Delhi District Court
State vs . Kaushal on 10 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 17/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0263522011
STATE VS. KAUSHAL
W/o Sh. Sunil Kumar
R/o G9, Police Station,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
FIR NO. : 02/2010
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 04.06.2011
Judgment reserved on 06.10.2012
Judgment delivered on 10.10.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 11.01.2010 complainant Sh.Ankur Chaurasia S/o Trilokinath Chaurasia went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW8/A regarding demand of part bribe amount of Rs. C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 1 of 26 3,000/ out of total bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ by the accused Kaushal who was working as W/ASI in Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell, Central District for not registering the case as against parents of the complainant on the complaint of Neha W/o complainant Ankur Chaurasia.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant Ankur Chaurasia was married to Neha on 27.2.2009 but after about 4 months of marriage, the wife of the complainant left matrimonial house and thereafter, came once again for 2 days and went back to her parental house and lodged complaint at CAW Cell, Kamla Market. Said complaint was being handled by accused ASI Kaushal at CAW Cell. Though the complainant was ready to take back his wife to the matrimonial house but she declined. The accused stated to the complainant that she would have to register case as against the complainant and his parents and initially demanded Rs.20,000/ for not registering the case as against the parents of the complainant, which was scaled down to Rs. 10,000/ out of which the accused had asked him to pay part amount of Rs.3000/ on that day. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the then Inspector Nand C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 2 of 26 Kumar, Raid Officer PW12 in presence of Panch witness Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, PW9.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 6 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each before the Raid Officer PW12 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the pre raid proceedings Ex.PW8/C and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW12 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency notes and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC notes were handed over to the complainant and Panch witness was instructed to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the person demanding the bribe amount and to give signal by moving his left hand over his head twice after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. That at about 4:30 p.m., PW12 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, Inspector Ranbir Singh and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in two C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 3 of 26 vehicles and reached PS Kamla Market. Vehicles were parked towards Ajmeri Gate Side and Inspector Ranbir Singh alongwith the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness went towards Room No.114, (Office of IOs' CAW Cell) and the members of the Raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that complainant and Panch witness came out from said Room No.114 and started waiting outside. At about 5:20 p.m. the accused had come out from said Room. Panch witness and complainant started following her and Raiding Team also followed them. Thereafter, the accused reached at the gate and started talking with the complainant and in the meanwhile, Panch witness passed the predetermined signal on which Raid Officer alongwith the raiding team reached the spot where Panch witness informed that the accused had accepted bribe of Rs.3000/ from the complainant. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged the accused Kaushal that she had accepted the bribe of Rs.3000/ from the complainant and offered his search but accused declined. On his directions, said bribe amount of Rs.3000/ was taken from the accused by W/SI Kaushal Pandey and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 4 of 26 pre raid proceedings Ex.PW8/C and the same tallied. The recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. The wash of right hand of the accused was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of NK and were marked as RHWI & RHWII by pasting slips thereon. Those bottles and sample seal were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW4/B. The Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW8/D and prepared rukka Ex.PW12/A and sent the same through Ct. Arun Mathur to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called Inspector Ranbir Singh PW13, IO at the spot and handed over him the custody of the accused, case property and relevant documents etc. for purpose of Investigation. I.O. took up the Investigation, prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW13/A. IO recorded the statement of complainant and Panch witness, interrogated the accused and arrested the accused vide Memo Ex.PW4/C and conducted the personal search of the accused vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW4/D. IO received original rukka and copy of FIR, got accused medically examined and C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 5 of 26 thereafter, went to PS Civil Line where he deposited the case property, exhibits and articles of personal search with the MHC(M) and the accused was put in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, IO received relevant documents Ex.PW3/A1 to A7 from the File of CAW Cell. IO also obtained Biodata of accused Ex.PW7/A, copies of four papers from Complaint Register of CAW Cell, PS Kamla Market which are Ex.PW11/B1 to 4, copy of Duty Roaster of Panch witness Mark PW13/A, FSL Result Ex.PW13/B, Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against accused on 18.08.2011 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 13 prosecution witnesses namely Sh.Dheeraj Kumar, the then Addl. DCP, HQ, PCR, Delhi, Sanctioning C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 6 of 26 Authority against accused as PW1, SI Anand Swaroop, the then Duty Officer of PS AC Branch, a formal witness as PW2, Inspector Babu Lal, who was conducting the Investigation relating to the Dowry Harassment case filed by the wife of the complainant, a formal witness as PW3, W/SI Kaushal Pandey as PW4, HC Jai Prakash, the then MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, a formal witness as PW5, Ct.Anand Prakash, a formal witness as PW6, HC Dinesh Kumar Sharma, a formal witness as PW7, Ankur Chaurasia, Complainant as PW8, Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness as PW9, Surender Kumar Arora, a formal witness as PW10, SI Chinta Ram, a formal witness as PW11, Inspector Nand Kumar, Raid Officer as PW12 and Inspector Ranbir Singh,IO as PW13.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence. She has also added that on the similar allegation Departmental Enquiry was conducted against her in which she was exonerated from the charge. The accused has got examined SI Puran Singh as DW1, HC Sher Pal Singh as DW2 and Ct.Bali Ram as DW3. C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 7 of 26
