Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Sharma on 13 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 02/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R003612006
STATE VS. MUKESH SHARMA
S/o Sh. Leela Dhar Sharma,
R/o H. No. 67, J & K Block,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi92.
FIR NO. : 31/05
U/S : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi
Date of Institution 18.01.2006
Judgment reserved on 12.09.2012
Judgment delivered on 13.09.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 28.6.2005 complainant Sh. Naresh Saini S/o Ram Kishan Saini went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW5/A regarding the initial demand of Rs.10,000/ out of total C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 1 of 24 bribe amount of Rs.25,000/ by the accused Mukesh Sharma who was posted as Patwari in the Office of Tehsildar, Tis Hazari Court Complex for rectifying the mutation of land on Revenue Record in favour of complainant and his family members.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant and his father and brothers were having about 10 bigha of the agricultural land bearing Khasra no.133/26 in Village Burari, Delhi but the Patwari Mukesh Kumar by acting in connivance with other persons have got recorded the said land in Revenue Record in favour of other persons namely Suresh, Ishwar Lal, Goverdhan etc. The complainant and his other family members had visited several times the Tehsil Office, Tis Hazari but needful was not done. When the complainant met the accused at his Office in Tis Hazari Court on dated 27.06.2005 and talked to the accused in this respect, he demanded bribe amount of Rs.25,000/ for getting rectifying the Revenue Record but as the complainant expressed his inability to pay said amount, the accused asked him to pay Rs.10,000/ of bribe as advance and to pay the balance amount after the completion of work and since the complainant was against giving of bribe, so he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the then C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 2 of 24 Inspector K.S.Pathania Raid Officer PW10 in presence of Panch witness Satish Kumar, PW6.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 20 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each before the Raid Officer PW10 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW5/F and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW10 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 right hand on his head after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. That at about 11:55 a.m., PW10 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness and other members of the Raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and reached at C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 3 of 24 Tis Hazari Court. Government vehicle was parked at some distance and Inspector Hari Chand alongwith the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness went towards the Office of the accused and other members followed them by keeping suitable distance. At about 12:35 p.m. the complainant and the Panch witness alongwith the accused came out from said Office and started talking and thereafter, on getting predetermined signal from Panch witness, Raid Officer alongwith the Raiding team reached the spot where Panch witness informed that the accused had demanded and accepted from the complainant the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ with his right hand and kept the same in the inner pocket of his pant. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged the accused that he had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.10,000/ from the complainant and offered his search but accused declined. On his directions, Panch witness recovered bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ from the inner pocket of the pant of the accused and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW5/F and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B. The wash of right hand of the accused was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 4 of 24 into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of KSP and were marked as RHWI & II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Thereafter, wash of inner pocket of pant of the accused was also 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 KSP and were marked as RFSPPWI &II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles, pullanda of pant of accused and sample seal were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW5/C. The Raid Officer also drawn up the Post Raid Proceedings which is Ex.PW5/G and prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and sent the same through Ct. Kapil Dev to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called the then Inspector Hari Chand PW9, 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.PW9/A, arrested the accused vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW5/E and conducted his personal search vide C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 5 of 24 Memo Ex.PW5/D, received original rukka Ex.PW10/A and copy of FIR, got accused medically examined and 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, the IO obtained the copy of the Attendance Sheet Mark A, Biodata of the accused Ex.PW1/B, Posting Order of the accused Ex.PW1/C. Relevant exhibits were sent to FSL for chemical analysis and later on FSL Report was received. Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A was also received by the IO. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
6. 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 20.5.2006 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 11 prosecution witnesses namely Ms. Tripta Oberoi, UDC from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 6 of 24 North, a formal witness as PW1, Sh.B.K.Parchure, the then Tehsildar, Civil Lines, Delhi, a formal witness as PW2, HC Kartar Singh the then MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, Delhi, a formal witness as PW3, SI Sumer Singh, a formal witness as PW4, Sh.Naresh Saini, complainant as PW5, Sh.Satish Kumar, Panch witness as PW6, Ms. Achla Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner, North, Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against the accused as PW7, Ct.Kapil Dev, a formal witness as PW8, the then Inspector Hari Chand/IO as PW9, Inspector K.S.Pathania, Raid Officer as PW10 and SI Asha Ram, a formal witness as PW11.
8. 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 absent from his duty and was not present at the relevant time at the spot but being called by police officials of AC Branch subsequently and falsely implicated in this case. The accused in support of his defence has got examined 5 DWs namely Sarvender Pal Singh, Patwari from Burari as DW1, Sh.N.K.Srivastav, AE, PWD, Rajpur Road, Delhi as DW2, Sh.Ramesh Chand Sharma, Kanoongo from Civil Lines Tehsil as DW3, Sh. Jai Kishan, Kanoongo from the C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 7 of 24 office of SDM, Civil Lines, Delhi as DW4 and accused himself as DW5.
9. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. D.K.Mishra, Adv.Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
10. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A as granted by PW7 Ms. Achla Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner suffers from legal infirmities and is legally invalid and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground itself. It is further added by Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW7 Ms.Achla Singh who was working as Deputy Commissioner was not competent to accord Sanction as against the accused who was working as Patwari in the Office of Tehsildar, Tehsil Civil Line in view of the fact that as per Biodata of the accused Ex.PW1/B, the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority of the accused was Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. It is further added by him that therefore the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi was competent to accord Sanction for prosecution as against the accused and not PW7 who was posted as Deputy Commissioner, North and was subordinate C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 8 of 24 to the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi and said PW7 was not competent to remove accused from service and to grant Sanction for prosecution as against the accused and hence, said Sanction is legally invalid. It is further added by him that said Sanction Order also suffer from nonapplication of mind as said PW7 has passed the Sanction Order mechanically without application of mind and has not verified the relevant record to ascertain the allegation as against the accused and therefore, said Sanction Order is legally invalid and the accused deserves to be acquitted on this ground itself. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that this accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Naresh Saini nor the prosecution could establish the said aspects and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by him that this accused was not posted as Patwari of Village Burari during the relevant period and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused for wrongfully entering the name of third party over certain land of the complainant and for demanding bribe from the complainant for getting rectification of the revenue record in favour of the complainant and his brothers subsequently. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that as there was no wrongful entry over land of the complainant in favour of other persons namely Suresh, Ishwar Lal & Goverdhan etc. of Village C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 9 of 24 Burari, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant for getting rectification in the revenue record in favour of the complainant regarding said land and said facts found corroborated from the deposition of DWs. It is also added by him that this accused is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant at the instance of the Police. It is further added by him that this accused was absent from duty on 28.06.2005 and was not present at Office at the alleged time of incident but he was called by Police Officials of Anti Corruption Branch after lunch from his residence and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also added by him that the deposition of Raid Officer that he has seen the transaction inside the room of the accused from the place where he was standing is false and illmotivated as he could not have seen the room of the accused because of its location and said facts found corroborated from the deposition of DW. It is also added by him that there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs on various aspects which falsify the case of the prosecution and therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel thus urged for acquittal of this accused.
11. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 10 of 24 that the prosecution by examining 11 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 the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW5/Naresh Saini, complainant, PW6/Satish Kumar, Panch witness, PW10/ Inspector K.S. Pathania, Raid Officer and PW9 Inspector Hari Chand/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that the Sanctioning Authority, PW7 has passed the valid Sanction as against this accused after due appreciation of the relevant materials and therefore, there is no infirmity in the said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that mere discrepancy in the deposition of certain PWs as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused are merely formal in nature and is because of the time gap between the period of incident and deposition of PWs in the court and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely on the said ground. 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. C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 11 of 24
12. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the accused. In order to prove the Sanction as against the accused Mukesh Sharma, the prosecution has examined PW7 Ms.Achla Singh, the then Deputy Commissioner, North District, Delhi who has categorically deposed that on 15.12.2005 she was posted as Deputy Commissioner, North and she had received the documents of the case collected during investigation by Anti Corruption Branch in FIR No. 31/05 as registered against accused Mukesh Sharma, who was posted as Patwari under her control. She further deposed that she was competent to remove the accused from service and after going through the material as placed before her with regard to the allegation against accused Mukesh Sharma, she accorded Sanction for his prosecution for offence U/S 7/13 of POC Act and said Sanction Order is Ex.PW1/A which bears her signature. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she denied the suggestion that she did not apply her mind while considering the question of granting the Sanction of prosecution of accused. She also denied the suggestion that no material was placed before her by the Anti Corruption Branch or that C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 12 of 24 she accorded the Sanction on the basis of Draft Sanction Order. She also denied the suggestion that she has been deposing falsely.
