no. 10-147236-0-23-
20141015-164347.
17.39 PW-31 Ram Dhan Meena, Chief Passenger Transportation Manager, West (Central) Railways, deposed that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was deputed as the Director (Coaching), Railway Board, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 29 of 165 :: 30 ::
New Delhi. He claimed that as per the prevalent rules, railway coach from one zone to another could be provided on the request of the Director of the Railway Board. He identified his voice and the voice of A-1 in call no. 33 of intercepted calls contained in file no. 10-147236-0-03-20141015-162325.
17.40 PW-32 Nemi Chand Chaudhary, Office Superintendent in the Office of Chief Operation Manager, North West Railways, Headquarter Office, Jaipur, deposed that A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani visited his office at Jaipur on two-three occasions for booking the railway coaches and making enquiries about their status. He identified the signatures of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and other officials on the documents contained in the file (part of D-38) in respect of allotment of the coaches. He also identified the signature of Sh. R.K. Meena, Chief Passenger Transport Manager on the letter Ex.PW32/A and deposed that the letter was processed by him and was placed before ATM Coaching but the said official was not available therefore, the file was marked to Deputy Com.
(Coaching). He identified the signatures of K.K. Parekh, the then Deputy Com. (Coaching) on the relevant document. He identified the messages (contained in pages no. 63 and 67 of the file) which were sent by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma on 20.10.2014 through COIS.
CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 30 of 165:: 31 ::
17.41 PW-34 K. Siva Prasad, Chief Passenger Traffic Manager, South (Central) Railways, deposed that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma contacted him on phone and requested for the arrangement of AC-
III Tier Coaches in a special train from Surat to Haridwar. He conveyed that he could not arrange the coaches. He identified his voice in the conversation between him and A-1 contained in file no. 10-147236-0-30-20141015-161514.
17.42 PW-35 A. Maleshwara Rao, Senior Transport Manager, South (Central) Railways, identified few signatures on the relevant documents but failed to identify the other signatures. In a similar manner, he identified the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in the conversations contained in call no. 107 but failed to identify his voice in the second conversation contained in call no. 88 of the intercepted calls. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution.
17.43 PW-36 N. Srinivasan, Chief Passenger Transport Manager, South Western Railways, Hubli, Karnataka, deposed that he received a request from A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma for procuring special train spare coaches from South Western Railways. He mentioned that he told A-1 about availability of spare coaches but disclosed him that an official message would be required from the Railway Board for the movement of the coaches. He stated that A-1 CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 31 of 165 :: 32 ::
also enquired from him about the availability of power car for the movement of the spare coaches. He mentioned that he told A-1 that power car is not available in South Western Railways. He conveyed that subsequently five coaches were moved on the message received by South Western Railways from the Railway Board. He admitted in cross-examination that five AC Coaches were arranged by him on the directions of A-1 and also admitted having met A-1 at the office of Executive Director (Coaching) in New Delhi. He identified his voice as well as the voice of A-1 in the conversation contained in calls no. 49, 50 and 57 of intercepted calls.
17.44 PW-37 K.V.R. Murthy, Deputy Chief Operations Manager (Com), South-East (Central) Railways, Chhatisgarh, deposed that he and A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma used to talk over mobile in respect of the official matters. He identified his voice as well as the voice of A-1 in the conversation contained in call no. 136 of intercepted calls.
17.45 PW-38 Prakash Kanhal, Supervisor, South-Central Zone, Sikandarabad, explained the process of booking of FTR Trains and FTR Coaches. He conveyed that the original file pertaining to A-4 Rail Tour (India) LLP was handed over to the CBI. The file is Ex.PW38/B (D-51).
CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 32 of 165:: 33 ::
17.46 PW-41 Avkash Kumar Bansal, Inspector, Vigilance, Rail Bhawan, deposed that his duties were to enquire in respect of the complaints received by the Vigilance Department. He mentioned that during investigation of the present FIR, he visited the office of CBI and handed over certain documents vide memos dated 07.11.2014, 11.11.2014 and 12.11.2014 Ex.PW41/A to Ex.PW41/C. The documents and the files handed over by him to CBI are Ex.PW41/X and Ex.PW41/Y1 to Ex.PW41/Y5.
17.47 PW-42 Surender Kumar Jauhari, Chief Controller, ED Coaching, Rail Bhawan, deposed that while working in the capacity of Chief Controller, he sent certain messages through COIS on the directions of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. The messages dated 16.10.2014, 20.10.2014, 29.10.2014, 30.10.2014 are Ex.PW42/A, Ex.PW42/B, MarkPW42/X and MarkPW42/X1 respectively. He mentioned that the printouts of these messages were handed over to the CBI vide letter dated 25.11.2014, which is Ex.PW42/C. 17.48 PW-43 Neeraj Verma, Director, Traffic Transportation, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, deposed that he supplied the extract of consolidated list on the subject dealt with by various Directorates of Railway Board to the CBI vide letter dated 05.11.2015. The letter is Ex.PW43/A. CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 33 of 165 :: 34 ::
17.49 PW-46 Purushottam Guha, Executive Director, Coaching, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, deposed that he provided the documents pertaining to the FTR Coaches to the CBI including policy circular. He conveyed that the communication with the intending hirer of FTR Trains and Coaches was required to be carried out only through official channel and the officials were not supposed to talk directly with those individuals.
17.50 PW-48 Rajender Singh Meena, Deputy Registrar of Companies, Maharashtra, deposed that as per the directions of CBI, he provided the documents pertaining to A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP and M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 20.11.2014 Ex.PW48/A. 17.51 PW-52 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Chief Trains Clerk explained the procedure of hiring FTR Trains through IRCTC.
17.52 PW-53 Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj, Assistant Transport Manager, Railways, stated that he dealt with the file pertaining to the Special FTR Train to Parsvnath between the period from 24.10.2014 to 06.11.2014.
17.53 PW-54 Hari Shankar Verma, Chief Passenger Traffic Manager, Central Railways, Mumbai, deposed that he used to CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 34 of 165 :: 35 ::
regularly talk to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma over phone in respect of the official work. He disclosed that his mobile number was 9987640511 while that of A-1 was 9910487468. He identified his voice and voice of A-1 contained in the intercepted call no. 79 (D-65).
17.54 PW-55 Sanjay R. Milan, Senior Transportation Manager, Coaching, Western Railways, deposed about the procedure of processing the request for FTR Trains. He deposed about the file Mark PW55/Y5 (D-42) mentioning that it was the file containing request for Special FTR Train from Ahmedabad to Gaya and from there to Parsvnath and back to Ahmedabad for the journey for the period from 30.10.2014 to 08.11.2014.
17.55 PW-56 Dhanraj Singh, Transport Manager, Coaching, STM, Jabalpur, deposed that he was called to the office of CBI where the conversation of the intercepted call no. 139 was played and he identified his voice and the voice of some other person. The intercepted call was played in the court and he identified his voice and the voice of the other person as the voice of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani.
17.56 PW-58 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railways, Bihar, deposed that he was called CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 35 of 165 :: 36 ::
at the office of CBI in September, 2015 where an audio clip was played and he identified the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and Upender Singh. The intercepted conversation was played in the court and he identified the voices in the said conversation.
17.57 PW-59 Manoj Gopal Sharma, Movement Inspector, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, deposed that his duties were to coordinate and look after the COIS. He mentioned in respect of the documents pertaining to one of the FTR Trains stating that the same were prepared by him on the directions of Sh.
S.K. Johari, Chief Controller. The document is Ex.PW59/A (D-41).
17.58 PW-60 Rupesh Janu Rakte, Employee of A-4 Rail Tour (India) LLP, deposed that A-4 was a partnership firm with two partners namely, Prateek Kumar Shah and Janki Kulin Shah. He disclosed that Prateek Kumar Shah was looking after the day-to- day affairs of the partnership business. He deposed that A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani was an employee of A-4 and he was also looking after the partnership business. He identified the signatures of Prateek Kumar Shah on certain documents and also identified the voice of A-2 in the intercepted calls. no. 1, 3, 4 , 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 36 of 165 :: 37 ::
77, 78, 81, 85, 87, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 104, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 124, 128, 131, 132, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 166, 171, 174 and 177.
Witnesses from CFSL 17.59 PW-49 Jeet Singh, Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Documents), CFSL deposed about the CFSL report on the documents which is Ex.PW49/A. 17.60 PW-50 Gautam Roy, Head of Department, Lodhi Road, is the officer who examined mobile phones seized during the course of investigation. He stated that the mobile phones were received for examination vide letter dated 30.12.2014. The report give by him is Ex.PW50/A. 17.61 PW-66 Jayesh Bhardwaj, Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi, assisted Ms. Manisha Kulsreshtha, Director, CFSL, in voice spectrographic examination. He identified the signatures of Ms. Manisha Kulsreshtha on the forensic voice examination report dated 19.12.2014 which is Ex.PW66/A. He also identified his signatures on the worksheets prepared during the spectrographic examination but mentioned that he only took the printout of the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 37 of 165 :: 38 ::
report and did not assist Ms. Manisha Kulsreshtha in the actual examination. The worksheets are Ex.PW66/B. Witnesses of CBI 17.62 PW-33 Ajit Kumar Pandey, Inspector, CBI was a member of the trap team, which apprehended A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma red handed in the morning of 22.10.2014. He gave a detailed account of the incident and supported the prosecution's story. He deposed in line with the chain of events narrated by Bhanwar Singh and other spot witnesses. He stated that efforts were made to trace the mobile number 9560561430 but the same was not found.
17.63 PW-47 G.M. Ansari, Inspector, CBI, deposed that he collected certain documents during the course of investigation including the order of Ministry of Home Affairs from Suraj Majumdar. He mentioned that he also collected the Memorandum of Association of M/s Kulin Kumar Holidays Pvt. Ltd.
17.64 PW-51 Rabindra Pradhan, Inspector, AC-III, CBI, New Delhi, deposed that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma, A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah, Vimal Kumar Jain, Parasmal Jain, Bhanwar Singh and Kulin Kumar were taken to CFSL, where their voice samples were obtained in the presence of independent witnesses.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 38 of 165
:: 39 ::
17.65 PW-61 Sudhanshu Shekhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI, was not a member of the trap team. He deposed that he participated in the search carried out at his house of A-1. He stated that he reached the house of A-1 at around 5:30 PM on 22.10.2014.
17.66 PW-65 Suresh Chand, Assistant Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI, Mumbai, is the investigating officer. He deposed about the source information on the basis of which the FIR was registered. He gave an account of the manner in which the trap team was constituted and A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was apprehended in front of his house. He deposed that the bag containing the bribe money of Rs.5 lakhs was recovered from the possession of A-1. He narrated the chain of events and was subjected to a detailed and thorough cross-examination.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
18. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence and took the defence of false implication. A-1 denied having demanded the illegal gratification and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. He stated that the coaches were allotted as per the standard procedure and no undue favour was shown in the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 39 of 165 :: 40 ::
allotment of coaches to the accused persons. He denied the recovery mentioning that the same has been planted upon him. The other accused persons also adopted a mode of denial and denied all the incriminating evidence. They pointed out towards the infirmities in the investigation and stated that they have been falsely implicated. A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani stated that all the trains were booked as per the prescribed procedure and guidelines of Railways were duly followed. He stated that there was no irregularity in the allotment of coaches. He mentioned that he had not received any pecuniary benefit and he has been falsely implicated. A-4 also took a similar stand.
DEFENCE WITNESSES
19. The accused persons did not examine witnesses in defence but placed on record the closure report filed by the CBI in the disproportionate assets case registered against A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. The Ahlmad from the concerned court was summoned and the copy of the closure report was taken on record. It was mentioned in the closure report that the allegations leveled against A-1 in respect of disproportionate assets case under Section 13(1)
(e) of the PC Act could not be substantiated. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 40 of 165
:: 41 ::
FINAL ARGUMENTS
20. Arguments were heard on behalf of CBI as well as accused persons. Both sides also filled written submissions.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-1
21. Sh. P.K. Dubey, Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 has attacked the prosecution's case mentioning that it is full of contradictions.
He has mentioned that various contradictions cropped up in the prosecution's case during the trial for which no explanation has been tendered by the prosecution. He has mentioned that there are serious infirmities in the investigation which are fatal for the prosecution's case. He has stated that it has come on record that de-sealing of the bathroom of the house of A-1 was video graphed by the investigating agency but no explanation has been tendered as to why the videography of the trap proceedings was not conducted. He has argued that in case the prosecution's story is believed to be correct then there is a strong likelihood of finding the finger prints of A-1 on the bag containing the bribe but no chance prints were lifted by the investigating agency. He has mentioned that there is material on record to suggest that memo of inventory was prepared during the search carried out at the house of A-1 but the said memo was not forwarded along with the charge-sheet. He has contended that no investigation was carried out to ascertain the status of the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 41 of 165 :: 42 ::
scooty on which Bhanwar Singh arrived at the spot. He has stated that the prosecution has not explained whether the scooty was seized after the trap proceedings or the same was released to Bhanwar Singh. He has mentioned that there is evidence to show that Bhanwar Singh was arrested by the CBI but he was not produced before the court. He has mentioned that in view thereof, Bhanwar Singh becomes a co-accused and no reliance can be placed on his statement.
21.1 Ld. Senior Counsel has submitted that prosecution has failed to demonstrate that proper authorisation was obtained for carrying out the trap proceedings. He has mentioned that although, the prosecution has tried to built its case on the theory that the registration of FIR and investigation was triggered by a source information which was duly verified but the record is totally silent about the time when the alleged source information was received.
He has argued that prosecution has taken a stand that the source information was duly verified before the registration of FIR but there are no verification proceedings to substantiate the said version. He has argued that the FIR has not been proved. He has contended that the time on which the source information was allegedly received was not mentioned in the FIR and it does not bear the signatures of its author. He has mentioned that the FIR CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 42 of 165 :: 43 ::
register has not been produced and its author has not been examined. He has mentioned that the chain of custody of the CD on which the intercepted calls were burnt was not maintained. He has argued that prosecution has not brought on record any document to show that the chain of custody remained intact till the time the CD was forwarded to the CFSL.
21.2 Ld. Senior Counsel has challenged the CFSL report on the voice examination of the intercepted calls on the ground that the expert, Ms. Manisha Kulsreshtha, who carried out the examination, has not been examined. He has mentioned that although, prosecution tried to cover up the lacuna by examining Sh.
Jayesh Bhardwaj (PW-66), who claimed to have assisted the expert during the spectrographic examination but he has not supported the prosecution's case. He has stated that the Jayesh Bhardwaj has only identified the signatures of the Ms. Manisha Kulsreshtha and his testimony is not of much consequence to establish the credibility of the opinion contained in the CFSL report. He has mentioned that the CD was not subjected to forensic examination and the transcripts were prepared on the basis of unsealed CD. He has argued that in view thereof, no reliance can be placed on the conversations contained in the CD and the transcripts. He has contended that the case of the prosecution is mainly based on the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 43 of 165 :: 44 ::
conversations contained in the intercepted calls but the conversations have not been proved. He has submitted that there is no evidence that a Review committee was appointed to review the interception orders. He has stated that the mandatory safeguards provided under Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act were not complied with and in view thereof, the intercepted calls cannot be looked into.
21.3 Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that there is no evidence to establish the angle of criminal conspiracy. He has argued that the prosecution was duty bound to establish that there was meeting of mind between the accused persons but no evidence has been led to establish this key ingredient of criminal conspiracy.
He has mentioned that as per the prosecution's story, the starting point of the conspiracy was that M/s Sri Ram Krishna Exports wanted rail coaches for the journey of its employees from Surat to Haridwar but no evidence has been led to support this story. He has stated that it is case of prosecution that A-1 was approached by A-2 for arranging the rail coaches but there is no evidence to demonstrate that any sort of communication took place between A-2 and M/s Sri Ram Krishna Exports. He has mentioned that prosecution has presented a version that Vipul Shah, an employee of M/s Sri Ram Krishan Exports, was in regular touch with A-2 CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 44 of 165 :: 45 ::
Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani for the arrangement of special train but there is no evidence to substantiate this version. He has contended that Vipul Shah was neither cited nor examined as a prosecution witness. He has argued that no meaningful investigation was carried out in respect of the coaches allegedly arranged by A-1 in various trains. He has mentioned that as per the prosecution's version, A-1 entered into a conspiracy for arranging rail coaches in six trains but there is no evidence to suggest that he played any role in arranging those coaches. He has mentioned that one of the six coaches left the station on 21.10.2014 while the remaining five trains departed from the station on the dates subsequent to the arrest of A-1. He has mentioned that the testimonies of the officials of the Railways show that no undue favour was shown by A-1 for arranging the coaches. He has mentioned that even otherwise, A-1 had no authority to arrange the coaches and the allotment of the coaches was done as per the standard procedure.
