Delhi District Court
Cc No. 13/2012 Cbi vs . P. Sasi Page 1 Of 7 on 29 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN,
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
RC No. AC1/2004/A0006/CBI/ACU-I
CC No. 13/2012
CBI
Versus
Sh. P. Sasi
Date of filing of charge sheet : 18.12.2006
Date of receiving the case on transfer : 01.11.2012
Date of concluding arguments on charge : 22.01.2013
Date of order on charge : 29.01.2013
ORDER
1 M/s Buffalo Network Pvt. Ltd. owned a website known as Tehelka.com in the year 2000. Sh. Tarun Tejpal was the Chief Executive Officer and Editor-in- Chief of Tehelka.com. Sh. Anirudha Bahal and Sh. Mathew Samuel were Editor (Investigation) and Correspondent respectively. In order to unearth corruption in procurement of defence related products, various sting operations were carried out by Tehelka.com. Sh. Mathew Samuel acted as Chief Liaison Officer of one fictitious/imaginary firm M/s West End International, London purported to be a supplier of defence related products. Sh. Anil Malviya, under the assumed identity of Rajiv Sharma, projected himself as Chief Representative of such fictitious firm. It was also projected that such firm of London was a subsidiary of Dutch Company M/s Wynn Instruments engaged in manufacturing Hand Held Thermal Imagers (HTTI).
2 Accused P Sasi was posted as Assistant in the office of Ordnance Services-16 B, Directorate General of Ordnance Services, Master General Ordnance Branch, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. Colonel Anil Sehgal was his supervisory officer.
CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 1 of 73 During the sting operation (code name "Operation Westend"), said functionaries of Tehelka.com held number of meetings with various army officials and officers of Ministry of Defence, politicians and middle man and also recorded such meetings in 105 video tapes.
4 Accused P Sasi was also contacted in the similar manner. 12 meetings took place with him which were captured in 12 different video tapes. These meetings took place at various places like YMCA, India Gate, Hotel Park, Hotel Orchad, New Delhi besides at the residences of accused, Colonel Anil Sehgal and one Sh. H. C. Pant.
5 In first five meetings, accused provided vital information as well as documents related to defence procurements to the functionaries of fictitious firm. It would be pertinent to mention here that accused is already facing separate prosecution for committing offence u/s 5 (4) R/W 5 (1) (a) & 5 (3) of Official Secrets Act, 1923 for leaking confidential documents.
6 Accused also revealed in first meeting dated 4.9.2000 that his boss Col. Anil Sehgal could sanction procurement proposals up to Rs.150 crores as he was whole-sole incharge. Accused also accepted gratification from such functionaries i. e. Mr. Anil Malviya @ Rajiv Sharma and Sh. Mathew Samuel in some of the meetings. Following chart would reflect the same:-
Sl.No. Tape no. Date of meeting Amount of illegal gratification accepted by accused 1 1 04/09/00 Rs. 5,000.00 2 5 17/09/00 Unspecified amount 3 10 21/09/00 Rs.10,000.00 4 11 25/09/00 Rs.20,000.00 5 22 27/10/00 Rs.4,500.00 6 23 01/11/00 Rs.16,000.00 7 37 18/11/00 Rs.20,000.00 8 53 08/12/00 Rs.5,000.00 CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 2 of 7
7 There was also conversation related to some percentage being fixed for Col. Anil Sehgal and accused told the representatives of said fictitious firm to commit to Anil Sehgal about payment of Rs.3 lacs to him. He also demanded further Rs.2 lacs for sharing amongst themselves. In meeting dated 5.9.2000 arranged by accused, accused exercised his personal influence with Col. Anil Sehgal for showing favour to the representative of M/s West End International, London.
8 So much so, based on the information and documents provided by accused during some of the meetings, a proposal and catalogue for supply of HHTI vernaculars was prepared by such fictitious firm M/s West End International and even submitted the same with Ministry of Defence.
9 Thus during the meetings which took place between 4.9.2000 to 8.12.2000, accused accepted illegal gratification of Rs.80,500/- and also of further unspecified amount. During investigation, specimen voice of accused was obtained and it was also scientifically established that all such tapes were containing his voice and that these tapes were not subjected to any tampering.
10 I would also make emphasis of the fact, at this juncture only, that when Tehelka.com exposed the sting operation by way of a press conference, Government of India ordered for "Commission of Inquiry". It was initially headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami and thereafter by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Phukan of Apex Court. However, Inquiry Commission stood abolished and ceased to exist in view of Notification dated 8.10.04 and it was decided that investigation related to tapes in question be entrusted to CBI so as to determine the extent of offences, procedural violations, misconduct, impropriety and guilt of the individual involved. Accordingly on the basis of information so received from the Government through Smt. Manjulika Gautam, Additional Secretary to Government of India, FIR was registered on 6.12.04.
11 Comprehensive investigation and close scrutiny of tapes revealed that accused while working as Assistant in the Directorate General of Ordnance Services, demanded and accepted illegal gratification as a motive as well as reward CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 3 of 7 for himself from the representatives of fictitious firm and also for inducing, by exercise of his personal influence, other public servants to render favour to such fictitious firm in obtaining supply order for its purported product HHTI.
12 Sanction for prosecution of accused was given by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh, Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief Administrative Officer, being the authority competent to remove the accused from the office.