13. From the perusal of the Biodata of the accused which is Ex.PW1/B it is clearly reflected that the Appointing Authority and Disciplinary Authority of the accused is the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. Therefore, as per the Biodata Ex.PW1/B it is the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi who being Appointing Authority/Disciplinary Authority was the Competent Authority to remove the accused from service and therefore, competent to accord Sanction for prosecution of this accused who was posted as Patwari at the Office of Tehsildar (Civil Lines) Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi but there is nothing on record to establish that said Divisional Commissioner, Delhi had examined the relevant material and came to the conclusion regarding prosecution of this accused and have accorded the Sanction for launching prosecution as against this accused nor said Divisional Commissioner, Delhi has delegated the power to any one for according Sanction for launching prosecution as against this accused. However, in the present case, from the perusal of deposition of PW7/Ms. Achla Singh coupled with Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A, it is clearly reflected that said Sanction Order has been passed not by the C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 13 of 24 Divisional Commissioner but by PW7/Ms.Achla Singh who was posted as Deputy Commissioner, North District, Delhi and she was subordinate to the Divisional Commissioner. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to establish that the then Divisional Commissioner has delegated the power to PW7/Ms.Achla Singh for according Sanction for launching prosecution as against this accused who was posted as Patwari in the Office of Tehsildar (Civil Lines), Old Civil Supply Building, Tis Hazari, Delhi on 28.06.2005. Hence, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A suffer from legal infirmities, the same being without jurisdiction and is a nullity and my said view is found nourished from the judgment as rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as under: (1) (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 43 Ram Krishan Prajapati vs. State of U.P. wherein it was observed in Para 8, 9 and 10 as under:
8. The position is now clear that even though the District Magistrate was also an appointing authority, as the appellant was in fact appointed by the Commissioner, who is admittedly a higher authority than the District Magistrate, the Commissioner is the appointing C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 14 of 24 authority so far as the appellant is concerned.
9. If that be so, the appellant is entitled to contend that the sanction to prosecute him in this case should have been passed by the Commissioner and not by the District Magistrate. The sanction issued by the District Magistrate is not a sanction in the eye of the law as the said authority was incompetent to accord sanction for prosecution under the Act concerning the appellant.
10. It is unnecessary to go into the other merits of the case as we hold that want of sanction would totally exclude the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Act of 1947 from taking cognizance of the offence. In the result we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and also the conviction and sentence passed on him.
14. In another case reported as Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 113 (SC) in C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 15 of 24 which Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering grant of sanction, held: "It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the Sanctioning Authority after it was satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting the offence. This should be done in two ways; either (1) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (2) by adducing evidence alinude to show that the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest difficulty in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio..."
15. The law relating to the Sanction is strict in its requirements that is to say there has to be a valid Sanction for commencement of the trial where the Sanction has been accorded by a person who was C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 16 of 24 not competent to accord the said Sanction, the same has been held not to be valid Sanction or further it matter that a Sanction has been accorded without application of mind, the same has also been held not to be a valid Sanction. Criteria laid down for grant of Sanction has to fall within the four corners of the Sanction and any deviation in this regard would result in initiating the trial without a valid Sanction has been held to be a trial without jurisdiction by the court and it was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as S.N.Bose Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1968 SC 1292.
16. The requirement of the existence of Sanction cannot be given by mere interpretation to the effect that once cognizance is taken the absence of Sanction become irrelevant. "If cognizance itself cannot be taken in the absence of sanction and taking cognizance of an offence by whatever means cannot justify the existence or absence of Sanction. Infact as strictly speaking if there does not exist any valid Sanction, it cannot be said that the cognizance of offence, was taken by itself, cannot cure the defect in this regard, hence the prosecution of the appellant was vitiated". It was so held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported as K.Narsimhachari Vs. State Inspector of Police C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 17 of 24 ACB Cuddapha District 2003 Crl.L.J. 3315.
17. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments and keeping in mind the legal requirement relating to the grant of Sanction and applying the same to the present Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A which has not been granted by the competent authority, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that said Sanction Order Ex.PW1/A suffer from serious legal infirmities and is legally invalid.
18. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Naresh Saini nor the prosecution could establish the said aspects and therefore, this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is further added by him that this accused was not posted as Patwari of Village Burari during the relevant period and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused for wrongfully entering the name of third party over certain land of the complainant and for demanding bribe from the complainant for getting rectification of the revenue record in favour of the complainant and his brothers subsequently. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that as there was no wrongful entry over land of the C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 18 of 24 complainant in favour of other persons namely Suresh, Ishwar Lal & Goverdhan etc. of Village Burari, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand any bribe from the complainant for getting rectification in the revenue record in favour of the complainant regarding said land and said facts found corroborated from the deposition of DWs. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW5/Naresh Saini, complainant, PW6/Satish Kumar, Panch witness, PW10/ Inspector K.S. Pathania, Raid Officer and PW9 Inspector Hari Chand/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them.