21.4 Ld. Senior Counsel has also challenged the validity of the sanction mentioning that the same was granted in a mechanical manner. He has contended that it has come on record that the CD containing the intercepted calls was not sent to the Sanctioning Authority. He has argued that the entire material was not placed CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 45 of 165 :: 46 ::
before the sanctioning authority and the sanction was granted without application of mind. He has mentioned that the sanction was defective as the sanctioning authority was not competent to grant the sanction. He has mentioned that the sanction could have been granted only by or on behalf of the President of India but the director of Railways was not competent to grant the same. He has argued that there is nothing on record to depict that the file containing the request for sanction was sent to the President of India. He has mentioned that there is evidence to demonstrate that the CFSL report was not available on record at the time when the sanction was granted. He has submitted that no sanction was obtained for prosecuting A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma for the alleged offence under Section 120B of IPC. He has contended that the sanction was only granted for prosecuting the accused for the offences under the PC Act but there was no sanction to prosecute him under the Indian Penal Code. He has mentioned that the sanction, as contemplated under Section 197 of Cr. P.C., was not obtained and therefore, the trial stands vitiated.
21.5 Ld. Senior Counsel has challenged the intercepted calls on the ground that the calls were recorded without authorisation. He has mentioned that it is the case of prosecution that the telephonic conversations were recorded pursuant to the orders obtained from CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 46 of 165 :: 47 ::
Sh. Anil Goswami, Home Secretary and Sh. M.A. Ganpathy, Joint Secretary to the Government of India but the said officials did not step into the witness box to substantiate the stand of the prosecution that the permission was granted after due application of mind. He has argued that instead of the concerned officials, the prosecution chose to examine Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW-2), who was merely working in the capacity of a Principal Staff Officer. He has mentioned that the said individual has only identified the signatures of the officials on the orders whereby the permission to intercept the calls was granted. He has mentioned that prosecution has failed to place on record any notification to demonstrate that such a permission could have been granted by the Joint Secretary. He has mentioned that the authorisation could have been granted only by the Home Secretary and he could not have delegated his powers to the Joint Secretary. He has stated that neither the request letter for the interception of the calls nor the covering letter whereby the orders granting the permission were received, has been placed on record. He has contended that neither dispatch numbers nor the receipt numbers of these documents have been disclosed. He has mentioned that the orders were ante-dated and serious doubts have been raised over the authenticity of these orders. He has contended that since the officials who granted the permission vide these orders were not examined, therefore, the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 47 of 165 :: 48 ::
authenticity of the orders has not been established.
21.6 Ld. Senior Counsel has mentioned that the charge is defective. He has mentioned that it stands recorded in the charge that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma accepted the offer at his residence but the prosecution's story differs from these facts. He has argued that the CBI was under an obligation to carry out the investigation as per the directions contained in the CBI Manual. He has mentioned that the directions contained in CBI Manual are backed by statutory provisions and therefore, they are required to be strictly complied with during the investigation. He has contended that there is material on record to reflect that the guidelines contained in the CBI Manual were flouted and no explanation has been tendered for deviating from those guidelines. He has mentioned that the CBI Manual provides that the source information should be verified before registration of the FIR. He has contended that the verification and trap proceedings were conducted by the same officer. He has mentioned that there is no evidence to show that the superior officers of CBI were taken into loop before registration of FIR and therefore, the subsequent investigation became void. He has mentioned that there are contradictions in the testimony of Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) and other spot witnesses.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 48 of 165
:: 49 ::
21.7 Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that there is material on record to demonstrate that Bhanwar Singh was arrested by the investigating agency. He has mentioned that personal search memo of Bhanwar Singh categorically records that he was arrested by the investigating agency. He has mentioned that prosecution has not tendered any explanation as to why Bhanwar Singh was allowed to leave the spot. He has submitted that the scooty of Bhanwar Singh was not seized by the investigating agency. He has contended that electronic evidence is inadmissible as the certificates filed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are defective. He has stated that these certificates have been given in a mechanical manner. He has mentioned that there are missing links in the prosecution's story which have remained unexplained. He has argued that the prosecution's story is doubtful and the benefit must be given to the accused. He has contended that prosecution has failed to establish that A-1 demanded bribe from the other accused persons. He has mentioned that demand of bribe is an essential ingredient for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act but there is no evidence to establish this aspect. He has mentioned that even if the testimony of prosecution witnesses is taken to be absolutely correct, still, it merely establishes the 'acceptance' but there is no evidence to establish the 'demand'.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 49 of 165
:: 50 ::
21.8 Ld. Senior Counsel has contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the criminal conspiracy. He has submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete. He has pointed towards the site plan and mentioned that the same is vague. He has stated that there are various missing links and the chain of custody of the case property was broken at various stages. He has mentioned that Bhanwar Singh is a planted witness and the prosecution has fabricated documents to establish that he was an employee of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. He has mentioned that the cash recovered from the house of A-1 was duly explained and the closure report in the disproportionate assetss (DA) was accepted.
He has stated that there are various loopholes in the prosecution's story and the charges have not been proved. He has prayed for the acquittal of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma.
21.9 In order to support these submissions, Ld. Senior Counsel has relied upon decisions in the matters of Rabindra Nath Vs. State of Jharkhand (through CBI) (2012) SCC OnLine Jhar 1761, K.P. Kolanthai Vs. State by Inspector of Police Anti Corruption Wing, Dharampuri (2019) SCC OnLine Mad 39358, Krishnegowda & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 13 SCC 98, Nanje Gowda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka (2017) 4 SCC (Cri.) 572, Baldev Singh & Anr. Vs. State of MP (2003) 9 SCC 45, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 50 of 165 :: 51 ::
Kailash Gour & Anr. Vs. State of Assam (2012) 2 SCC 34, Abdul Rahaman Kunji Vs. State of West Bengal (2014) SCC OnLine Cal 18816, Ram Prakash Vs. State (2014) SCC OnLine Del 6936, Imrat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020) 14 SCC 257, Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) SCC OnLine SC 773, Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 8 SCC 307, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143, Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2013) 2 SCC 357, Dajya Moshya Bhil & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) Supp. SCC 373, People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301, Rahil & Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Crl. Appeal No.1856 of 2014, Supreme Court of India), Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State (through CBI) ILR (2014) III Delhi 2331, R.M. Malkani (1973) 1 SCC 471, P. Kishore Vs. Secretary to Government of India & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3053, Dr. S.M. Mannan Vs. CBI (Anti Corruption Bureau) (2024) SCC OnLine Kar 80, Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. CBI (2022) SCC OnLine Del 135, Aakash Deep Chouhan Vs. CBI & Anr.
(Crl. M.С. 204/2020), Gadhia Bhanuchandra Vallabhadass Vs. State MANU/GJ/0055/1953, Ripun Bora Vs. State (Through CBI) ILR (2012) I Delhi 412, Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 226, R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 51 of 165 :: 52 ::
of Kerala (1996) 1 SCC 478, CP Thakur Vs. CBI (2009) SCC OnLine 737, State of MP Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617, Ramautar Mahton Vs. State (1960) SCC OnLine Pat 124, Harekrushna Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa 1991 CriLJ 462, Pawan Kumar Vs. Ruldu Ram MANU/PH/0297/1982.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A-2, A-3 AND A-4
22. Ld. Counsels for A-2 to A-4 have adopted the same arguments which were advanced on behalf of A-1. They have mentioned that there is no evidence to establish that A-2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-1. They have also attacked the interception orders mentioning that the same were ante-timed. It has been argued by the counsels that the interception was invalid and the intercepted calls cannot be read in evidence. They have submitted that the transcripts of the intercepted calls are not reliable. They have challenged the electronic evidence on the ground that the certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are defective. They have argued that the money trail has not been proved. It was argued by them that the prosecution has not examined the witness, who as per the prosecution's story, delivered the money at the house of Jayanti Lal Jain. They have submitted that this important link is missing in the chain of circumstantial evidence. They have challenged the process whereby the voice CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 52 of 165 :: 53 ::
specimen of the accused persons were obtained mentioning that the same was irregular and illegal.
22.1 Counsels have challenged the voice identification contending that the voices of the accused persons have not been identified in the intercepted calls. They have attacked the CFSL report on the ground that its author has not been examined. They have stated that the report has been given in a mechanical manner.
They have mentioned that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are not reliable. They have pointed towards the discrepancies in the record obtained from the office of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. mentioning that the same has been fabricated. They have pointed out towards the discrepancies in the memorandums mentioning that there are unexplained overwriting at various places. They have argued that there is no evidence to suggest the involvement of A-2 to A-4. They have argued that the only allegations against A-3 were that he entered into a bargain with A-1 over a telephonic conversation. They have mentioned that the said conversation has not been proved and there is no other evidence to establish the allegations. They have argued that A-4 has been falsely roped in the present matter. They have contended that no irregularity was found in the allotment of railway coaches and all the formalities were duly complied with. They have prayed CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 53 of 165 :: 54 ::
for acquittal of A-2 to A-4.
22.2 In order to support these submissions, Counsels have relied upon decisions in the matters of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1996) 1 SCC 478, CP Thakur Vs. CBI (2009) SCC OnLine 737, State of MP Vs. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617, Ashutosh Verma Vs. CBI (Crl. MC No.292/2016, Delhi High Court - Order dated 25.01.2016), Gadhia Bhanuchandra Vallabhadass Vs. State MANU/GJ/0055/1953, Pawan Kumar Vs. Ruldu Ram MANU/PH/0297/1982, Ramautar Mahton Vs. State MANU/BH/0051/1961, Harekrushna Patnaik Vs. State of Orissa 1991 CriLJ 462, Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. CBI & Ors.
(2016) SCC OnLine Del 214, Vineet Narain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 226, Ripun Bora Vs. State (Through CBI) ILR (2012) I Delhi 412, People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301, Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. CBI 2022 SCC OnLine Del 135, Dr. Sukhwinder Singh Vs. CBI 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3617, Vinit Kumar Vs. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155, Dilip Mulani Vs. CBI (2020) SCC OnLine Guj 3638, Dr. S.M. Manan Vs. CBI 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 80, K.L.D.Nagasree Vs. Govt. of India 2007 (1) A.P.L.J. 1, Aakash Deep Chouhan Vs. CBI & Anr. (Crl. M.С. 204/2020), Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473, Uday Kumar Singh CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 54 of 165 :: 55 ::
Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 217, Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram Singh AIR 1986 SC 3, S.K. Saini & Anr. Vs. CBI (2015) 3 JCC 2169, K. Lal Vs. CBI 2013 (3) JCC 1637, Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State through CBI ILR (2014) III Delhi 2331, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143, Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450, Azad @ Gourav Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi (2023) 2 HCC Del 435, Prithvi Singh Yadav Vs. CBI, '2025 SCC OnLine Del 959' Rajesh Gupta Vs. State (2022) 20 SCC 793, Rahil Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Crl. A. 1856/2014 dated 25.06.2025), Sudhir Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 8 SCC 307, Riteish Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 8 SCC
1.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
23. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to establish that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed the alleged offence. He has mentioned that the FIR came to be registered on the basis of a source information that accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy under which it was decided that A-1 Ravi CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 55 of 165 :: 56 ::
Mohan Sharma shall arrange railway coaches in lieu of receiving illegal gratification from the other accused persons. He has mentioned that seven telephone numbers including those used by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and other accused persons were kept under surveillance after taking the requisite permission under Section 5 of The Telegraph Act. He has mentioned that the telephonic calls were intercepted on the basis of the permission granted by the competent authority. He has submitted that intercepted telephonic calls were recorded with the help of a parallel connectivity provided by the service provider. He has mentioned that there is evidence to demonstrate that the calls were recorded on the server without human intervention and the authenticity of the recorded intercepted calls stands duly established. He has stated that out of the calls so recorded, 182 calls were burnt into a CD and the conversations over these calls show that offers and counter offers were made from each side and finally, the deal was struck that A-1 would receive an illegal gratification in the form of cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs in lieu of arranging the rail coaches for the tours organised by A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP.
23.1 Ld. PP has further argued that the voice samples of the accused persons were obtained and the same were sent for CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 56 of 165 :: 57 ::
comparison with the recorded conversations. He has stated that the CFSL returned a positive finding to the effect that the voices found in the recorded conversations were those of the accused persons. He has argued that the voices of the accused persons have also been identified by various individuals who would have heard their voices in the ordinary course of business. He has mentioned that identification of the voice by these individuals leaves no scope for doubt that the conversations took place between the accused persons. He has mentioned that the recorded conversations show that a demand for illegal gratification was raised by A-1 and the bribe was paid by A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani in furtherance of the said demand.
23.2 Ld. PP has mentioned that there is evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal gratification was duly accepted by A-1. He has stated that A-1 was caught red handed and the bribe was recovered from his possession. He has argued that there is evidence to show that A-2 entered into a mutual arrangement with an acquaintance (PW-8 Parasmal Jain) for delivering the bribe money at the residence of A-1. He has mentioned that it was agreed upon that A-2 shall deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs in Mumbai to Jayantilal Jain (brother of Parasmal Jain) and in lieu thereof, Parasmal Jain would deliver the money to A-1 CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 57 of 165 :: 58 ::
at his residence in Delhi. He has mentioned that Parasmal Jain and his brother Jayantilal Jain have supported the prosecution's case and given a detailed account of the said arrangement. He has mentioned that Parasmal Jain has admitted that he directed his employee to deliver the bribe at the residence of A-1. He has mentioned that PW-7 Bhanwar Singh (employee of Parasmal Jain) has deposed that he handed over the bribe money to A-1 at his residence after collecting the same from PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain, who was Accountant in the company of Parasmal Jain. He has mentioned that the independent witness as well as the officials of CBI have narrated similar chain of events and each one of them has supported the prosecution's case. He has stated that the testimonies of these witnesses establish that the bribe money was duly received by A-1.
23.3 Ld. PP has mentioned that the transcripts of the intercepted calls were prepared and the same have been proved on record. He has contended that the independent witness (PW-4 Lakhan Raj) has fully supported the prosecution's case and his testimony has remained unimpeached. He has mentioned that the other spot witnesses have also supported and corroborate the testimony of the independent witness on the material aspects. He has contended that the prosecution witnesses have deposed in sync and the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 58 of 165 :: 59 ::
culpability of the accused persons has been established. He has mentioned that although there are minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses but the same are inconsequential. He has argued that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses stand corroborated from the recorded conversations as well as the other electronic evidence.
23.4 Ld. PP has mentioned that the CDRs and the cell tower location of the respective mobile numbers have been proved on record. He has mentioned that the cell tower location establishes that the mobile phones were used in the location stated by the prosecution witnesses. He has mentioned that the CDRs of the mobile numbers serve as an important link to corroborate the version of the prosecution witnesses that respective calls were made at the relevant time. He has mentioned that there is evidence to demonstrate that all the accused persons were acting towards the common object of the criminal conspiracy. He has mentioned that A-2, A-3 and A-4 were fully aware of all the transactions and they were beneficiaries of the illegal arrangement entered upon with A-1. He has stated that A-2 arranged and paid the bribe money on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of A-3 and A-4.
23.5 Ld. PP has mentioned that there is evidence to establish that Bhanwar Singh obtained the mobile number of A-1 from CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 59 of 165 :: 60 ::
Vimal Kumar Jain and noted it on a slip. He has mentioned that the said slip was seized and sent for comparison to the CFSL. He has stated that the CFSL has returned a positive finding that the handwriting found on the slip was of Bhanwar Singh. He has mentioned that this piece of evidence serves an important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. He has mentioned that all the relevant witnesses from Railways were examined and each one of them has supported the prosecution's case. He has stated that the testimonies of these witnesses demonstrate that A-1 played an active role in arranging the rail coaches for the other accused persons. He has mentioned that the voice of A-1 was identified by his colleagues and the CFSL has also given a positive report in respect of his voice.