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. Sandeep Sharma Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Kaushal is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Ankur Chaurasia. It is further added by him that PW8/complainant has not deposed anything as against this accused regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant. It is further added by him that PW8/complainant has not even supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by him that PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness has also not deposed anything regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the complainant. It is further added by him that the said PW9/Panch witness has clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding the demand and acceptance aspect of the bribe by the accused. It is further added by him that as per Biodata of the accused, it is the DCP who is the Appointing Authority concerning the accused but in the present case Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused has been granted by PW1/Dheeraj Kumar, the C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 8 of 26 then Addl. DCP, HQ, PCR, Delhi and as he was not competent for granting Sanction so said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A is legally invalid and the accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground itself. It is further added by him that from the deposition of PW8/complainant and PW9/Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that all the documents were prepared at Anti Corruption Branch and not at the spot and the same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by him that PW8/complainant has clearly deposed that Complaint Ex.PW8/A was written on the dictation of the police official and therefore, the same cannot be read as against the accused. It is further added by him that despite availability of independent public witness, none of them was joined in the Raid Proceedings and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is further added by him that on the basis of the similar allegation, Departmental Enquiry was conducted as against the accused in which this accused was already exonerated from the charge which is found corroborated from the copy of the Order dated 09.04.2012 Ex.DW1/A as passed by Sh.Dheeraj Kumar, Addl. DCP, PCR, Delhi. Thus, Ld. Counsel thus urged for acquittal of this accused.
12. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 9 of 26 that the prosecution by examining 13 PWs have clearly established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that though PW8/complainant and PW9/Panch witness have not supported the case of the prosecution by turning hostile but PW4 SI Kaushal Pandey and PW12/Raid Officer have duly deposed regarding the recovery of the tainted GC notes from the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no reason as to why said PW4 and PW12 would depose falsely as against the accused when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the FSL Report also gave positive result and thereby support the stand of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that PW1/Addl. DCP was competent to remove the accused from service and therefore, competent for granting Sanction for prosecution as against the accused and has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted.
13. The first and foremost question having significant bearing C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 10 of 26 on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against this accused as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as per Biodata of the accused, it is the DCP who is the Appointing Authority concerning the accused but in the present case Sanction for launching prosecution as against the accused has been granted by PW1/Dheeraj Kumar, the then Addl. DCP, HQ, PCR, Delhi and as he was not competent for granting Sanction so said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A is legally invalid and the accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground itself. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that PW1/Addl. DCP was competent to remove the accused from service and therefore, competent for granting Sanction for prosecution as against the accused and has rightly passed the Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A.
14. From the perusal of the Biodata of the accused Ex.PW7/A, it is clearly reflected that the accused was posted as W/ASI and her Appointing Authority is found mentioned as DCP, HQ, Delhi but her Disciplinary Authority is found mentioned as DCP/Addl. DCP, PCR. Thus, in view of Column 14 of Biodata of the accused, it is clearly C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 11 of 26 reflected that Addl. DCP, PCR is the Disciplinary Authority concerning this accused and therefore, PW1/Sh.Dheeraj Kumar, the then Addl. DCP, HQ, PCR, Delhi is the Authority competent to remove W/ASI Kaushal Dahiya from service and as he has clearly deposed that he being Authority competent to remove accused W/ASI Kaushal Dahiya from service after examining carefully all the relevant material i.e. FIR, Raid Report, Seizure Memo, Site Plan, Statements recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., FSL Result etc. and after due application of his mind, he had accorded the Sanction U/S 19(1) (c) of POC Act, 1988 to prosecute accused W/ASI Kaushal vide Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. Said PW1 has clearly denied the suggestion in the cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel that he was not empowered to accord Sanction concerning this accused in this case. Furthermore, from the perusal of copy of Order dated 09.04.2012 Ex.DW1/A as relied upon by the accused, by virtue of of which this accused was exonerated from the charge in Departmental Enquiry and was reinstated from suspension with immediate effect, it is clearly reflected that said Order has been passed by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Addl. DCP (G.A.) PCR, Delhi who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority concerning the accused. C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 12 of 26
15. In the case reported as State of Maharashtra and ors V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors 1996 Cri.L.J.1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according Sanction makes statement that while signing the order of Sanction, it had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at required satisfaction, it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so.
16. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
17. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 13 of 26 India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 14 of 26 submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
18. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgment and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A has been passed by incompetent Authority as I am of considered view that PW1/Sh.Dheeraj Kumar, the then Addl. DCP, HQ PCR being Disciplinary Authority concerning the accused as found reflected from the Biodata of the accused Ex.PW7/A and therefore, said PW1 was duly competent for granting said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A and I do not find any infirmity in the same.
19. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Kaushal is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Ankur Chaurasia. It is further added by him that PW8/complainant has not deposed anything as against this accused regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe from the complainant. It is further added by him that PW8/complainant has not even supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. It is C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 15 of 26 further added by him that PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness has also not deposed anything regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the complainant. It is further added by him that the said PW9/Panch witness has clearly denied the suggestion of Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding the demand and acceptance aspect of the bribe by the accused. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that though PW8/complainant and PW9/Panch witness have not supported the case of the prosecution by turning hostile but PW4 SI Kaushal Pandey and PW12/Raid Officer have duly deposed regarding the recovery of the tainted GC notes from the accused. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that there is no reason as to why said PW4 and PW12 would depose falsely as against the accused when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them.
20. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW8/Ankur Chaurasia who is the complainant and prime witness of the prosecution and PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness who is also material prosecution witness are found to have not supported the stand of the prosecution and have not deposed anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe as against the accused. C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 16 of 26 As PW8/Ankur Chaurasia, complainant has deposed that he has married to Neha on 27.2.2009 but his wife after staying for about 4 months and went back to her parental house and declined to come back and ultimately filed case in CAW Cell. Said PW8 further deposed that thereafter he alongwith his father and mother had been attending the CAW Cell Proceedings at PS Kamla Market Complex. He further deposed that one day when the Proceedings were fixed up before CAW Cell, one person met him within the Complex of Kamla Market Police Station and asked him to bring Rs.30,000/ on next date probably 11.1.2010 for getting Proceedings dropped at CAW Cell on which the complainant assured to arrange the amount which can be possible on his part. Said PW8 further deposed that thereafter he informed regarding said facts to his father, who advised him not to pay any money to anyone and to lodge Complaint at Anti Corruption Branch. He further deposed that thereafter on morning of 11.1.2010 he went to AC Branch and informed regarding the aforesaid facts to one police official and delivered 6 GC notes of Rs.500/ each which was to be offered as bribe. Said PW8 further deposed that after the demonstration of Proceeding of GC notes, he alongwith the Raiding Team left AC Branch and reached at PS Kamla Market and he tried to locate the person who had demanded money from him on the last date C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 17 of 26 of hearing at CAW Cell but said person could not be traced out. He further deposed that thereafter he met the accused who was handling his case at CAW Cell and on asking of the accused, he accompanied her in a Car for meeting one Sahab at the back of Police Station and as that Sahab was not present and when they were coming back, the police officials of Anti Corruption Branch surrounded their Car and asked him whether he had delivered GC notes on which he responded that he had not delivered the GC notes. Said PW8 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he has denied the suggestion regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. As he has deposed in this respect as under: "I did not state to the police official that I reached at Women Cell where accused ASI Kaushal met me, she came out from her office and demanded Rs.3000/ and she also told that to make remaining payment thereafter or that thereafter, I handed over Rs.3000/ to ASI Kaushal ............ ..................................................................................................... It is wrong to suggest that Rs.10000/ were demanded by the accused to help me in a criminal case and Rs.3000/ was given by me as a bribe or that same were recovered from her possession ........................................................................... C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 18 of 26 .................................................................................................... I did not state to the police official that as per the instructions of the Inspector Nand Kumar search of accused was conducted by SI Kaushal and Rs.3000/ was recovered from the right hand of the accused and thereafter number of notes were checked with the memo already prepared and number was found correct."
21. Said PW8/complainant even in the cross examination of Ld. Defense Counsel has reiterated that he has not paid any amount to the accused nor she has demanded any money from him. As he has deposed in this respect as under: "On the asking by the police official of Anti Corruption Branch, I have intimated that I have not paid any amount to the accused nor she has demanded any money from me and I had also intimated that probably the amount has fallen down from my pocket in the said vehicle where I was sitting."
22. Similarly, PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness is C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 19 of 26 also found not supported the stand of the prosecution and has not deposed anything as regards the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant. PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness has deposed in this respect as under : "I and Ankur got down from the said car and we went to Women Cell Department. We reached at first floor. Ankur asked me to stop there in front of Branch office. After 23 minutes Ankur entered inside the office of Women Cell and met with the accused and after 2 minutes he came out. I cannot tell what conversation had taken place between the Ankur and the accused inside the Women Cell."