13 Charge sheet was accordingly filed in the court on 18.12.2006 for commission of offence punishable u/s 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and cognizance was taken on 22.2.2007 and accused was ordered to be summoned.
14 I have heard arguments on charge.
15 Ld. Special PP for CBI has contended that there is sufficient material on record to frame charges under all the penal sections. He has also taken me through the statements of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC, various documents and forensic opinion and it has been argued that accused has evidently accepted illegal gratification in order to show favour to a non-existing firm and so much so he also exercised his personal influence and thereby induced other public servants to favour such fictitious firm in getting supply order.
16 It has been argued that he abused his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means and, therefore, he is required to be charged u/s 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17 Sh. Riyaz Ahmed Ld. defence counsel has refuted all the aforesaid contentions. He has primarily contended that there is no mens rea involved at all and there is nothing to indicate that accused had any intention to commit any offence. He has also contended that such type of sting operations cannot be said to be sufficient for the purposes of framing a charge and has placed his strong reliance CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 4 of 7 upon one judgment of our own High Court cited as "Court on its own Motion Vs. State 2008 (2) AD (DLT) (1)". He has also asserted that even if the allegations are assumed to be correct, at best it can attract Section 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act and nothing else or nothing beyond.
18 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
19 I have seen the statements of Sh. Anirudh Bahal and Sh. Tarun Tejpal. Mr. Bahal, in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C has made detailed reference to "Operation Westend" meant for exposing corruption in defence procurement deals. He also claimed that P. Sasi was introduced to them by one Sh. H.C. Pant. P. Sasi was important official because he provided an entry at the lowest end of the procurement process and helped them to decide what product to try and to sell to Indian Army. He also claimed that payments were made to P Sasi by Tehelka team had been provided out of the official funds of Tehelka.com.
20 There are two key players with respect to the sting operation. I am referring to Sh. Mathew Samuel and Sh. Anila Malviya.
21 Unfortunately, Sh. Anil Malviya is no longer alive.
22 However, Sh. Mathew Samuel has referred about the meetings which they had with accused. He claimed that almost every person whom they met in connection with several sting operations was found keen and eager to help them but against consideration. He has also claimed that whole purpose/motive behind "Operation Westend" was journalistic in nature and to expose the corruption in defence procurements and no particular individual was targeted as such.
23 Transcription of all the cassettes is contained in D8. However, it seems that transcription of tape no. 40 is not there and it seems to be in another case related to H.C. Pant which is also pending in this court. Forensic opinion clearly indicates that there was no tampering with such cassettes/tapes and questioned CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 5 of 7 voice also tallied with the specimen voice of accused. I have carefully gone through the transcription and relevant portions of transcription do indicate handing over of bribe money.
24 I have also seen statement of PW Gopal Krishan Nair. All the relevant cassettes were played before him during the investigation. According to him, in tape no.1, accused discussed some defence matters and also accepted Rs.5000/- from one person. In tape no. 2, accused was found discussing matters relating to defence. In tape no. 5, accused again took some money. In tape no. 10, accused received Rs.10,000/- and also agreed to give some documents. In tape no. 11 also, accused figured with two persons and in such meeting also, he received Rs.20,000/-. Similarly, in tape no. 22, tape no. 23, tape no.37 and tape no. 53 accused was found taking money.
25 I have seen the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the defence. In that case, situation was altogether different as an innocent person was induced and trapped. In that case, one Virender Kumar had some monetary dispute with one teacher and he planned to trap her in a stage-managed act forcing girl into prostitution. Comprehensive investigation in that case revealed that there was no concrete evidence to support the allegation of child prostitution as tried to be projected through sting operation. On the other hand, the journalist who was shown with the accused in the sting operation was charged with impersonation, criminal conspiracy and creating false evidence and Virender Kumar and one more person were also charged with similar accusation. It was in that context that Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that a sting operation showing acts and facts as they are truly and actually happening may be necessary in public interest and as a tool for justice but a hidden camera could not have been allowed to depict something which was not true, correct and was not happening but was shown happening because of inducement.
26 Electronic evidence becomes handy as a strong corroborative evidence. Primary evidence would be that of Mathew Samuel. Keeping in mind the CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 6 of 7 peculiar facts of the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that the defence cannot dig out any advantage out of the aforesaid judgment.
27 Moreover, it is no longer res integra that sting operations are admissible in evidence. Upholding the legality of sting-operations, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Aniruddha Bahal v. State, (2010) 172 DLT 269 observed that "it is built-in duties that every citizen must strive for a corruption free society and must expose the corruption whenever it comes to his or her knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more so at higher levels of management of the State". In R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106, Hon'ble Apex court unequivocally upheld the basic legitimacy of the stings and the sting programmes telecast by NDTV also observing that such operation, instead of interfering with the judicial process, actually rendered 'valuable service' in protecting the course of justice and also rejected the contention that sting operations amounted to trial by media 28 I am also not ready to believe that accused was too small a person to get the work done or to exercise any personal influence.
29 In view of my aforesaid discussion and keeping in mind the entire material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there exists prima facie sufficient material to charge accused u/s 7, 9 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Announced in the open Court on this 29th day of January 2013.
(MANOJ JAIN) Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi CC No. 13/2012 CBI Vs. P. Sasi Page 7 of 7