23.6 Ld. PP for CBI has argued that the defence is wrongly relying upon some minor infirmities in the investigation to discredit the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He has mentioned that the accused persons do not stand to gain any advantage merely because of the reason that the investigation could have been done in a more meticulous manner. He mentioned that the Investigating Officer and the members of the trap team have supported the prosecution's case. He has argued that each stage of investigation was duly documented and the documents have been CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 60 of 165 :: 61 ::
proved during trial. He has mentioned that the sanctity of the recorded conversations was preserved and the chain of custody was fully maintained. He has stated that the CD wherein the recorded conversations were burnt was sealed and there was no possibility of tampering with the sealed case property. He has mentioned that charges against all the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and they should be convicted.
23.7 In order to support these submissions, Ld. PP has relied upon decisions in the matters of Sushil Kumar Tiwari Vs Hare Ram Sah & Ors. SLP (Crl.) No.18377/2024, M. Narsinga Rao Vs State of AP Supreme Court (2001) CRI. L. J.515, Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Mahrashtra (2000) AIR SCW 4018, Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnatka (2012) 8 SCC 527, State of UP Vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48, Bhogni Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 759, Faquira Vs. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 915, Gurmeet Kaur Vs. Devender Gupta (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3761, Smt. Neera Yadav Vs. CBI (decided by Allahabad High Court on 25.01.2006).
ANALYSIS, FINDING AND CONCLUSION
24. I have perused the record in the light of the respective arguments and the judgments relied on by the parties.
CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 61 of 165:: 62 ::
VALIDITY OF SANCTION
25. Before embarking upon the exercise of evaluating the other material, I deem it expedient to deal with the argument of the defence about the defect in the sanction. The sanction has been challenged primarily on three grounds; (i) that it was not granted by the competent authority; (ii) that the same was awarded in a mechanical manner without application of mind; and (iii) that no sanction was awarded for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC. Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 has submitted that only the President of India was the competent authority to remove A-1 from the service and the sanction ought to have been granted by the said authority. He has submitted that in view of the mandate of Article 311 of The Constitution of India, no other person except the President of India was competent to award the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. He has argued that there is evidence to demonstrate that the file pertaining to the sanction of A-1 was never sent or placed before the President of India. He has mentioned that PW-1 has admitted this fact during the cross- examination and in view thereof, sanction is defective. He has further argued that there is evidence to show that the CD containing the intercepted calls was not sent along with the request CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 62 of 165 :: 63 ::
for the sanction. He has submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is built around the intercepted calls but those calls were not forwarded to the sanctioning authority and therefore, the sanction was invalid as the same was awarded in a mechanical manner. He has argued that even if it is taken that the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was valid, still, there was no sanction to prosecute A-1 for the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. He has contended that the prosecution should have obtained a separate sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. He has mentioned that there are different considerations for granting the sanction under Section 19 of the PC and Section 197 of Cr. P.C. He has argued that the sanction granted under one of the provisions cannot be taken as a substitute for the other.
26. It is the prosecution's case that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma while being posted as Director, Traffic Transport, Coaching-I, Railway Board, New Delhi committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Since, A-1 was a public servant, therefore, sanction to prosecute him was required under Section 19 of the PC Act. The sanction order is on record and the same is Ex.PW1/A. PW-1, Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Director E(O), Railway Board stepped into the witness box and deposed that the sanction was granted by the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 63 of 165 :: 64 ::
competent authority after due application of mind. He mentioned that the President of India is the competent authority to remove A-1 from the service of Railways and he was authorised to convey the sanction by virtue of Government of India Authentication (Orders & Other Instruments) Rules, 2002 as notified under Article 77 of The Constitution of India. He disclosed that the sanction under Section19 of the PC Act was granted by the Hon'ble Minister of Railways after due application of mind and after going through the relevant record. He deposed that after the sanction was accorded, he prepared the sanction order dated 23.01.2015. It can be seen that the testimony of this witness has remained unblemished. Nothing has come on record during his cross-examination which may demonstrate that the sanction was granted in a mechanical manner without due application of mind.
He stated in cross-examination that the request for the sanction was received in the Vigilance Directorate of the Ministry of Railways. He mentioned that the request was first sent to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner from where it came back to the Vigilance Directorate and thereafter, the file was sent to the Hon'ble Minister of Railways. He deposed that he does not remember whether there was any draft sanction order in the file before the file was sent to the Minister. He mentioned that he drafted, prepared and signed the sanction order. He denied the suggestion given by the defence CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 64 of 165 :: 65 ::
counsel that the sanction was prepared and accorded without due application of mind. He also denied the suggestion that no documents were sent by the CBI along with the request for the sanction. He conveyed that he did not hear the recorded intercepted calls but the transcripts of the same were available in the file.
27. I have perused the sanction order. It contains the account of the position held by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and the nature and the scope of his functions in the said capacity. It records that the duties of A-1 included running of special trains, day-to-day attachment of extra coaches in different trains for clearance of rush as per the demand received from the Commercial Directorate, planning and monitoring, running of special trains during peak season, booking of reserve carriages and special coaches as well as other akin functions. It has been recorded in the sanction that it was found during investigation that A-1 had demanded an illegal gratification from A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani for extending him undue favour and he was caught red handed while receiving the bribe. It was also recorded in the sanction that A-1 facilitated the releasing of rail coaches and haulage for the tours organised by A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP, Mumbai. The sanction also mentions about the intercepted calls and records that a clear cut CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 65 of 165 :: 66 ::
case is made out that A-1 demanded illegal gratification in lieu of making the said arrangement. The details contained in the sanction order demonstrate that the sanctioning authority appreciated all the relevant documents before arriving at the decision of granting the sanction. The sanction order records that PW-1 S.K. Aggarwal was authorised to authenticate the sanction under the Government of India (Orders & Other Instruments) Rules, 2002 as notified under Article 77 of The Constitution of India.
28. It is an admitted position that the Notification dated 16.01.2002 was not placed on record during the course of trial and the prosecution has drawn attention to the said Notification only at the stage of final arguments. I am of the considered opinion that since, the Notification is having the force of law and it is a public document, therefore, the court cannot ignore the contents of the Notification even if the same was not placed on record during the course of trial. The court can take judicial notice of the said Notification. The Notification demonstrates that PW-1 was authorised to authenticate all the orders and instruments made in the name of the President of India. In view thereof, the sanction order has been signed in the name of the President of India by the competent authority and it cannot be faulted on this count.
29. Coming to the argument of the defence counsel about non-
CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 66 of 165:: 67 ::
application of mind by the sanctioning authority. It has been argued by the defence counsel that the complete file containing all the relevant documents was not placed before the sanctioning authority. He has submitted that there is evidence to show that the CD containing the recorded conversation of intercepted calls was not forwarded to the sanctioning authority and in view thereof, the sanctioning authority had no occasion to apply its mind to those conversations in arriving at a satisfaction that A-1 demanded illegal gratification for extending undue favours to A-2. I do not find force in these submissions. Record shows that PW-1 stated in cross-examination that he does not remember whether the CD containing the conversation of the intercepted calls was forwarded to the sanctioning authority but conveyed that he had seen the transcripts of those conversations on the file. Keeping in view this fact, the argument that the sanctioning authority did not take into account the recorded conversations looses its force. Even otherwise, this court cannot go into the aspect of questioning the satisfaction arrived at by the sanctioning authority.
30. It may be noted that the sanction has been granted on the basis of the satisfaction of the competent authority. This court cannot sit in appeal on the satisfaction arrived at by the competent authority. What only needs to be seen is whether the competent CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 67 of 165 :: 68 ::
authority had sufficient material to arrive at a satisfaction to grant the sanction for prosecution of an accused and it has applied its mind to the said material. This aspect was considered in detail by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs. Mahesh G. Jain 2013 (8) SCC 119 wherein the following principles were laid down:
"13. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out: -
a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 68 of 165
:: 69 ::
f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity."
31. It was further observed in the Mahesh G. Jain's case (supra) that an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating due application of mind should not be dealt lightly and allowed to be challenged on technicalities. The Apex Court made the following observations:
"16. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the contents of the sanction order. The sanctioning authority has referred to the demand of the gratification for handing over TDS certificate in Form 16A of the Income-tax Act, the acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused before the panch witnesses and how the accused was caught red handed. That apart, as the order would reveal, he has fully examined the material documents, namely, the FIR, CFSL report and other relevant documents placed in regard to the allegations and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code and, thereafter, being satisfied he has passed the order of sanction. The learned trial Judge, as it seems, apart from other reasons has found that the sanctioning authority has not referred to the elementary facts and there is no objective material to justify a subjective satisfaction. The reasonings, in our considered opinion, are CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 69 of 165 :: 70 ::
absolutely hyper- technical and, in fact, can always be used by an accused as a magic trick to pave the escape route. The reasons ascribed by the learned trial Judge appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of sanction. True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused. In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without any iota of hesitation that the approach of the learned trial Judge as well as that of the learned single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve acceptance."
32. I have perused the sanction order in the light of the testimony of PW-1. I am of the considered opinion that the sanctioning authority granted the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act after due application of mind. The sanctioning authority considered all the documents as well as the nature of allegations and thereafter, awarded the sanction. Defence has failed to highlight any infirmity in the sanction order. The sanction is valid and it was duly awarded.
33. Coming to the argument about the absence of sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. It has been argued on behalf of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma that although, the sanction for prosecution CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 70 of 165 :: 71 ::
was granted under Section 19 of the PC Act but there was no sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. to prosecute him for committing an offence under Section 120B of IPC. The Section 197 of Cr. P.C. provides as under:-
"197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants.-- (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]--
(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, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central 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, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government."
34. It has been held in the matter of A. Srinivasan Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma 2023 INSC 682 (Neutral Citation) decided on 08.08.2023 and N.K. Ganguly Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi 2016 (2) SCC 143 that there is a distinction between an order of sanction required for the permission of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and an order CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 71 of 165 :: 72 ::
of sanction required for commission of an offence under the PC Act. The Supreme Court while drawing a distinction between both the sanctions has made the following observations in the matter of Kalicharan Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa 1998 (6) SCC 411:
"...The sanction contemplated in Section 197 of the Code concerns a public servant who 'is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty', whereas the offences contemplated in the PC Act are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties. Parliament must have desired to maintain the distinction and hence the wording in the corresponding provision in the former PC Act was materially imported in the new PC Act, 1988 without any change in spite of the change made in Section 197 of the Code..."
(Emphasis supplied)
35. It has been observed in the matter of Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007) 1 SCC 4 that Section 197 of Cr. P.C. and Section 19 of the PC Act operate in conceptually different fields. In the said matter, the Apex Court made the following observations:
"10. It may be noted that Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 operate in conceptually different fields. In cases covered under the Act, in respect of public servants the sanction is of automatic nature and thus factual aspects are of little or no consequence. Conversely, in a case relatable to Section 197 of the CrPC, the substratum and basic features of the case have to be considered CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 72 of 165 :: 73 ::
to find out whether the alleged act has any nexus with the discharge of duties. Position is not so in case of Section 19 of the Act." (Emphasis supplied)
36. The above distinction stands clarified in the matter of A. Srinivasan Reddy's case (supra) in view of the following observations:
"59. From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only pre- requisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the public servant is expected to be put on trial include the offences other than those punishable under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e. IPC), the court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and also, if necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case progresses) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr PC. There is a material difference between the statutory requirements of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 on one hand, and Section 197 of the CrPC, on the other. In the prosecution for the offences exclusively under the PC Act, 1988, sanction is mandatory qua the public servant. In cases under the general penal law against the public servant, the necessity (or otherwise) of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC depends on the factual aspects. The test in the latter case is of the "nexus" between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant. To commit an offence punishable under law can never be a part of the official duty of a public servant. It is too simplistic an approach to adopt and to reject the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC on such reasoning. The CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 73 of 165 :: 74 ::
"safe and sure test", is to ascertain if the omission or neglect to commit the act complained of would have made the public servant answerable for the charge of dereliction of his official duty. He may have acted "in excess of his duty", but if there is a "reasonable connection" between the impugned act and the performance of the official duty, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be denied, so long as the discharge of official duty is not used as a cloak for illicit acts."
37. It was further observed in A. Srinivasan Reddy's case (supra) that the protection of Sub-Section (1) of Section 197 of Cr. P.C. is available only to such public servants whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government. The position of the law laid down in A. Srinivasan Reddy (supra) and N.K. Ganguly (supra) was reiterated and followed by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Rakesh Bhatnagar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation MANU/DE/7802/2023 wherein it was observed that in order to prosecute an individual under the Indian Penal Code, the necessity of sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. depends on factual aspect which is based on a test of nexus between the act of commission or omission and the official duty of the public servant.
38. It can be seen from the record that it is the case of prosecution that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma entered into criminal conspiracy with A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani and other CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 74 of 165 :: 75 ::
accused persons while being posted as a Director, Traffic Transport in Railway Board to extend undue favours to a travel concern by arranging railway coaches in lieu of illegal gratification. It has come on record the duties of A-1 included running of special trains, day-to-day attachment of extra coaches in different trains for clearance of rush as per the demand received from the Commercial Directorate, planning and monitoring, running of special trains during peak season, booking of reserve carriages and special coaches as well as other akin functions. There is irrefutable evidence to conclude that A-1 was a public servant whose appointing authority was the Government of India and he was removable from the office only by a sanction granted by the President of India.
39. In the backdrop of the position of law, as discussed in the preceding paras, on the basis of the facts of the present case, it becomes apparent that in the present matter, in order to prosecute A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma under Section 120B of IPC, a sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. was required but the same was not obtained. It can be seen that the sanction order under Section 19 of the PC Act (Ex.PW1/A) states that the sanction has also been accorded for the prosecution under Section 120B of IPC but it cannot be considered as sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. as CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 75 of 165 :: 76 ::
the requisite conditions for granting of the sanction were not considered. Sanction contemplated under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. concerns a public servant who 'is an accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty' whereas, the offence contemplated in the PC Act are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or either purportedly done in the discharge of his official duty. The offences under IPC and the offences under the PC Act are different and distinct. Thus, the consideration for granting sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. and Section 19 of the PC Act are different and the sanction granted under one of these provisions cannot be considered as the sanction under the other. It can be seen that there was a direct nexus between the act of commission and the official duty of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and the sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. was required before prosecuting him under Section 120B of IPC but the same was not obtained. This infirmity goes to the root of the matter so far the offence under 120B of IPC is concerned.
40. Now, let us evaluate the evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses, to see if the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 12 of the PC Act stand substantiated.
INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCES UNDER THE PC ACT CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 76 of 165 :: 77 ::
41. Before evaluating the evidence, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant legal provisions. It is the case of prosecution that accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of The PC Act. Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of The PC Act, as prior to the amendment provided as under;
"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.
Explanations. Â
(a) "Expecting to be a public servant" Â If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 77 of 165
:: 78 ::
(b)"Gratification". The word gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration" The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section"
"Section 13. - Criminal misconduct by a public servant: - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, -
(a) . . .
(b) . . .
(c) . . .
(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 positioning as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage ; or CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 78 of 165 :: 79 ::
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest ; or
(e) . . ."
42. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152, the Apex Court summarised the well settled law on the subject in the following para:
"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder".
43. In P. Satyanaryana Murti's case (supra), the Supreme Court of India, while setting aside the conviction of an accused under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, observed that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 79 of 165 :: 80 ::
the PC Act and in the absence thereof, the charge under the said sections would fail. The court made the following observations:
"18. This Court in A. Subair vs. State of Kerala (2009)6 SCC 587, while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
19. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
20. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)
(i)&(ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 80 of 165 :: 81 ::
and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized, could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise."
44. In the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao (2009) 15 SCC 200, the Supreme Court expressed as under:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 81 of 165 :: 82 ::
required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt".