23. Said PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP has also not deposed anything regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused as he has deposed in this respect as under : "I did not state to the police official that we reached at Women Cell where complainant met with the ASI Kaushal who demanded the money/bribe, on her demand C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 20 of 26 Ankur handed over GC notes to the ASI Kaushal who accepted the same from her right hand and immediate thereafter I passed prefixed signal after waving my hands twice on my head ........................................................ ................................................................................................. It is wrong to suggest that GC notes were handed over to the complainant in the AC Branch who handed over the same to the accused on her asking. It is wrong to suggest that GC notes were not recovered from the Car. It is wrong to suggest that GC notes were recovered from the hand of the accused. It is wrong to suggest that GC notes were accepted by the accused in my presence and same were recovered at spot."
24. Said PW9/Panch witness in the cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel has reiterated that he do not know regarding the talks between the complainant and the accused as he had not heard the conversation between them. As he has deposed in this respect as under: "I do not know what talks took place between the C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 21 of 26 complainant and the accused at the CAW Cell as I have not heard the conversation."
25. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness, it is clearly reflected that he has also not deposed anything as regards the demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant at the spot.
26. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW8/Ankur Chaurasia, complainant and PW9/Ravinder Kumar Kukreja, Panch witness who are the only prosecution witness competent to prove the demand aspect of bribe as against the accused but both of them have not deposed anything as against the accused to prove the demand of bribe from the complainant and therefore, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution has failed to establish regarding the factum of "demand of bribe" by the accused from the complainant and therefore, the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be attracted in this case and my said view is found supported from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as AIR 2007 SC 489 "V.Venkata Subbarao vs. State represented by Inspector of C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 22 of 26 Police, A.P." In Para 24 of the said judgment, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved".
27. In the absence of proof of "Demand of bribe" by the accused, I am of the considered view that the accused cannot be held liable for penal provisions U/S 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and my said view is found supported from the following judgments: (1)2006 (1) SCC 401 "T.Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu"
(2) 2005 Crl.L.J. 1136 "State of H.P. Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana"
(3) 2007 Crl.L.J. 2919 "State of M.P.vs. Anil Kumar Verma"
(4) 2006 (3) RCR (Crl.) 796 "Amrit Lal vs. State of Punjab" C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 23 of 26
(5) 2000 Crl,.L.J. 4591 "State of M.P. Vs. J.B.Singh"
(6) 2006 (1) RCR (Crl.) 314 "L.K.Jain vs. The State"
(7) 2005 (4) RCR (Crl) 716 "R.V.Subba Rao Vs. State"
(8) AIR 1979 SC 1408 "Suraj Mal Vs. State"
(9) 1992 (3) RCR (Crl.) 139 "Pritam Singh vs. State of Haryana"
(10) 2009 (4) LRC 275 (SC) "State of Maharastra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede"
28. Furthermore, from the perusal of the deposition of PW8/Ankur Chaurasia, complainant, it is also clearly reflected that the prosecution has failed to properly prove the Complaint Ex.PW8/A forming the basis of the FIR. As PW8/complainant has disowned the contents of the said Complaint Ex.PW8/A and despite searching cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he denied to have lodged any such complaint to the police. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW8/complainant has deposed that his original Complaint was a typed one which was delivered by him to the police officials of AC Branch but said Complaint is not available in the case file. He further added that his signature were obtained on various Memos at AC Branch in late hours and he did not know the contents of the same. He further added that Complaint Ex.PW8/A was written C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 24 of 26 by him on the dictation of the police official and it was recorded when he was leaving the AC Branch in the late night. Besides that, though it is the stand of the prosecution that the tainted GC notes were recovered from the right hand of the accused but the same is found falsified from the deposition of PW9/Panch witness who clearly deposed that he has picked up the notes from the Car. As said PW9 has deposed in this respect as under: "I was asked to pick up the notes as per the direction of Inspector Nand Kumar, I picked up the notes from the Car. Thereafter I was sent to AC Branch alongwith one lady SI and the accused. We reached at AC Branch where notes were taken from me. Police started writing work."
Said PW9/Panch in the cross examination by Ld. Defense Counsel has also reiterated that the entire writing work had taken place in AC Branch. As he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is correct that the entire writing work thereafter had taken place in the AC Branch and no proceedings took place at the spot after recovery of the GC notes." C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 25 of 26
29. The aforesaid deposition of PW8/complainant and PW9/Panch witness also raised a big question mark on various vital aspects i.e. regarding the genuineness of the Complaint Ex.PW8/A forming the basis of the FIR, the stand of the prosecution regarding recovery of tainted GC notes from the accused and regarding genuineness of the various Memos relating to the Raid Proceedings as claimed by the prosecution to have been prepared at the spot thereby striking at the root of the case of the prosecution.
30. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that as the prosecution has failed to establish its case as against the accused Kaushal, so this accused Kaushal deserves to be acquitted of the charged offence and stands acquitted accordingly. Resultantly, her bail bond stands cancelled and her surety stands discharged. Announced in the open court on this 10th day of October, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC, Delhi C.C. No. 17/12 Page No. 26 of 26