19. From the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that it is the stand of the complainant PW5/Naresh Saini that certain land of Khasra No. 133/26 of Village Burari which was in the name of the complainant and his other family members had been wrongfully entered in the revenue record by acting in connivance with the accused and others in favour of Suresh, Ishwar Lal, Goverdhan etc. of Village Burari and subsequently the accused demanded initial bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ out of total bribe amount of Rs.25,000/ from C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 19 of 24 the complainant for getting rectification of the revenue record concerning the said land in favour of the complainant and his other family members. But from the perusal of the record, it is clearly reflected that no land of the complainant and his family members was ever wrongfully entered in the revenue record in favour of any such persons namely Suresh, Ishwar Lal, Goverdhan etc. of Village Burari. DW1 Sarvender Pal Singh, Patwari, Burari, Delhi has deposed in this respect as under : "It is correct that as per record land of khasra no. 133/26/1 of Village Burari is in the names of Om Parkash, Vijay Pal, Jawala Singh, Raj Kumar Naresh Kumar and Antim Kumar, all the sons of Late Sh. Ram Kishan, who are bhumidar of half of the land of this khasra alongwith other cobhumidar, Ganga Prasad Saini, Brahm Prasad Saini and Sanjay Saini, all three sons of Late Sh. Babu Lal. It is correct that land of khasra no. 133/26/1 in Village Burari still remains in the names of above mentioned persons. It is correct that since 198081 this land is in the name of fathers of above mentioned persons i.e. Late Sh. Ram Kishan and Late C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 20 of 24 Sh. Babu Lal and their legal heirs as mentioned above and there exist no change in it and no new name as a bhumidar has been entered in the revenue record pertaining to this land. The photocopy of nakal khatoni of this khasra is Ex.DW1/A. (Original seen and returned). I have brought the record of khasra no.
133/26/2, Village Burari. As per my record the bhumidar of the land of khasra no. 133/26/2 since 198081 was Late Pyare and after his death name of his successors Goverdhan, Om Parkashm Suresh Kumar, Ishwar Dayal, and Jamna Dass have been substituted as bhumidar of Khasra No. 133/26/2. The photocopy of nakal khatoni of this khasra is Ex.DW1/B (Original seen and returned)."
20. Furthermore, PW2 B.K. Parchure, Tehsildar, Civil Lines, Delhi has deposed in this respect as under : "On 22.12.2005 I was working as Tehsildar (Civil Lines) Delhi. On that day I produced attested copy of form P4 relating to land bearing khasra No. C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 21 of 24 133/26/2 Village Burari Delhi in the name of Sh.
Goverdhan s/o Pyare Lal (half share), Om Prakash, Prem Kumar, Ishwar Dayal, Jamna Dass all sons of Raghunath (half share). This attested copy bears my signatures at point P and is Ex.PW2/A. This Khasra Girdawari is from 6.10.2004for Kharif season and from 10.3.05 for Rabi season. Attested copy of Khatauni record in respect of Khasra No. 133/26/2 Village Burari Delhi, earlier it was in the name of Pyare s/o Chote but on 24.6.97 this land was mutated (virasat) in the name of Goverdhan s/o Pyare Lal (Half share) and the remaining half mutated in the names of Om Prakash, Suresh Kumar, Ishwar Dayal, Jamna Dass all sons of Raghunath. This attested copy is Ex.PW2/B which I signed at point P. Another attested copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 200405 in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 133/26/1 which stood in the names of Babu Lal s/o Jagram (half share) and remaining half share was in the names of Om Prakash, Vijaypal, Jwala Singh, C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 22 of 24 Raj Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Antim Kumar all sons of Ram Kishan. This attested copy is Ex.PW2/C which I signed at point P. Another attested copy of Khatauni record pertaining to khasra No. 133/26/1 for the year 199394 which was earlier in the name of Ram Kishan, Babu Lal sons of Jagram in equal share. On 2.8.2000 this was mutated on the basis of virasat in the names of Om Prakash, Vijapal, Jawala Singh, Raj Kumar, Naresh Kumar, and Antim Kumar all sons of Ram Kishan. All these persons were equal share holders of half of the land of above khasra number. This attested copy is Ex.PW2/D, which I signed at point P. These documents were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/E which I signed at point P."
21. In view of the aforesaid deposition of PW2 /B.K. Parchure, Tehsildar, Civil Lines, Delhi and DW1/Sarvender Pal Singh, Patwari, Burari, Delhi, it is clearly establish that no land of the complainant Naresh Saini and his family members has been wrongfully transferred C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 23 of 24 in the revenue record in favour of Suresh, Ishwar Lal, Goverdhan etc. of Village Burari at any point of time and therefore, vary basis of demand of bribe by the accused i.e. getting modification in the revenue record for restoring the land in favour of the complainant and his family members could not be established by the prosecution and same has also resulted him striking at the root of the case of the prosecution.
22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that since the case of the prosecution is found to suffer from legal and factual infirmities whereby striking at the root of the prosecution case thereby resulting in acquittal of this accused and therefore, the accused Mukesh Sharma is ordered to be acquitted of the charged offence. Resultantly, his bail bond stands cancelled and his surety stands discharged.
Announced in the open court on this 13th day of September, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 02/12 Page No. 24 of 24