45. It is a settled proposition that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused always remains on the prosecution and it does not shift at any stage of the trial. However, by means of a presumption provided under Section 20 of The PC Act, the onus of proof would shift on the accused, in case, it is shown that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or obtain any undue advantage. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India that even to invoke the presumption under Section 20 of The PC Act, it is essential that the 'demand' and 'acceptance' of the bribe must be established. In the matter of B. Jayaraj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55, the Apex Court has held as under:
"9...In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 82 of 165 :: 83 ::
are wholly absent".
46. In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2023 (4) SCC 731, the Supreme Court evaluated the provisions of Section 7 of The PC Act and summarised the legal position as under:
"xxx
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 83 of 165
:: 84 ::
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 84 of 165 :: 85 ::
gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 85 of 165 :: 86 ::
discretionary in nature.
xxx"
47. Thus, it can be seen that the Supreme Court has reiterated in various judicial pronouncements that in order to bring home a charge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of The PC Act, there must be a demand and acceptance of the gratification. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. Now, let us examine the evidence to see if the prosecution has been able to establish both the ingredients of 'demand' and 'acceptance' of illegal gratification.
TRAP, INTERCEPTED CALLS AND DEMAND
48. The genesis of the trap lies in the previous demand of bribe made by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma from A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, which became the basis of laying of the trap by the investigating agency. In view of this, it was for the prosecution to prove the demand as well as the acceptance of the illegal gratification by A-1. The prosecution's case, in so far as the pre trap demand of bribe is concerned, revolves around the conversations in the intercepted calls. These calls, as per the case of the prosecution, were recorded on the basis of the orders obtained from the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 86 of 165 :: 87 ::
Ministry of Home Affairs under Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. The intercepted calls were being recorded at a system kept at the office of CBI at Jam Nagar House and the recording device was being managed and controlled by PW-3 Suraj Majumdar. Out of the calls so intercepted, 182 calls were selected and burnt by him into a CD and he also prepared another similar CD for the investigating officer. Both the CDs were handed over by him to PW-47 G.M. Ansari, who went to the office at Jam Nagar House on the directions of the investigating officer.
49. It has been alleged that the deal for the bribe was struck over the intercepted calls, more particularly over the call no. 11 (dated 11.10.2014), call no. 94 (dated 19.10.2014), call no. 149 (dated 21.10.2014) and call no. 175 (dated 21.10.2014). It has been stated that the intercepted calls also demonstrate the manner in which A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani made arrangement with Parasmal Jain for delivering the bribe at the residence of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. It has been alleged that the conversations made over these calls not only serve the purpose of establishing the demand of bribe but also serve as an important link to establish the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecution has also relied upon these conversations for the purpose of corroborating the statements of the key witnesses.
CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 87 of 165:: 88 ::
50. In order to establish the acceptance, prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-7 Bhanwar Singh, PW-8 Parasmal Jain, PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain and PW-29 Jayantilal Jain. It is the case of prosecution that the illegal gratification was accepted by A-1 outside his residence at Kaka Nagar and the transaction was witnessed by two independent witnesses, PW-4 Lakhan Raj and PW-64 Gajender Singh, who were standing discreetly at a considerable distance and keeping an eye over the entire transaction. In addition to this, prosecution has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-65 Suresh Kumar, who was leading the trap team and was also the investigating officer of the present case. Prosecution has also relied on the testimony of PW-33 Ajeet Kumar Pandey, who was a member of the trap team. Prosecution has placed reliance on the testimonies of nodal officers to prove the CDRs and the cell ID locations of the respective mobile phones. These nodal officers were examined to prove the relevant certificates under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the electronic evidence. Besides these witnesses, reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the testimonies of the Railways officials for demonstrating that A-1 played an active role in getting the concerned coaches allotted to the other accused persons.
51. The starting point of the case of prosecution is the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 88 of 165 :: 89 ::
intercepted calls. It has been alleged that the conspiracy was hatched over intercepted calls between the accused persons. These calls are stated to be containing offer and counter offers, which culminated into the alleged demand of illegal gratification by A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. Ld. defence counsels have challenged the intercepted calls primarily on three grounds; (i) that the conversations in the intercepted calls are not admissible as there was non-compliance of the procedure provided under Section 5 (2) of the Telegraph Act and Rule 419A of The Telegraph Rules; (ii) that the orders of the competent authority were ante-dated and the conversations were recorded without proper authorisation; and (iii) that the sanctity of the recorded conversations of the intercepted calls was not preserved and the recorded conversations have not been proved.
ADMISSIBILITY OF INTERCEPTED CALLS
52. Coming to first two grounds of challenge. The prosecution has built up its case on the allegations that seven (7) mobile numbers were kept under surveillance and the calls made and received over these mobile numbers were intercepted on the force of seven (7) separate orders passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The orders are on record and the same are Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/G. It can be seen that some of the orders were passed by CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 89 of 165 :: 90 ::
Sh. M.A. Ganpathy, the then Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs while the others were issued by Sh. Anil Goswami, the then Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. PW-2 Sunil Kumar stepped into the witness box and identified the signatures of the said officials. He deposed that he was posted as Staff Principal Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs at the time when these orders were passed by the concerned officials. He stated in cross-examination about a notification whereby the Joint Secretary was also authorised to sign the orders in place of the Home Secretary. He mentioned that he does not recollect the date of the notification. He stated that the copy of the said notification was not provided to the CBI. He mentioned that CBI made a written request for the interception but he does not recollect the date on which the request was received. He mentioned that the orders were sent by him through the nodal officer of the CBI and he also took a receiving at the time of handing over the said orders. He stated that the usual timings of his office were from 09:00 AM to 05:00 PM. He admitted that the officers, who signed the orders were very much available but suggested that he was competent to identify their signatures. He admitted that the calls can be interception only after the approval of Ministry of Home Affairs.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 90 of 165
:: 91 ::
53. The interception orders have been purportedly passed under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules which provides as under;
"Section 5(2) of The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read as under: Power for Government to take possession of licensed telegraphs and to order interception of messages. -- (2) On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Central Government or a State Government or any officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct that any message or class of messages to or from any person or class of persons, or relating to any particular subject, brought for transmission by or transmitted or received by any telegraph, shall not be transmitted, or shall be intercepted or detained, or shall be disclosed to the Government making the order or an officer thereof mentioned in the order:
Provided that the press messages intended to be published in India of correspondents accredited to the Central Government or a State Government shall not be intercepted or detained, unless their transmission has been prohibited under this sub- section. A bare reading of the above provision shows that for the purpose of making an order for interception of message in exercise of powers under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, the occurrence of any public emergency or the existence of a public safety interest are the sine qua non.
Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 91 of 165
:: 92 ::
―419-A. (1) Directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the said (Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of Government of India and by the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a State Government.
In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorized by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be:
Provided that in emergent cases--
(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception of messages or class of messages is not feasible; or
(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception of message or class of messages is not feasible;
The required interception of any message or class of messages shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the authorized security i.e. Law Enforcement Agency at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police at the state level but the concerned competent authority shall be informed of such interceptions by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven days, such interception shall cease CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 92 of 165 :: 93 ::
and the same message or class of messages shall not be intercepted thereafter without the prior approval of the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary, as the case may be.
(2) Any order issued by the competent authority under sub-rule (1) shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned Review Committee within a period of seven working days.
(3) While issuing directions under sub-rule (1) the officer shall consider possibility of acquiring the necessary information by other means and the directions under sub-rule (1) shall be issued only when it is not possible to acquire the information by any other reasonable means.
(4) The interception directed shall be the interception of any message or class of messages as are sent to or from any person or class of persons or relating to any particular subject whether such message or class of messages are received with one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications from or to one particular person specified or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or described in the order.
(5) The directions shall specify the name and designation of the officer or the authority to whom the intercepted message or class of messages is to be disclosed and also specify that the use of intercepted message or class of messages shall be subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act.
(6) The directions for interception shall remain in force, unless revoked earlier, for a period not CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 93 of 165 :: 94 ::
exceeding sixty days from the date of issue and may be renewed but the same shall not remain in force beyond a total period of one hundred and eighty days.
(7) The directions for interception issued under sub-
rule (1) shall be conveyed to the designated officers of the licensee(s) who have been granted licenses under Section 4 of the said Act, in writing by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or Additional Superintendent of Police or the officer of the equivalent rank.
(8) The officer authorized to intercept any message or class of message shall maintain proper records mentioning therein, the intercepted message or class of messages, the particulars of persons whose message has been intercepted, the name and other particulars of the officer or the authority to whom the intercepted message or class of messages has been disclosed, the number of copies of the intercepted message or class of messages made and the mode or the method by which such copies are made, the date of destruction of the copies and the duration within which the directions remain in force.
(9) All the requisitioning security agencies shall designate one or more nodal officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police or Additional Superintendent of Police or the officer of the equivalent rank to authenticate and send the requisitions for interception to the designated officers of the concerned service providers to be delivered by an officer not below the rank of Sub- lnspector of Police.
(10) The service providers shall designate two senior executives of the company in every licensed service area/State/Union Territory as the nodal officers to receive and handle such requisitions for CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 94 of 165 :: 95 ::
interception.
(11) The designated nodal officers of the service providers shall issue acknowledgment letters to the concerned security and Law Enforcement Agency within two hours on receipt of intimations for interception.
(12) The system of designated nodal officers for communicating and receiving the requisitions for interceptions shall also be followed in emergent cases/unavoidable cases where prior approval of the competent authority has not been obtained.
(13) The designated nodal officers of the service providers shall forward every fifteen days a list of interception authorizations received by them during the preceding fortnight to the nodal officers of the security and Law Enforcement Agencies for confirmation of the authenticity of such authorizations. The list should include details such as the reference and date of orders of the Union Home Secretary or State Home Secretary, date and time of receipt of such orders and the date and time of Implementation of such orders.
(14) The service providers shall put in place adequate and effective internal checks to ensure that unauthorized interception of messages does not take place and extreme secrecy is maintained and utmost care and precaution is taken in the matter of interception of messages as it affects privacy of citizens and also that this matter is handled only by the designated nodal officers of the company.
(15) The service providers are responsible for actions for their employees also. In case of established violation of license conditions pertaining to maintenance of secrecy and confidentiality of information and unauthorized interception of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 95 of 165 :: 96 ::
communication, action shall be taken against the service providers as per Sections 20, 20-A, 23 & 24 of the said Act, and this shall include not only fine but also suspension or revocation of their licenses.
(16) The Central Government and the State Government, as the case may be, shall constitute a Review Committee. The Review Committee to be constituted by the Central Government shall consist of the following, namely:
(a) Cabinet Secretary-- Chairman
(b) Secretary to the Government of India Incharge, Legal Affairs -- Member
(c) Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Telecommunications -- Member The Review Committee to be constituted by a State Government shall consist of the following, namely:
(a) Chief Secretary-- Chairman
(b) Secretary Law/Legal Remembrancer Incharge, Legal Affairs-- Member
(c) Secretary to the State Government (other than the Home Secretary) -- Member (17) The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under sub-rule (1) are in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 5 of the said Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above it may set aside the directions and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages.CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 96 of 165
:: 97 ::
(18) Records pertaining to such directions for interception and of intercepted messages shall be destroyed by the relevant competent authority and the authorized security and Law Enforcement Agencies every six months unless these are, or likely to be, required for functional requirements. (19) The service providers shall destroy records pertaining to directions for interception of message within two months of discontinuance of the interception of such messages and in doing so they shall maintain extreme secrecy."
54. It is a settled proposition, which has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncement that even though every person has a fundamental right to privacy but the said right is not absolute and it can be curtailed by the procedure established by law. The aforesaid provision empowers the Central Government, the State Government and any Official specially authorised in that behalf by the Central Government or a State Government to legally carry out interception or surveillance in the event of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety. It has been held in the matter of Akashdeep Chauhan Vs. CBI & Anr. Crl. M.C. No. 204/2020 decided on 26.06.2025 that such an intrusion into privacy is permissible in cases where there are allegations of corruption as the interception serves as means to catch the culprits.
55. It has been specified in the interception orders that the interception is being granted for the reason of public safety and the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 97 of 165 :: 98 ::
same is necessary and expedient in the interest of public order and for prevention of commission of an offence. It has been held in the matter of Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India 2022 (4) SCC Del 697 and Sanjay Bhandari Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs 2020 SCC Online Mad 28021 that disclosure of elaborate reasons in the orders for interception would be against the modified disclosure requirement of procedural fairness which have universally been acceptable for the protection of other facets of public including the source of information leading to the detection of crime. Thus, the reasons mentioned in the order are sufficient and it cannot be faltered on the ground of not containing a detailed disclosure of the reasons as the same could have defeated the purpose of interception. However, there are missing links which provide support the argument of defence that the interception orders were shrouded with mystery.
56. The prosecution has presented a version that the request for interception was forwarded by the CBI to the Ministry of Home Affairs but the name of the official who forwarded the request has not been disclosed. PW-65 Suresh Kumar (investigating officer) has deposed that he did not carry out any investigation to find out the name of the official who forwarded the request for the interception of the phone calls. He had no clue about the date and CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 98 of 165 :: 99 ::
time when the request for the interception was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs. PW-3 Suraj Majumdar has deposed that he did not receive the copy of the interception orders before 22.10.2014. He has stated that he started the interception after the orders were verbally communicated to him by the nodal officer Sh.
G.K. Verma, Superintendent of Police, Special Unit. He admitted that he handed over the copies of the orders to PW-47 Sh. G.M. Ansari in terms of the seizure memo dated 22.10.2014 (Ex.PW3/A) but deposed that the same were received by him on the same day from the nodal officer. There is no evidence to conclude as to on what date the request for the interception of the mobile numbers were forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs. There is no dispatch or receiving numbers on the orders of interception. The official, who forwarded the request for interception has not been examined. The nodal officer, who received the orders and forwarded it to PW-3 Suraj Majumdar, has also not been examined. The officials who granted the approval have also not stepped into the witness box and in their place, PW-2 Sunil Kumar has been examined, who has conveyed nothing further then identifying the signatures of these officials.
57. Prosecution has also not placed on record any notification to substantiate its stand that the Joint Secretary was empowered to CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 99 of 165 :: 100 ::
issue the interception orders in place of the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. The matter does not end here. There is material on record to conclude that the calls over the mobile numbers were being intercepted even before the approval was granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs. PW-65 Suresh Kumar has admitted in cross-examination that CBI had no authority to intercept the calls of mobile number of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma (9560561430) on 13.09.2014 as the order of interception (Ex.PW2/C) authorised the interception of the calls for a period not exceeding sixty days from 15.09.2014. He has made similar admissions about the other interception orders. Record shows that calls were being intercepted before authorisation date mentioned in the interception orders.
58. Further, there is no material on record to suggest that the review of the interception orders was conducted by the Review Committee. Rule 419A of Telegraph Rules provides a safeguard in respect of intercepted calls whereby the copy of the order of interception is required to be forwarded to a review committee within a period of seven (7) working days. In the present matter, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the orders of interception were placed before the review committee at any point of time. In fact, there is no material to show that a review committee was appointed and the interceptions were reviewed at CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 100 of 165 :: 101 ::
any point of time. PW-65 Suresh Kumar has stated in cross- examination that the does not recollect whether any review committee was formed in respect of the intercepted calls. Thus, a mandatory safeguard provided under Rule 419A was not complied with.
59. It has been argued by the defence counsels that in view of the above, the intercepted calls have become inadmissible and the same cannot be looked into. In order to support these submissions, defence has placed reliance on the decision in the matter of Jatinder Pal Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 SCC Online Del 135 wherein in a similar situation, the intercepted calls were discarded on the ground that the orders of interception were not reviewed by the review committee in terms of the mandatory requirement of Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules.
60. I am not convinced with the line of reasoning of the defence Counsels that the calls should be discarded because the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the procedure provided under Rule 419A of The Telegraph Rules was not strictly complied. Indeed, doubts have been raised about the manner in which the approval orders were passed as the orders authorised the interception of the mobile numbers for the period prior to the date on which the orders were issued. There is also no evidence to show CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 101 of 165 :: 102 ::
the manner in which the interception orders were received at the office of CBI and the manner in which the same were transmitted to PW-3 Suraj Majumdar. There is evidence to suggest that the interception was being done for the period prior to the approval granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the review of interception order was not conducted by the review committee but the intercepted calls cannot be discarded on these grounds.
61. I am of the considered opinion that even if the entire argument of the defence is accepted, still, its case, at best, would be that the interception was unlawful. It is the case of prosecution that the conversations made over these calls contained discussions in relation to demand and delivery of illegal gratification. The conversations are thus, relevant to the present case. Similar argument regarding non-compliance of the statutory safeguard provided under Rule 419A of Telegraph Rules were raised and rejected in the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 wherein it was held that the admissibility of material is not affected by the non-compliance of the procedural safeguards. In the said matter, the Supreme Court reiterated the position of law laid down in the matter of R.M. Malkhani Vs. State of Maharashtra 1973 (1) SCC 471 wherein it was held that even if the evidence is illegally obtained, the same would be CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 102 of 165 :: 103 ::
admissible, in case, it is relevant. The Supreme Court made the following observations:-
"Interception of phone calls
153. The legality and admissibility of intercepted telephone calls arises in the context of telephone conversation between Shaukat and his wife Afsan Guru on 14th December at 2009 hrs and the conversation between Gilani and his brother Shah Faizal on the same day at 1222 hrs. ...It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the two accused Shaukat and Gilani, that even Rule 419-A, has not been complied with in the instant case, and, therefore, the tape-recorded conversation obtained by such interception cannot be utilised by the prosecution to incriminate the said accused. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the State Mr Gopal Subramanium, that there was substantial compliance with Rule 419-A and, in any case, even if the interception did not take place in strict conformity with the Rule, that does not affect the admissibility of the communications so recorded. In other words, his submission is that the illegality or irregularity in the interception does not affect its admissibility in evidence there being no specific embargo against the admissibility in the Telegraph Act or in the Rules. Irrespective of the merit in the first contention of Mr Gopal Subramanium, we find force in the alternative contention advanced by him.
154. In regard to the first aspect, two infirmities are pointed out in the relevant orders authorising and confirming the interception in respect of specified telephone numbers. It is not shown by the prosecution that the Joint Director, Intelligence Bureau who authorised the interception, holds the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India. Secondly, the confirmation orders passed by the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 103 of 165 :: 104 ::
Home Secretary (contained in Vol. 7 of the lower court record, p. 447, etc.) would indicate that the confirmation was prospective. We are distressed to note that the confirmation orders should be passed by a senior officer of the Government of India in such a careless manner, that too, in an important case of this nature. However, these deficiencies or inadequacies do not, in our view, preclude the admission of intercepted telephonic communication in evidence. It is to be noted that unlike the proviso to Section 45 of POTA, Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act or Rule 419-A does not deal with any rule of evidence. The non-compliance or inadequate compliance with the provisions of the Telegraph Act does not per se affect the admissibility. The legal position regarding the question of admissibility of the tape-recorded conversation illegally collected or obtained is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 1 SCC 471 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 399] . In that case, the Court clarified that a contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible as res gestae under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. Adverting to the argument that Section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 was contravened the learned Judges held that there was no violation. At the same time, the question of admissibility of evidence illegally obtained was discussed. The law was laid down as follows: (SCC p. 477, para 24) 'There is warrant for the proposition that even if evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 104 of 165 :: 105 ::
because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence.
See Jones v. Owens [(1870) 34 JP 759] . The Judicial Committee in Kuruma v. R. [(1955) 1 All ER 236 : 1955 AC 197 : (1955) 2 WLR 223 (PC)] dealt with the conviction of an accused of being in unlawful possession of ammunition which had been discovered in consequence of a search of his person by a police officer below the rank of those who were permitted to make such searches. The Judicial Committee held that the evidence was rightly admitted. The reason given was that if evidence was admissible it matters not how it was obtained. There is of course always a word of caution. It is that the judge has a discretion to disallow evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. That caution is the golden rule in criminal jurisprudence.'"
(emphasis supplied)
62. The above stated position of law has been reiterated by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Akash Deep Chouhan Vs. CBI & Anr. Crl M.C. No. 204/2020 & Crl. M.A. 890/2020 wherein it was held that admissibility of any evidence rests on its reliability, instead of how the evidence came to be procured. It was held in this matter that an evidence cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that it is coloured by the breach of privacy of the accused if the same is found to be relevant. It was observed that CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 105 of 165 :: 106 ::
reliability of such an evidence should be tested and the same cannot be thrown out at the time of admission. The fact that the evidence was illegally collected does not affect the admissibility of the evidence and the same can be acted upon if its reliability is established during the trial. In view of this, the argument of defence about the admissibility of the intercepted calls is rejected. The intercepted calls cannot be discarded on the basis of the first two grounds of challenge pertaining to the inadmissibility of these calls on account of non-compliance of the procedure provided under Rule 419A of Telegraph Rules. Indeed, there is content in the argument of the defence that there was irregularity in granting the orders and the mandatory safeguards were not complied with but this, in itself, cannot be a ground for discarding the intercepted calls. The intercepted calls are relevant and admissible. In view thereof, the argument that the same should be discarded merely because they were obtained unlawfully looses its force.
RELIABILITY OF INTERCEPTED CALLS
63. Coming to the third ground of challenge about the reliability of the intercepted calls and the conversations contained therein. It may be noted that the conclusion that the intercepted calls are admissible, in itself, is not sufficient as these calls are still required to pass through the test of reliability. Record shows that contradictory versions have come on record about the manner in CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 106 of 165 :: 107 ::
which the intercepted calls were selected. It is the version of PW-3 Suraj Majumdar that all the intercepted calls were heard by the investigating officer, who found that out of the total calls, 182 calls were relevant. He subsequently changed this version by deposing that the conversations were heard by a team of CBI officials but he cannot tell their names. He stated that no registers were maintained in respect of the intercepted calls and the copies of the interception orders were also not sent to the service providers of the mobile phones. He deposed that the service providers were only conveyed about the orders but the copies were not sent. He has conveyed that he was not present with the investigating officer at the time when he was hearing these conversations. He has stated that the investigating officer directed him to transmit (burn) the selected 182 calls in a CD. On the other hand, PW-65 (investigating officer) has denied having heard the conversation of the intercepted calls before the registration of the FIR. He stated in cross-examination that he heard the intercepted calls only during the course of investigation. He had no clue about the total number of calls which were intercepted and recorded by the Special Unit of CBI. He stated that he does not recollect that he enquired from the Special Unit about the total number of intercepted calls. He mentioned that he does not recollect if the Special Unit conveyed him about the total number of calls which were intercepted and recorded in the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 107 of 165 :: 108 ::
device kept at the said Unit. He mentioned that he does not recollect having issued any letter or giving instructions to the Special Unit for transmitting 182 calls in the CD.
64. PW-47 G.M. Ansari has also deposed that he did not hear the conversations of the intercepted calls. He has deposed that by the time he reached Special Unit of CBI, the calls were already burnt in the CD and the CD was also sealed by PW-3 before his arrival. None of the Nodal officers of the service providers has deposed about the interception orders. Thus, contradictory versions have emerged on record for which no explanation has been tendered by the prosecution. It is expected from the prosecution to collect and place on record all the conversations that took place over the suspected mobile numbers which were being intercepted. The fairness demands that the entire conversation should have been placed before the court to understand the context of the conversations. The investigating agency arbitrarily selected the conversations over 182 calls claiming that only these conversations were relevant. There is no evidence to conclude as to on what basis the other intercepted conversations were found to be irrelevant. There is also no evidence to establish the identity of the officer, who heard these conversations and selected 182 calls. The investigating agency cannot be allowed to pick and choose the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 108 of 165 :: 109 ::
intercepted conversations. In case, the other intercepted conversations were excluded, some evidence must come on record for the basis of exclusion but the same is missing.
65. Record shows that the investigating agency made no efforts to obtain or preserve the conversations over the other intercepted calls. PW-65 (investigating officer) has deposed that no efforts were made for obtaining the clone copy of the hard disk. In these circumstances, the argument that the investigating agency has only handpicked the intercepted calls containing the inculpatory material and excluded the conversations containing the exculpatory material cannot be brushed aside. I find force in the submissions of the defence that in order to understand the actual context of the conversations of 182 calls, the conversations over the remaining calls should have also been submitted before the court or at least, placed at the disposal of the court.
66. There is evidence to show that the intercepted calls were being recorded in a hard disk wherein the calls pertaining to various other mobile numbers (pertaining to other cases) were being recorded. PW-3 has disclosed in cross-examination that there were six hard disks in the logger system where the calls were being recorded. He admitted that in the main server of the device, calls from multiple phone numbers pertaining to multiple cases were CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 109 of 165 :: 110 ::
being recorded simultaneously. He conveyed that 182 calls were burnt into a CD and a copy of the same was prepared simultaneously for the investigating officer. He mentioned that he procured those CDs from the office but did not play them to ensure that the same were empty. He mentioned that neither any witness was called nor any memorandum was prepared at the time of preparing the CDs. He mentioned that CDs were neither heard nor shown to the nodal officer.
67. In case, the version of PW-3 Suraj Majumdar is accepted, then, as per the directions of the investigating officer, he burnt the relevant 182 calls in the CD and sealed it before the arrival of PW-47 G.M. Ansari. On the other hand, the investigating officer (PW-65) has stated that he did not hear the conversations over these calls leave aside selecting them and asking PW-3 to burn them into the CD. He has deposed that he gave a requisition to PW-47 G.M. Ansari to collect these CDs from the Special Unit. On the other hand, PW-47 G.M. Ansari has deposed that he went to the office of Special Unit to collect certain documents but he was not given any written communication by the investigating officer. He has mentioned that the CD was already sealed when he reached the office of Special Unit and the same was not sealed in his presence. These circumstances demonstrate that PW-3 Suraj Majumdar took CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 110 of 165 :: 111 ::
upon himself the exercise of burning the selected 182 calls in the CDs and sealed the same on 22.10.2014. It is noted that the selected calls also contain certain calls exchanged on the intercepted mobile numbers on 22.10.2014. PW-65 has stated in cross-examination that he was assigned the FIR for investigation on 22.10.2014 at 07:10 AM. He has deposed that he did not visit the Special Unit of CBI before 22.10.2014. He claimed to have visited the said Unit only after 22.10.2014 during the course of investigation. Prosecution has not examined any other CBI official, who claimed to have visited the Special Unit at Jamnagar House and heard and selected the 182 calls, which were burnt into the CD.
This is a missing link in the story of the prosecution.
68. The registration of the FIR and the verification of the source information is also suspicious. It is the case of the prosecution that the FIR came to be registered on the basis of a source information, which was verified before the registration of the FIR. PW-65 has deposed that the source information was received on 22.10.2014 by him and the Superintendent of Police and it was reduced into writing after ascertaining its genuineness. He deposed that he does not recollect whether the verification of the source information was reduced into writing. He stated that he did not contact anyone at the Special Unit of CBI at Jamnagar CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 111 of 165 :: 112 ::
House for verifying the source information. He claimed to have verified the information from some other sources. He also claimed that the names of the accused persons were also disclosed by the source. It has been established that there was no other means available with the investigating agency to verify the information apart from the conversations over the intercepted calls. I agree with the argument of the prosecution that there is no requirement for the investigating agency to carry out the verification proceedings before registration of the FIR in cases where the urgent action is required but in that case, the prosecution must come clean and disclose that no such verification was carried out on account of urgency. In the present matter, the prosecution has projected a case that the source information was verified but the manner in which the verification was done has not been disclosed. The investigating officer (PW-65) has disclosed that he never heard the recorded conversations before the registration of the FIR. He has deposed that he heard the conversations only during the course of investigation. He has categorically mentioned that the verification was carried out by him and no other official. In case, his version is taken to be correct, it means he himself carried out the verification, laid down the trap and also carried out the investigation. The fairness demanded that in case, he was the verification officer, a new investigating officer should have been appointed to impart CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 112 of 165 :: 113 ::
fairness to the investigation but the same has not been done and no explanation has been tendered for this failure.
VOICE IDENTIFICATION IN THE INTERCEPTED CALLS
69. The prosecution has heavily relied on the conversations contained in the 182 intercepted calls. It is the case of the prosecution that these calls contained conversations between A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani as well as between the other accused persons. It has been alleged that over these calls, the offer of illegal gratification was made by A-2 and the same was accepted by A-1. It has been stated that the calls also contained the conversation of A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah, who bargained the deal for fixing the illegal gratification at Rs.5 lakhs. The calls also contained conversations between A-1 and other employees of Railways.
70. During the course of investigation, voice samples of the accused persons were obtained at the CFSL and the same were compared with the recorded conversations. CFSL returned a positive finding in respect of the voices found on the recorded conversations. Prosecution has relied on the CFSL report to establish that the recorded conversation contained the voice of accused persons. It has been argued that the voice of the accused CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 113 of 165 :: 114 ::
persons has also been identified by the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, defence has challenged the collection of the voice samples as well as the authenticity of the CFSL Report. It has been argued on behalf of the accused persons that the voice samples were obtained without seeking the permission of the court and therefore, the same were inadmissible and could not have been made the basis for comparing with the voices found in the intercepted calls. It was also submitted on behalf of the accused persons that the voice samples were not mixed with the other voices and the same were sent for comparison to obtain a pre- conceived result. The CFSL report has been challenged on the ground that the expert giving the report was not examined and the report was given in a mechanical manner.
71. I have perused the CFSL report as well as other evidence in respect of recorded conversations. In so far as the validity of the voice samples is concerned, I find no irregularity as the same were given voluntarily by the accused persons. Since, the voice samples were given voluntarily, therefore, the argument that the same could not have formed the basis for comparison has no merit. Record shows that the accused persons voluntarily gave the voice samples in the presence of independent witnesses. Thus, the argument of the defence about the irregularity of the voice samples CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 114 of 165 :: 115 ::
deserves to be rejected. However, before analysing the recorded conversations, it is expedient to refer to the conditions necessary for the admissibility of tape recorded statements which were laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 Suppl. SCC 611 as under:-
"(1) the voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice. Where the voice is denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker;
(2) The voice of the speaker should be audible and not distorted by other sounds or disturbances;
(3) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence;
(4) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled out;
(5) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of evidence; and (6) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe custody."
72. It was held by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Mahabir Prasad Verma Vs. Surinder Kaur (1982) 2 SCC 258 that tape recorded evidence can only be used for the purpose of corroboration. The court made the following observations:-
"Tape recorded conversation can only be relied CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 115 of 165 :: 116 ::
upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, there was no evidence of any such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the landlady; and in the absence of any such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation could be no proper evidence."
73. In the matter of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143, the Supreme Court of India observed that the court should be extremely cautious in examining and relying upon the tape recorded evidence.
"In our opinion, the evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not, wholly unreliable. Accurate voice identification is much more difficult than visual identification. It is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing that the reality can be completely replaced by fiction. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely on the evidence of voice identification. ..."
74. Coming back to the present matter. It is the prosecution's case that the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in the intercepted conversations was identified by PW-28 Ashok Kumar Sodhi. Prosecution claimed that the witness was familiar with the voice of A-1 as he had worked with him for a considerable period of time and heard his voice on several occasions. However, PW-28 did not CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 116 of 165 :: 117 ::
support this version. He admitted that he served as Principal Private Secretary to A-1 while he was posted as a Director in Rail Bhawan and he used to attend his phone calls. The intercepted conversations were played in the court and the witness was asked to identify the voice of A-1 but he failed to do so. The witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution but nothing much came in his cross-examination which may support the prosecution's case. No other witness has been examined by the prosecution to identify the voice of A-1 in the relevant calls pertains to the demand of illegal gratification. It can be seen that out of the relevant calls no. 11, 94, 149 and 175, PW-60 Rupesh Janu Rakte identified the voice of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani only in call no. 94. In view of these circumstances, the conditions stipulated under Ram Singh's case (supra) pertaining to identification of the voice of the accused have not been met.
CFSL REPORT ON VOICE EXAMINATION
75. In order to identify the voice of the accused, prosecution has also relied on the CFSL report on the voice comparison carried out by Dr. Manisha Kulsreshtha, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, which is Ex.PW66/A. It is an admitted position that Dr. Manisha Kulsreshtha, who was the author of the report, has not been examined as a prosecution witness. The prosecution has only CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 117 of 165 :: 118 ::
examined her assistant, PW-66 Jayesh Bhardwaj, who, as per the case of prosecution, assisted Dr. Manisha Kulsreshtha during spectrographic analysis of the intercepted conversations. PW-66 stepped into the witness box and deposed that he played no role during the scientific examination of the intercepted conversations except rendering clerical help like taking out the printouts of graphs, marking and numbering of the files. He placed on record the printouts of the spectrographic report mentioning that the same were obtained by him from the computer system. These printouts were not accompanied with certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Thus, except the CFSL report, there is no material to identify the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma in the intercepted calls.
76. I have perused the opinion of Dr. Manisha Kulsreshtha in the CFSL report (Ex.PW66/A). It is the case of the prosecution that the CD containing 182 intercepted calls and the voice samples of the accused persons were sent to the CFSL vide a forwarding letter dated 01.12.2014 (Ex.PW65/C). In terms of the forwarding letter, the opinion of the expert was sought in respect of the intercepted conversations (Q-1) after comparing it with the specimen voices contained in the memory cards. The memory cards containing the sample voices specimens were marked as; A-1 Ravi Mohan CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 118 of 165 :: 119 ::
Sharma as 'SV-1'; Kulin Kumar Shah as 'SV-2'; A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani as 'SV-3'; Bhanwar Singh as 'SV-4'; Parasmal Jain as 'SV-5 and SV-6'; Vimal Kumar Jain as 'SV-7'; Jayantilal Jain as 'SV-8'; and A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah as 'SV-9'.
77. Record shows that the voice identification was conducted without taking any reasonable precautions which should have been normally taken in visual identification of suspects by a witness. It is a matter of fact that the expert witness knew in advance that she had to identify the voices of certain individuals including the accused persons, whose voice samples were relatable with the marking giving thereon. No attempt was made to mix the voices of the accused persons with some other unidentified voices. Dr. Manisha Kulsreshtha did not step into the witness box to depose about the scientific analysis and the comparison of the voice samples with the intercepted calls. She identified these voices as no specimen apart from that of accused and the other individuals were sent for comparison. In view of this, the analysis by the expert became an exercise performed only for the purpose of record to achieve the desired result. It is further noticed that the expert did not give any definitive opinion about the voices of the accused persons and concluded in her report that the voices found on the memory cards is the probable voices of the accused persons.
CC No. 264/19CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 119 of 165 :: 120 ::
In such circumstances, it would be unsafe to rely on the voice identification by an expert witness. I am of the considered opinion that the voice identification by the expert witness is not reliable. In a similar situation, in the matter of Ajay Gupta Vs. State through CBI Crl. Neutral Citation 2022/DHC/004498, the High Court of Delhi discarded an expert opinion on voice samples holding that he did not give any definitive opinion on the examined conversation. The court made an observation that the accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of probabilities and the prosecution needs to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
78. Record further demonstrates that investigating agency failed to maintain the chain of custody of the Compact Disks. As discussed earlier, the CD containing the intercepted calls was sent to the CFSL through a forwarding letter dated 01.12.2014. On being questioned during cross-examination, PW-65 Suresh Kumar (investigating officer) stated that he does not recollect the name of the person to whom the CD and the voice samples were sent at the CFSL. There is an acknowledgement on the forwarding letter by the 'Case Assistant, CFSL Lodhi Road' that ten sealed parcels were received by him from Sh. Sanjay Rana, Sub-Inspector, CBI, AC-III on 02.12.2014. PW-65 has mentioned that the statement of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 120 of 165 :: 121 ::
the said official was not recorded by him during the course of investigation. He has deposed that he did not make any entry in the departure register at the time when Sanjay Rana left the CBI office for depositing the articles at the CFSL but the entry was made by him in the case diary. The case diary was neither summoned nor produced during the trial to ascertain the veracity of his statement.
79. In case, the version of the investigating officer is taken to be correct and the same is read in the light of the forwarding letter dated 01.12.2014 (Ex.PW65/C), it becomes obvious that the sealed parcels were deposited with the CFSL on 02.12.2014. Thus, there is a gap of one day in depositing the sealed parcels with the CFSL. The official who deposited the sealed parcels has not been examined and the gap has remained unexplained. There is also an overwriting at point X-2 on page-5 and correction of date at point X-1 on the page-6 of the forwarding letter. The investigating officer has admitted that he carried out the overwriting at point X-2 but stated that he does not recollect who carried out the overwriting at point X-1. He stated in cross-examination that the correction was made by him after the forwarding letter was signed by Sh. Tanmay Mehra, Superintendent of Police (whose signatures appears at point B on page-7 of the forwarding letter). The fact that the investigating officer has corrected a document after the same CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 121 of 165 :: 122 ::
was signed and forwarded by his superior officer raise serious question mark over the authenticity of this document. PW-65 (investigating officer) has tendered a lame explanation that he brought the correction to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Police. The said explanation does not inspire confidence. In case, the version of the investigating officer is accepted, it means that either he obtained the approval of the Superintendent of Police on 28.11.2014 and forwarded the sealed parcels on 01.12.2014 by a forwarding letter dated 01.12.2014 containing an unexplained correction in the date of dispatch, which were received at the CFSL on 02.12.2014.
80. Defence brought the above stated discrepancy to the notice of the investigating officer by drawing his attention to the relevant document but he failed to tender any plausible explanation. He was granted an opportunity to produce document to clarify the custody of the case property during the intervening period but he failed to do so. He stated that although, Ex.PW65/C kept lying in his custody till the time the parcels were sent to the CFSL but the parcels were not in his custody. Prosecution has failed to explain as to in whose custody the parcels kept lying during the intervening period from 28.11.2014 to 02.12.2014. It can be further seen from the CFSL report that the parcels were received at CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 122 of 165 :: 123 ::
CFSL on 02.12.2014 while the same were opened on 10.12.2014. There is an intervening period of around eight days between the time when the exhibits were received at the CFSL and the time when the same were opened by the expert. The chain of custody for this period has also remained unexplained as the official in whose custody the parcels were lying has not been examined. The prosecution has also not explained as to in whose custody the sealed CD kept lying before it was deposited with the CFSL. The entries of the malkhana showing the movement of the parcels have not been placed on record. In the absence of these entries, no presumption can be drawn that the parcels were duly deposited and taken out from the malkhana at the relevant time. This shows that the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out. These factors have raised serious question mark over the authenticity and accuracy of the data contained in the CD.
81. It is also noted that the manner in which the original CD was prepared also creates doubt over the authenticity of the purported data contained therein. PW-3 Suraj Majumdar has stated that he prepared a CDs of the relevant 182 calls after burning those calls in a CD which was obtained by him from his department. He stated that he prepared another copy of the CD (referred to as the copy of the IO) which was a replica of the first CD. He has not CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 123 of 165 :: 124 ::
explained whether the second CD was the copy of the first CD or the calls were transmitted therein directly from the server. He stated that a certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW3/C) was issued by him in respect of these CDs. He mentioned that the printed format of the certificate was readily available at the office. I have perused the said certificate. It can be seen that the certificate is vague and it appears that the same has been issued in a mechanical manner. The certificate does not cross the threshold prescribed under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It has been recorded in the seizure memo (Ex.PW3/A) that the hash value of the CD was obtained but the report of the CFSL is silent on this aspect. The CFSL report does not specify that the hash value of the data contained in the CD was compared and found to be correct. This circumstance also puts dent in the prosecution's case and casts doubt over the authenticity of the data of the CD.
82. It has not been explained by the prosecution that the CD referred to as the 'copy of the IO' was prepared from the original CD or two similar copies, one for the CFSL and the other one for the investigating officer, were prepared directly from the hard disk. PW-3 Suraj Majumdar has deposed that after burning the intercepted calls in the first CD, he prepared another copy which CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 124 of 165 :: 125 ::
was replica of the first CD but he has not clarified this aspect. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act also does not throw light on this aspect. It has been simply stated therein that 182 calls contained in a folder 'calls' were reproduced on a CDs and two sets of the same were prepared. It is an admitted position that no request was made to CFSL to check the date and time of creation of the original CD and it was also not checked if the CD sent to CFSL was original or it was a copy of the original.
83. Record further shows that the copy of the CD prepared for the investigating officer was handed over to PW-47 G.M. Ansari in an unsealed condition. There is no evidence to show that the movement of the IO copy of the CD was documented. Record does not clarify as to when the said CD was received by the investigating officer and deposited at the malkhana. PW-65 has deposed that the transcripts (D-65 and D-113) were prepared from the same CD (IO Copy) on the basis of an office order but the said order has not been filed along with the charge-sheet. He has deposed that he had not examined the person who prepared the transcripts and no memorandum was prepared at the time of preparing the transcripts. He has deposed that he has not filed the investigating officer's copy of the CD with the charge-sheet and the same was lying at the malkhana. He has admitted that the said CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 125 of 165 :: 126 ::
copy was not sent for examination and comparison to the CFSL. The fact that the investigating officer is clueless about the person who prepared the transcripts creates doubt over the authenticity of the transcripts. It is noted that prepared transcripts were running into 58 pages whereas the CFSL report records that only sixteen pages of the transcripts were received at the CFSL. The letter (Ex.PW65/C) by which the exhibits were forwarded to the CFSL does not mention that the transcripts were being sent to the CFSL along with the sealed parcels. This discrepancy has also not been explained. All these circumstances cast doubt not only over the authenticity of the conversations contained in the CD but also on the transcripts of these conversations.
84. Defence has successfully highlighted that there was not only a possibility of tampering of CDs but there also a possibility of tampering of the main system from wherein the calls were being recorded. It has come during the cross-examination of PW-65 that he had not carried out any investigation to ascertain that the system wherein the intercepted calls were logged was password protected. He has deposed that he did not check as to how many persons were having access to the system on which calls were being intercepted. He has deposed that he has not examined any officer from the Special Unit of CBI except PW-3 Suraj Majumdar. It can be seen CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 126 of 165 :: 127 ::
that PW-3 Suraj Majumdar has deposed that the investigating officer and the CBI team heard the intercepted calls before deciding its relevance. He has mentioned that he was not present with the CBI team at the time when they were hearing these conversations. It has not been explained as to how the CBI team managed to hear the conversations in the absence of PW-3, who claims to be the person in control and in-charge of the recording system. Record is silent about the person in whose custody the recording system was lying at the time when the CBI team was hearing the conversations. In these unexplained circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the electronic record cannot be ruled out.
85. In view of the discussion made in the aforesaid paras, it has been established that no reliance can be placed on the conversation contained in the intercepted calls. The voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma has not been identified in these conversations and the report of the CFSL is not reliable. Prosecution has successfully demonstrated that there was a possibility of tampering with the case property. The chain of custody of the compact discs was not maintained and it was broken at multiple stages. The IO copy of the compact desk kept lying with the police officials in unsealed condition and it was not produced before the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 127 of 165 :: 128 ::
court. The certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was issued in a mechanical manner and adequate precautions were not taken to maintain the sanctity of the electronic evidence. All these circumstances lead to an inescapable conclusion that the conversations contained in the intercepted calls have not been proved and the same cannot be used for any purpose. Since, the case of prosecution, in so far as the demand of illegal gratification is concerned, was based on the intercepted calls, therefore, the fact that the intercepted calls cannot be read in evidence is fatal for the prosecution's case.
ACCEPTANCE
86. Coming to the post-trap demand and acceptance. In order to prove these aspects, prosecution has relied on the testimonies of independent witnesses, PW-4 Lakhan Raj, PW-64 Gajender Singh, PW-7 Bhanwar Singh (employee of Ballar Marketing who delivered the illegal gratification to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma), PW-8 Parasmal Jain (owner of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd.), PW-21 Vimal Kumar Jain (employee of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., who handed over the money to Bhanwar Singh), PW-24 Rupesh Kumar (Accountant of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., who handed over certain documents to CBI) and PW-29 Jayantilal Jain (brother of Parasmal Jain). In addition to the testimonies of these witnesses, CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 128 of 165 :: 129 ::
prosecution has also placed reliance on the testimonies of PW-65 Suresh Kumar (investigating officer and PW-33 Inspector Ajeet Kumar Pandey (member of the trap team).
87. Let us first examine the testimonies of the independent witnesses, PW-4 Lakhan Raj and PW-64 Gajender Singh. PW-4 Lakhan Raj has supported the prosecution's story. He has deposed that at the relevant time, he was working as an officer in Department of Transmission and Distribution, Rural Electrification Corporation, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He has mentioned that he was directed by his department on 22.10.2014 to report to Deputy Superintendent, Suresh Kumar at the office of CBI in Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He mentioned that he and Gajender Singh (PW-64) reported at the office of CBI, where they met the said official of the CBI. He has deposed that they were briefed by the official that they have to accompany them to Kaka Nagar where A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma would be accepting bribe of Rs.5 lakhs from some person for the facilitation of the Railway coaches. He has stated that thereafter, they accompanied the CBI team to Kaka Nagar and reached there at around 08:35 AM - 08:40 AM and took position outside the house of A-1 at Flat No. D-II/75, Kaka Nagar. He has deposed that after about 15-20 minutes, a person arrived there on a scooty and parked it outside the gate of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 129 of 165 :: 130 ::
the house of A-1. He has mentioned that he saw the said person calling somebody from his mobile phone and also observed that he noted down a number on a paper. He mentioned that the said individual again called somebody from his mobile phone and took out a bag from the dickey of his scooty. He has deposed that thereafter, a person came out of the house and on seeing him, PW-65 Suresh Kumar told him that he is A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma and the person who came on the scooty was Bhanwar Singh (PW-7). He has deposed that Bhanwar Singh delivered the bag to A-1, who opened and checked it and thereafter, kept it with him. He has mentioned that after handing over the bag, Bhanwar Singh called somebody from his mobile phone and made A-1 talk to someone on his phone.
88. PW-4 Lakhan Raj has further stated that after the transaction, CBI team apprehended Bhanwar Singh as well as A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. He has disclosed that CBI team tried to enter the house of A-1 but could not do so as the door was locked from inside. He has stated that the door was opened after a while on the request of the CBI officials and thereafter, he entered the house of A-1 along with PW-64 Gajender Singh and other CBI officials. He gave an account of the cash found in the bag mentioning that an approximate sum of Rs.5 lakhs was found therein. He also stated CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 130 of 165 :: 131 ::
about the conduct of the wife of A-1 mentioning that she locked herself in the bathroom of the house from where a sum of Rs.7 lakhs was recovered subsequently. He mentioned about the proceedings at the house of A-1 and stated that various documents were prepared at the spot. He stated that the bag containing the currency notes was sealed in his presence and the parcel was signed by him as well as by PW-64 Gajender Singh and the investigating officer (PW-65). He identified his signatures on the memo (Ex.PW4/A). He disclosed that a site plan (Ex.PW4/B) was prepared at the spot and his signatures were obtained thereon.
89. PW-4 also identified his signatures on the personal search memo of Bhanwar Singh (Ex.PW4/C) and the recovery memo (Ex.PW4/B) of the paper sheet purportedly written by Bhanwar Singh. He mentioned about his subsequent participation in the investigation and deposed that the voice samples of A-1 and Bhanwar Singh were obtained in his presence. He stated in cross-
examination that he does not recollect if PW-64 Gajender Singh met him at his office or at the entry point of CBI office. He stated that he signed the entry register at the reception of the office of CBI. He mentioned that he did not sign any register at the office of CBI at the time of his subsequent visit when the voice samples of the accused persons were obtained. He stated that CBI officials did CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 131 of 165 :: 132 ::
not carry out personal search of the team members before leaving for the spot. He stated that he does not recollect the colour of the scooty of Bhanwar Singh.
90. PW-4 was asked questions about the topography of the spot and the house of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma but he failed to explain the same. He mentioned that he does not remember whether the house of A-1 was a single storied or a multiple storied building. He stated that he cannot tell how many rooms were there in the house of A-1. He mentioned that he cannot admit or deny if the house no. 74 was in front of the house of A-1. He conveyed that the personal search of Bhanwar Singh was not carried out in his presence. He explained that he remained at the house of A-1 till 09:00 PM. He change his earlier version by stating in cross-
examination that Bhanwar Singh was already present at the spot when the CBI team arrived over there and at time Bhanwar Singh was handing over a bag to A-1. Thus, it can be seen that although, the witness has supported the prosecution's story but his testimony contains various material contradictions. He stated in examination-in-chief that after arriving at the spot, the CBI team waited for about 15-20 minutes and thereafter, Bhanwar Singh arrived at the house of A-1 whereas, he mentioned in cross- examination that Bhanwar Singh was already present at the spot CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 132 of 165 :: 133 ::
and he was handing over a bag to A-1 when the CBI team arrived over there. He had no idea about the topography of the place and the house of A-1. He also failed to mention the colour of the scooty.
91. It is noted that as per the version of PW-4, he saw Bhanwar Singh talking to somebody on his phone and writing a number on a paper sheet. It is not understandable as to how the witness could make out that Bhanwar Singh noted down a number on a paper sheet. It is the stand of the witness that he was standing discreetly at a distance from the spot. In these circumstances, his version that he saw Bhanwar Singh noting down a number on a paper sheet becomes doubtful. It can also be seen that the witness has deposed that the investigating officer told him about the identity of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma as soon as he came out of his house. He has deposed that the investigating officer also told him that the person who came on the scooty was Bhanwar Singh. There is nothing on record to show as to how the investigating officer came to know about the identity of these individuals. Prosecution has presented a version that a source, whose identity has not been disclosed, was present at the spot and he identified these individuals but the independent spot witnesses have not supported this version. None of the independent witnesses has deposed about CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 133 of 165 :: 134 ::
the presence of the alleged source. The only logical conclusion is that the identities of these persons were already known to the investigating officer but this fact has been concealed. I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-4 Lakhan Raj contains contradictions and it cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
92. Now, let us peruse the testimony of second independent witness. Record shows that PW-64 Gajender Singh has narrated an altogether different version of the incident. He stated that he went to the office of CBI along with Lakhan Raj on 22.10.2014. He deposed about meeting PW-65 Suresh Kumar and mentioned about joining the trap team. He stated that the trap team reached at a spot at Kaka Nagar and after some time, a person arrived there on a scooty and he was apprehended by the team members. He stated that CBI officials recovered a bag from the said person and handed over the same to Lakhan Raj. He stated that the bag was found to be containing cash amount of around Rs.5 lakhs. The version of this witness is in sharp contrast with the chain of events narrated by Lakhan Raj (PW-4). The witnesses has stated that the CBI team took the bag from Bhanwar Singh and handed it over to Lakhan Raj. He has not stated that the bag was received by or recovered from A-1. The witness has further conveyed that after the bag was CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 134 of 165 :: 135 ::
handed over to Lakhan Raj, the trap team entered the house of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma but could not succeed as he had closed the door from inside. He stated that the door was opened after some time and thereafter, he entered the house along with the other members of the trap team. He stated that the wife, children and servant of A-1 were found present in the house. This version of the witness totally contradicts the prosecution's story that A-1 was apprehended outside his house and his wife did not allow the CBI officials to enter the house by locking the door from inside.
93. PW-64 Gajender Singh has further stated that a site plan was prepared by PW-65 Suresh Kumar and the same was signed by him as well as Lakhan Raj. He stated in cross-examination that he does not remember the colour of the scooty on which Bhanwar Singh arrived at the spot. He mentioned in cross-examination that all the documents were prepared by the investigating officer at the office of CBI and his signatures were obtained thereon. He stated that he did not read the documents before signing them but the same were read by Lakhan Raj. He mentioned that the investigating officer directed Bhanwar Singh to make a call from his mobile. He conveyed that Bhanwar Singh made the call but he cannot tell as to whom the said call was made. On the request of prosecution, this witness was declared hostile and he was cross-CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 135 of 165 :: 136 ::
examined by the prosecution but nothing much came during his cross-examination which may support the prosecution's case. He admitted in cross-examination that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma came outside his house but did not state that Bhanwar Singh handed over the bag containing the cash amount to him. His testimony is of no consequence for establishing that A-1 accepted the bribe amount. Rather, the chain of events narrated by this witness runs contrary to the prosecution's case and creates doubt over the veracity of the other spot witnesses.
94. In order to corroborate the testimony of PW-4 Lakhan Raj, prosecution has also relied on the testimony of PW-65 Suresh Kumar (investigating officer) but his testimony is not reliable.
Record shows that this witness was instrumental in the registration of FIR and he was also leading the trap team. The entire investigation has also been done by him only. PW-3 Suraj Majumdar has deposed that the witness heard the intercepted calls before the registration of FIR but he has denied this aspect. PW-65 has mentioned that he heard the intercepted calls only after the registration of FIR. He has stated that the intercepted calls were heard by him only during the course of investigation. He prepared a vague site plan (Ex.PW4/B) wherein neither the position of the trap team members nor the positions of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 136 of 165 :: 137 ::
and Bhanwar Singh was disclosed. The witness failed to mention the position of these individuals even after going through the site plan. The topography of the area was also not reflected in the site plan. It is also seen that the witness has tried to cover up the aspect that Bhanwar Singh remained in the custody of CBI from the morning of 22.10.2014 till the morning of 23.10.2014. Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) has deposed that he remained in custody of the CBI from the morning of 22.10.2014 till the morning of 23.10.2014. He has categorically mentioned that he was allowed to leave the CBI office only in the morning of 23.10.2014 with directions to come again as and when required. He has stated that he accompanied the CBI team from the spot to the office of CBI. PW-33 Ajeet Kumar Pandey has also stated that Bhanwar Singh accompanied the CBI team to the office of CBI. On the other hand, PW-65 has deposed that Bhanwar Singh was allowed to leave the spot and he reached the office of CBI on his own. He has mentioned that Bhanwar Singh came to the office of CBI on his own and not in the vehicle of CBI. There are various other material contradictions in the testimony of this witness. Record shows that although, two other officials from CBI arrived at the spot but none of them was joined in the investigation. I am of the considered opinion that PW-65 was a witness, who was interested in the success of the trap and no reliance can be placed on his testimony to corroborate the version CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 137 of 165 :: 138 ::
of other witnesses. On the same ground the testimony of PW-33 also does not serve the purpose of corroboration. It would be unsafe to rely upon the testimonies of these officials.
95. Now, let us perused the testimony of PW-7 Bhanwar Singh. He has mentioned that he collected the amount of Rs.5 lakhs from the office of his company and handed over the same to A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma at his residence in Kaka Nagar. He stated that he was working in the Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. for the last 10-12 years and Parasmal Jain was the Managing Director of the company. He disclosed that his duty was to bring vegetables and do miscellaneous work of the workers of the company. He mentioned that on 22.10.2014, he was directed by his manager Vimal Kumar Jain (PW-21) to take a sum of Rs.5 lakhs at the address provided by him through SMS. He disclosed that the address was of Kaka Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that Vimal Kumar Jain handed him over the cash amount in the morning and he reached at Kaka Nagar at about 09:15 AM. He mentioned that after reaching the spot, he called Vimal Kumar Jain on his mobile number and obtained the name and phone number of the person to whom the cash amount was to be handed over. He deposed that he noted down the name and phone number on a piece of paper. He has mentioned that a female picked up the call and he told her that CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 138 of 165 :: 139 ::
he had brought payment from the company and in response thereof, the said female told him, "Sahab bathroom mein hain aate hain to call karati hun". He has stated that after few minutes, he received a call from the same number and this time, there was a male voice on the other side, who questioned him about the reason of his visit.
96. PW-7 Bhanwar Singh has mentioned that he told the said person that he had brought the payment from the company which is '5 kg' and after hearing this, the person told him that he would come out himself. He has stated that thereafter, A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma came out and he handed him over the bag containing the cash amount after taking it out from dickey of the scooty. He stated that thereafter, he called Parasmal Jain (PW-8) on his mobile phone and gave him confirmation about the payment. He mentioned that CBI officials apprehended him while he was going towards the scooty. He stated that he was taken inside the house of A-1 where some documents were prepared by the CBI. He deposed that he signed certain documents at the spot. He identified his signatures on the personal search memo (Ex.PW4/C). He deposed that the cash amount was taken back from A-1 and it was sealed in a pullanda. He identified his handwriting on the paper slip (Ex.PW4/B). He stated that after these proceedings, he was CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 139 of 165 :: 140 ::
taken to CBI office where he was made to sit till the next morning.
97. PW-7 deposed that he was taken to the house of Parasmal Jain on the next day and thereafter, the CBI officials allowed him to leave with directions to attend the office as and when required.
He somehow changed his version during cross-examination stating that no conversation took place between him and Vimal Kumar Jain on 22.10.2014 or prior to that in connection with the delivery of money. This version was in contrast to the deposition made by him in the examination-in-chief that he was directed by Vimal Kumar Jain on 22.10.2014 to deliver cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs at Kaka Nagar. He stated in cross-examination that no documents were prepared outside the house and the site plan was also not prepared in his presence. He claimed that he was working in the Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. for the last 10-12 years and was getting his salary through cheque. He mentioned that he never signed any attendance register of the company. He failed to explain the topography of the area and the building where the house of A-1 was located. He mentioned that he remained in custody of the CBI from the morning of 22.10.2014 till the morning of 23.10.2014. He admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI on 25.10.2014.
98. On appreciating the testimony of PW-7, it can be seen that CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 140 of 165 :: 141 ::
his testimony contains discrepancies and contradictions. He has stated that the first call on the mobile number of A-1 was picked by his wife and after a while A-1 returned the call and questioned him about the reason of his visit. It is the case of protection that A-1 knew well in advance that someone would be delivering him a sum of Rs 5 lakhs in the morning. In case, he knew the said fact then what was the reason to question Bhanwar Singh about the purpose of his visit. It is the prosecution's case that after handing over the money to A-1, the witness connected a call to Parasmal Jain (PW-8) and made A-1 talk to him over the said call but the witness has not stated so. It is the case of prosecution that after reaching the spot, Bhanwar Singh called A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma on the mobile phone number 9560561430 and the conversation took place over the said mobile number. In fact, most of the relevant intercepted calls are stated to have been made on this number only. It is an admitted position that the said mobile number was not recovered from A-1. Although, the CBI officials entered the house of A-1 and carried out an exhaustive search but the mobile phone was not recovered from his house. It is noted that CBI has built its case on the allegations that PW-20 Akash Lalwani obtained this connection and handed over the same to A-1. It was claimed that Akash Lalwani was acquainted with A-1 and in view thereof, he obtained the said connection and handed over the same to A-1.CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 141 of 165 :: 142 ::
PW-20 Akash Lalwani stepped into the witness box but did not support this version. He denied having any connection with A-1 and stated that he never handed over the said mobile connection to him. He admitted that the connection was issued in his name but claimed that the SIM card was misplaced. The CAF (Ex.PW12/C) of the said mobile number was collected and placed on record wherein it was mentioned that the mobile number was issued in the name of Akash Lalwani. However, this fact does not, in itself, establish that the mobile connection bearing no. 9560561430 was being used by A-1.
99. It is noted that the prosecution has presented a version that Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) noted down the mobile number of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma on a paper, which was subsequently recovered from his possession but the pen from which the number was noted down was not recovered during his personal search. It has been stated that Bhanwar Singh was apprehended by CBI as soon as he started walking towards the scooty and thereafter, his personal search was carried out by CBI officials. Investigating officer (PW-65) has mentioned that Bhanwar Singh did not throw any article after he was apprehended by the CBI officials. In such circumstances, there is no explanation as to why the pen which was used by him for noting down the mobile number was not CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 142 of 165 :: 143 ::
recovered from his possession. It is observed that prosecution has also tried to cover up the fact that Bhanwar Singh was placed under arrest after he was apprehended by the police. The personal search memo of Bhanwar Singh demonstrates that he was arrested by the CBI officials, although, no arrest memo was prepared. Bhanwar Singh has deposed that CBI officials took him from the spot to the office of CBI, where he was kept detained till the morning of the next day. He has mentioned that he remained in custody of CBI till the morning of 23.10.2014. This circumstance creates doubt over the prosecution's version that Bhanwar Singh voluntarily joined the investigation and disclosed the facts to the CBI officials. It may be noted that although, Bhanwar Singh was apprehended on 22.10.2014 but his statement was recorded by CBI on 25.10.2014. No explanation has come forward for this delay.
100. Record shows that Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) is an individual, who as per the case of prosecution was instrumental in delivering the bribe money but became a prosecution witness subsequently. There is evidence on record to show that this witness was arrested by the CBI but no arrest memo was prepared. The investigating officer projected a story that the witness was let off from the spot and thereafter, he independently joined the investigation at the office of CBI whereas, the record shows that CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 143 of 165 :: 144 ::
the witness was in custody from the morning of 22.10.2014 till the morning of 23.10.2014. The testimony of such a witness cannot be relied on as these was a strong possibility of tutoring the witness.
101. The prosecution has also relied on the CDR and the cell ID locations of the mobile number 9560561430 to bring home the point that the mobile number was being used by A-1. It has been argued by the prosecution that the CDRs of the mobile number of Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) and that of mobile number 9560561430 show that the calls were exchanged between these numbers in or around the period of trap. Prosecution has also argued that the cell ID location also substantiates the fact that the mobile number was being used in or around the area where the house of A-1 was located. I do not find force in these submissions. It is noted that cell ID tower location chart is not accompanied with the requisite certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act furnished along with the CDRs does not qualify the conditions prescribed under the said section as the same has not been issued by the person who was controlling and managing the servers on which the record was kept. The nodal officers examined by the prosecution in respect of these CDRs have admitted that the servers wherein the data was stored were kept at a different CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 144 of 165 :: 145 ::
locations.
101. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rahil & Anr. Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 1856/2014 decided on 25.06.2025 that the cell tower can only tell the approximate location of a mobile connection and the exact location can be obtained only by cell triangulation. In this matter, the Apex court made the following observations;
"37. Even if the CDRs and other electronic records were admitted in evidence they merely contain the cell tower location information, that is to say, which tower mobile phone was connected to and how long the calls lasted when it was connected to that tower. These data give an approximate area corresponding to the operational area of the cell tower and not the exact site where the phone is located.
38. In the present case, the CDRs show Rahil's phone was connected to the cell tower at Nizamuddin (Ex. PW/23 C). Cell towers can reach approximately a half mile to two miles in city location evidence is led regarding the range of the said tower. It needs to be borne in mind that cell tower ranges widely vary and are dependent on a number of variables such as:-
a) how high the antenna is over the surrounding landscape;
b) frequency of the signal in use;
c) rated power of the transmitter;
d) directional characteristic of the antenna array on CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 145 of 165 :: 146 ::
the site;
e) nearby buildings and vegetation absorbing and reflecting radio energy;
f) local geographical or regulatory factors and weather conditions."
103. It was observed in the above stated matter that only the method of cell triangulation, which identifies at least three towers to which the cell phone is connected at a particular time, can determine the location of the phone by over lapping the ranges of these towers. In view thereof, the cell ID location chart cannot be taken as a conclusive evidence that the mobile number 9560561430 was being used by A-1. It would merely show that the mobile number 9560561430 was in the operational range of a tower disclosed in the cell ID chart. It would be unsafe to rely upon this piece of evidence to conclude that A-1 was using the said mobile connection, more particularly, when the same was not recovered from his possession. Record shows that even though the search was carried out soon after the alleged calls but the said mobile phone was not recovered from the house of A-1.
104. In order to establish the link, the prosecution has also placed reliance on an SMS extracted from the mobile phone of Bhanwar Singh. It has been stated that the mobile phone of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 146 of 165 :: 147 ::
Bhanwar Singh was seized and the same was sent to the CFSL for extraction of the SMSs. The extraction report is on record and the same is Ex.PW50/J. The prosecution has submitted that an SMS containing the name and the address of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was recovered from the mobile phone of Bhanwar Singh. The copy of the extracted SMS dated 21.10.2014 is on record. I have pressed the same. It can be seen that the date of the SMS does not match with the testimony of Bhanwar Singh as he has stated that he was contacted by Vimal Kumar Jain to deliver the cash amount on 22.10.2014. It is the case of prosecution that the said SMS originated from A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, who forwarded it to Parasmal Jain (PW-8) and thereafter, Parasmal Jain forwarded it to Vimal Kumar Jain (PW-21), who in turn forwarded it to Bhanwar Singh (PW-7). In order to establish the chain, the prosecution was under an obligation to establish that the said SMS originated from A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani.
105. It has been held in the matter of Abdul Rahaman Kunji Vs State of West Bengal (2014) SCC OnLine Cal 18816 that although under Section 88A of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic made server, corresponds with the message as fed in the computer but no presumption can be raised CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 147 of 165 :: 148 ::
about the person who sent the message. Thus, this presumption cannot be used in respect of the originator of the message. In the said matter, the court made the following observations:-
"Under Section 88A of the Evidence Act the Court may presume that an electronic message, forwarded by the originator through an electronic mail server to the addressee to whom the message purports to be addressed corresponds with the message as fed in the computer for transmission. However, the Court cannot draw any presumption about the person who sent the message. The term 'originator' has been defined in the Information and Technology Act, 2000 under Section 2(za) as a person who sends, generates, stores or transmits any electronic message; or causes any electronic message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any other person but does not include an intermediary. Thus on analysing Section 88A of the Evidence Act and the relevant provisions of the Information and Technology Act, it is apparent that the Court may presume the veracity of the message fed into the computer for transmission by the originator through his mail server to an addressee, that is, the person who is intended by the originator to receive the electronic record and does not include any intermediary. However, this is a rebuttable presumption. Besides, no presumption can be drawn about the person who has sent such a message. Therefore, even if we accept the fact that these e- mails have been downloaded as stated by the Webel expert or sent by using the e-mail address of Akib Ali, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that Akib Ali was in fact the originator of these e- mails."
106. Record shows that neither the mobile phone of Parasmal CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 148 of 165 :: 149 ::
Jain nor the mobile phone of Vimal Kumar was seized by the investigating agency. PW-65 Suresh Kumar has stated in his cross- examination that the mobile phones of these individuals were not seized during the investigation. Further, even though the mobile phone of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani was seized by the investigating agency but no effort was made for extraction of the said message from his mobile phone. In view thereof, the fact that the SMS originated from A-2 has not been established. No presumption can be raised that the alleged SMS originated from the mobile phone of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani. Thus, this necessary link is missing.
107. Now, let us analyse the testimonies of other witnesses. PW-8 Parasmal Jain has deposed that he received a telephone call of A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani on 21.10.2014, who directed him to deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to a person in New Delhi. He deposed that A-2 assured him that he would pay an equivalent amount to his brother Jayantilal Jain (PW-29) in Mumbai. He mentioned that thereafter, he received a call from his brother that the amount has been received by him from A-2. He has deposed that thereafter, he directed Vimal Kumar Jain (PW-21) to check the availability of cash amount of Rs.5 lakhs in the company. He mentioned that he instructed Vimal Kumar Jain to send the amount CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 149 of 165 :: 150 ::
to the address mentioned by him in a forwarded SMS. He clarified that the said SMS was received by him from A-2. He admitted that no direct instructions were given by him to Bhanwar Singh for delivering the payment and no conversation took place between them in that regard. He stated that he received a call of Bhanwar Singh on 22.10.2014 at around 09:00 AM over which he disclosed that he had handed over the amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the concerned person. He mentioned that the concerned person talked to him over the said call and disclosed his name as Ravi Mohan Sharma. He stated that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was not known to him and he had no prior dealing with him. He stated that he never met A-2 but he had spoken to him over the phone. The intercepted calls containing his conversation with A-2 were played in the presence of the witness and he identified his voice as well as the voice of A-2 in the said conversation. He admitted that the attendance register and wage payment register were handed over to the CBI. He admitted that he was not in a position to identify the voice of A-1 as he had never met him and also admitted that he identified the voice of A-2 only on the guess work as he was not talking to him on regular basis. PW-29 Jayantilal Jain has supported the version of his brother (PW-8) that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was received by him from A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani but the person who handed over the said amount has not been examined.CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 150 of 165 :: 151 ::
He stated that A-2 got the amount delivered at his residence and thereafter, he informed his brother that amount has been received. It is an admitted case that none of these witnesses was present at the spot at the time of alleged acceptance of the bribe amount. Their testimonies, at best, can be used only as a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but there are various missing links in the said chain. Record shows that the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and there is no impeccable evidence to prove all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
108. It can be seen that the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the criminal conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused persons. It has been alleged that the various offences were committed by the accused persons in furtherance of the common object of the said conspiracy. It is a settled law that conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct offence for which individual offenders are liable to be punished independent of the conspiracy. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to prove the conspiracy and it is an inference which the prosecution insists on drawing on the basis of the alleged acts committed by the accused persons and as well as CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 151 of 165 :: 152 ::
their omissions and the outcome of these acts and omissions.
109. The ingredients of criminal conspiracy and the manner in which the same is required to be established was elaborated by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. P. Sugathan & Anr. 2000 (8) SCC 203 wherein it was observed that an agreement forms the core of a conspiracy and the conspiracy must surface in the evidence through criminal manifestation. It was observed that just like in all other criminal cases, even for the purpose of establishing a conspiracy, the prosecution has to discharge its onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that a few bits of evidence here and there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy. It was pointed out that the most important ingredient of the offence is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. It was held that in a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not held them to be conspirators but the later does. It was emphasised that for the offence of conspiracy, some sort of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established, although, the express CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 152 of 165 :: 153 ::
agreements need not be proved. However, it was pointed out that merely the evidence of transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act would not be sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy.
110. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, it was held as under:
"101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
(emphasis supplied)
111. In the matter of Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156, the Supreme Court of India cautioned that the courts should remain cautious while appreciating the circumstantial evidence to ascertain the existence of criminal conspiracy. It was observed as under :
"45. The principle for basing a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is well settled that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 153 of 165 :: 154 ::
and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. [Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 27)]"
(emphasis supplied)
112. Since, the conspirators are tried jointly, therefore, in cases of joint trial, there must be cogent and convincing evidence against each of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy as it is difficult in tracing the precise contribution of each member. For the purposes of considering the conduct of the accused so as to deduce about his complicity with the other conspirators, a "rule of caution" has been laid down. In a joint trial care must be taken to CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 154 of 165 :: 155 ::
separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against others. These words of caution were delivered in the matter of State Vs. Nalini 1999 (5) SCC 253 wherein it was observed:
"There is a need to guard against prejudice being caused to the accused on account of the joint trial with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed that "there is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy".
113. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be concluded that the condition precedent for holding the accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must be considered on the anvil of the facts i.e., meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means and the said facts must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish the entire chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the angle of conspiracy. The manner and circumstances in which the offence has been committed and the role played by each of the accused is also relevant to arrive at a finding about criminal conspiracy.
CC No. 264/19CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 155 of 165 :: 156 ::
114. Coming back to the present matter, there are various missing links in the story of the prosecution. The starting point of the conspiracy was the alleged conversations having taken place on the intercepted calls. It was alleged that offers and counter offers were made over these intercepted calls and the accused persons arrived at an agreement that A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma would facilitated the allotment of coaches to the other accused persons in lieu of illegal gratification of Rs.5 lakhs. The conversations over these intercepted calls have not been proved and they do not serve the purpose of establishing the angle of criminal conspiracy. There is no evidence to identify the voice of A-1 in the intercepted calls. The chain of custody of the electronic evidence was snapped at various stages. Reasonable precautions were taken to taken to preserve the sanity of the data contained in the CDs. Thus, the intercepted calls needs to be discarded. Since, this important link goes missing, therefore, the chain of circumstances is snapped and the other circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses do not establish that A-1 raised demand of the illegal gratification from the other accused persons. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contain contradictions and the same are not reliable. The memorandums stated to have been prepared at various stages of CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 156 of 165 :: 157 ::
investigation contain interpolations and corrections, which have not been explained. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the angle of conspiracy have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are missing links in the chain of the circumstances. The electronic evidence does not serve the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as the same has not been proved in the manner prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act. The certificates accompanied with the electronic evidence do not fulfil the criteria laid down under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The requisite sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. qua A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma was not obtained. In view thereof, the obvious conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the criminal conspiracy.
115. Further, there is material on record to demonstrate that the investigating agency padded the investigation to provide legs to its case. The investigating agency presented a version that Bhanwar Singh was signing the attendance register and the wage payment register maintained at the office of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The attendance register (Muster Roll) is Mark PW24/X while the wage payment register is Mark PW24/Y. PW-24 Rupesh Kumar, Accountant of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., has deposed that he CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 157 of 165 :: 158 ::
handed over these registers to the investigating officer. It can be seen from the wage payment register that the signatures of Bhanwar Singh appears at entry no. 31 (Page-67 of the register) of the wage payment for the month of October, 2014 only. Similarly, his name appears at page no. 37 (at entry no. 31) of the attendance register in the month of October, 2014 and at entry no. 25 in the month of November, 2014 but is missing in the previous months. Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) has categorically deposed that he never signed the attendance register of the company, whereas, the prosecution has presented a version that he was signing the attendance register. It appears that the entries in the said register were created only to support the prosecution's stand that he was an employee of Ballar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Record shows that Bhanwar Singh has deposed that he used to get his salary through cheque, whereas, his signatures in the wage payment register suggests that the amount was paid to him in cash. In the wage payment register, there is an endorsement 'cheque paid' against the employees to whom the salary was paid through cheque but the said endorsement is missing against the entry no. 31. These circumstances create doubt not only over the authenticity and reliability of entries of these registers but also over the veracity of Bhanwar Singh as apparently, he subsequently signed against these fabricated entries either at the instance of his employer or at CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 158 of 165 :: 159 ::
the instance of the investigating agency. There are also noticeable discrepancies in the ledger and vouchers of the company. It appears that all these documents were created subsequently for padding the investigation. The fact that these documents were seized after a considerable time gap also suggests that the entries were created later on.
116. There are serious infirmities in the investigation. It is settled proposition that minor infirmities do not affect the prosecution's case but in the present matter, there are glaring infirmities and lapses which put serious question mark on the prosecution's case. The site plan (Ex.PW4/B) prepared by the investigating officer does not inspire confidence. It can be seen that the site plan is absolutely vague and it does not specify the location of the members of the trap team. Two points, 'point A' and 'point B' have been denoted in the site plan but the significance of these points has not been clarified. It is not possible to decipher from the site plan as to what is meant by these points. PW-65 Suresh Kumar (investigating officer) was given an opportunity to clarify the description given by him in the site plan but he failed to do so. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned the positions of team members in the site plan. He also admitted that the site plan does not specify the position of A-1 Ravi Mohan CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 159 of 165 :: 160 ::
Sharma and Bhanwar Singh (PW-7). He could not specify the positions of these persons even after going through the site plan. He admitted that no site plan of the house of A-1 was prepared.
117. It has come on record that the investigating officer heard the intercepted calls at the Special Unit of CBI at Jamnagar House but PW-65 Suresh Kumar denied this aspect and he is the only person who carried out the entire investigation. The verification, registration of FIR, laying down of trap and the investigation has been done by the same CBI official. The official who registered the FIR has not been examined. No effort was made to hand over the investigation to some other officer even though, there is evidence to demonstrate that two CBI officials arrived at the spot after the conclusion of the trap proceedings. The two sets of CDs were prepared and one of the CDs was handed over by PW-3 Suraj Majumdar to PW-47 G.M. Ansari in unsealed condition. No evidence has come on record to show as to when the said unsealed CD was handed over by PW-47 to the investigating officer. The custody of this CD has not been explained. Record shows that the transcripts were prepared on the basis of the unsealed CDs. The investigating officer was clueless about the custody of the said CD and he had no idea as to how and by whom the transcripts were prepared. Even though, Bhanwar Singh (PW-7) was arrested and CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 160 of 165 :: 161 ::
his arrest was reflected in the personal search memo but no arrest memo was prepared. The person who collected the CD from the malkhana and deposited the same at CFSL was not examined. No effort was made for carrying out the comparison of the hash values of the CDs. It was not clarified whether the unsealed CD (IO copy) was the copy of the CD which was sent at the CFSL or it was prepared directly from the system. The entries from the malkhana and the dispatch register were not placed on record. All these infirmities raise serious doubt over the prosecution's version and the reliability of the evidence. The benefit of which has to be given to the accused persons.
118. It is also noticed that it has not been established that there was any irregularity in the allotment of coaches. The procedure for the allotment of coaches was explained by PW-38 Prakash Kanhal, Supervisor, South-Central Zone, Sikandarabad and PW-52 S.K. Pandey, Chief Trains Clerk. PW-38 has mentioned that the regular procedure for booking of FTR coaches was that an application was required to be first made to IRCTC who would forward it to the Zonal Railways, which in turn used to manage the booking. The witness has deposed that there was no involvement of Railway Board unless the Zonal Railways referred the application to the Railway Board. He stated in cross-examination that all the CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 161 of 165 :: 162 ::
guidelines issued by the Railway Board were duly followed. PW-52 Sanjay Kumar Pandey narrated almost the same procedure and mentioned that the proposal used to be placed before the senior officials for seeking their approval. He stated that as per the procedure, the Railway Board may seek clarifications from Chief Passenger Traffic Manager regarding FTR movement. I have perused the testimonies of other Railway officials. Their testimonies do not establish that there was any irregularity in the allotment of railway coaches.
CONCLUSION
119. In a criminal trial, prosecution is under an obligation to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts and it must do so by leading reliable and cogent evidence. The prosecution must tender an explanation for each circumstance to rule out the possibility of any hypothesis that may point towards the innocence of the accused. On the other hand, accused is only required to present a defence which is probable or believable. He can do so either by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses or by leading independent evidence. In the present matter, prosecution has failed to place on record reliable evidence to conclude that A-1 demanded the bribe. The conversations in the intercepted calls have not been proved. It has not been established that these CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 162 of 165 :: 163 ::
conversations contained the voice of A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma. The entire case of the prosecution, in so far as the demand of the bribe is concerned, was based on the conversations contained in the intercepted calls. The allegations against A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah was that he bargained the deal for fixing the illegal gratification at Rs.5 lakhs in one of the intercepted calls. No evidence has come on record to establish these allegations. The intercepted calls do not serve the purpose of establishing the demand or acceptance of the illegal gratification as the same are not reliable. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are also not reliable. There is no evidence to establish that A-1 demanded the illegal gratification during the trap proceedings. None of the prosecution witnesses has stated that such a demand was raised by him on 22.10.2014 during the trap proceedings. The prosecution witnesses have only deposed on the aspect of acceptance but their testimonies are not reliable even on the said aspect as it contains various contradictions and missing links.
120. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy. The sanction under Section 197 of Cr. P.C. was required for prosecution of A-1 under Section 120B of IPC but the same was not obtained. The evidence presented by the prosecution is in bits and pieces. It does not CC No. 264/19 CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 163 of 165 :: 164 ::
establish the complete chain of circumstantial evidence. There are serious infirmities in investigation and loop holes in the prosecution's case. The sanctity of the case property was not preserved. The CD, which formed the basis of the investigation and on which the transcripts were prepared, kept lying with the investigating agency in unsealed condition. The person who prepared the transcripts was not examined. The chain of custody of the seized parcels was broken on various occasions. Interpolations and alterations were found in the memos and the same were not explained. The testimonies of the Railways officials demonstrate that there was no irregularity in the allotment of coaches. Since, the foundational facts have not been proved, therefore, the question of raising the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act does not arise. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused deserves the benefit of doubt. The result is obvious. All the accused persons stand acquitted of the charges under Section 120B of IPC read with Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of PC Act; A-1 Ravi Mohan Sharma stand acquitted of the charge under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act; and A-2 Rajesh Champak Lal Jodhani, A-3 Kumar Vadilal Shah and A-4 M/s Rail Tour (India) LLP also stand acquitted of charge under Section 12 of PC Act.CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 164 of 165 :: 165 ::
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SUDHANSHU SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK Announced in the open court KAUSHIK Date: on this 27th day of September, 2025 2025.09.27 15:30:37 +0530 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Special Judge (PC Act)/ CBI-11 Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi 27.09.2025
Note: 'D' denotes Document Number as mentioned in the list of documents filed along with the charge-sheet.CC No. 264/19
CBI Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma Ors. Page No. 165 of 165