Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Sukh Ram Meena on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JAGDISH KUMAR SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-16, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CBI Case No.:400/2019
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena
CNR No.DLCT 11-001599-2019
DAI-2019-A-0014/CBI/ACN New Delhi
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
Sukh Ram Meena
S/O Sh Johari Lal Meena
R/O H.No. RZ-12-A, Gali No.2,
Sangam Vihar, Nazafgarh,
New Delhi
Date of Institution : 01.07.2019
Date of Arguments: 18.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 30.08.2025
JUDGMENT:
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written complaint dated 26.04.2019, being lodged by Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sanitary Guide/Supervisor in Ward-13-5, South CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 1/174 Municipal Corporation, West Zone, Delhi, the present case was registered.
2. It was alleged in the complaint that complainant is working as Sanitary Guide/Supervisor in Ward-13-S, South Delhi Municipal Corporation and there are 15 permanent and 15 temporary workers working under his supervision. On 25.04.2019, accused Shri Sukhram Meena, Sanitary Inspector, Ward-13-5, South Municipal Corporation, West Zone, Delhi met the complainant near drainage opposite the Pacific Mall, Tilak Nagar, Delhi and demanded bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him. Accused told the complainant that if the bribe is not paid to him, the attendance register or muster roll of the temporary workers working under his supervision (the complainant) would not be passed.
3. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused had warned the complainant that he would get garbage thrown in the complainant's area and then would send photographs of the same to senior officers which would ruin the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 2/174 complainant's career. Since the complainant did not want to pay bribe, hence he lodged the complaint with SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi and requested to take legal action against the accused.
4. In order to verify the veracity of the complaint dated 26.04.2019 registered as CO-21/2019- DLI, SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi, it was marked to Sh. C.M.S. Negi, Inspector, CBI /ACB/ Delhi. He conducted the verification of the said complaint in the presence of an independent witness namely, Sh. Nand Kishore, Assistant Director-II, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R.K. Puram, Sector-1, New Delhi.
5. It is alleged that in order to verify the allegations, a Sony make black color DVR & a new sealed micro SD card of 8 GB make Sandisk were arranged through Caretaker. After ensuring its blankness, the introductory voice of the independent witness was recorded in the said memory card through DVR.
6. It is alleged that during verification, it was decided to visit block-14 in ward-13-S where the office of MCD Tilak Nagar, Delhi is CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 3/174 located and where the accused, as informed by the complainant generally comes between 1400 hrs to 1500 hrs as the safai karmcharis come there to mark their attendance.
7. It is further alleged that in order to verify the complaint, the CBI team at about 1305 hrs on 26.04.2019, left for ward-13-S, MCD Tilak Nagar, Delhi and at about 1415 hrs reached near Sahid Bhagat Singh Park in Tilak Nagar, Delhi. At about 1427 Hrs. a call was made from the mobile No. 9899079110 of the complainant to the mobile phone No. 9810835199 of the accused, Sukhram Meena to ascertain his presence. In the said call, the complainant told that he had come to meet the accused. The accused assigned him some task of cleaning and told him that they would meet after the task is finished.
8. As per prosecution story at about 1505 hrs, the complainant received a call from the accused. It was heard by the CBI team that accused Sukhram Meena told him "ek baar woh budget ko toh kahin nazdeek laga" The complainant told him that he wanted to meet for that only.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 4/174 Accused further told him that he would reach the Block-14 office in ten minutes and would meet there.
9. Thereafter, after some time the DVR in recording mode was kept in the left hand sling support of the complainant and he was directed to meet the accused in his office at block-14, ward-135, SDMC, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The independent witness was also directed to follow the complainant discreetly. Inspector C.M.S.Negi, SI Dinesh also followed the complainant from some distance. At about 1700 hrs the complainant came out from the room of the accused and reached near the CBI official vehicle.
10. The complainant was asked to narrate the sequence. He told that when he entered the office at block-14, he found accused was sitting in the office. Some other persons including safai karamcharis and Shri Satya Dev, ASI, SDMC, West Zone and Shri Samundar, ASI, SDMC, West Zone were also present there. He further narrated that after some time when the safai karmcharis left the office, he spoke to CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 5/174 accused about the attendance of safai karmcharis working under him and urged him not to cut their attendance. He also apprised him ( accused ) about his inability to pay Rs. 25,000 as demanded by accused and again requested to reduce the bribe amount.(dekho ji, itne karmchaari toh hain nahin, itna kharcha toh mai de nahi sakta, ab aap bata doh mere ko kaise karna hai ? 15 hain, 15 mai se bhi 14 rah jaayenge, agle mahine ek lady retire hai). On which accused told him that he would have to pay it as it has to go to the AC and the SS(Sanitary Supervisor) also (Gunjaish nahi h to 20-20 hazar ki dekho me bhi yehi kah raha ki AC sahab ne kharche kyo badhaye kaha daka dale kidhar jaye). The complainant further narrated that he requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount, he could pay him 20,000/- on Monday, since tomorrow bank will be closed. (mai toh yeh kah ke ja raha hun ki 25 ke 20 kar do), on which the accused gestured in yes but said that he would have to pay the full amount. (Ravinder nahi hoga, nahi hoga, ha. agar kahin inme gunjaaish hogi toh mai gunjaish kar CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 6/174 dunga.... kharche mai kam mat kare bas. Teri yahaan se gunjaaish mai karwa raha hun yaar kahin).
11. Thereafter, the verification team proceeded for the CBI office and reached there at about 1805 hrs. The recorded conversation between the complainant and suspect officer and other persons was heard. The voices of the accused, Sukhram Meena and the other employees of the MCD were identified by the complainant. The recorded conversation corroborated the version of the complainant and independent witness.
12. The investigation further revealed that on the basis of the complaint dated 26.04.2019 and verification memo dated 26.04.19, Regular Case No. RC-DAI-2019-A-0014 U/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 was registered against accused Sukhram Meena, Sanitary Inspector, ward-13S, MCD Tilak Nagar, Delhi. A CBI trap team under the supervision of Sh.Parveen Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, NewDelhi as TLO and other officials of CBI was constituted including one more independent witness Sh.Satbir Singh, UDC, of office of Executive Engineer, INA CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 7/174 project Division, CPWD, Delhi.
13. The investigation further revealed that pre trap proceedings were conducted. The above noted independent witnesses, the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar and the CBI officers were formally introduced to each other. The purpose of assembly for laying a trap on the accused, Sukh Ram Meena, Sanitary Inspector, Ward- 13-S, SDMC, Tilak Nagar, was explained to all the members present. All the members including the independent witnesses satisfied themselves with the contents of the complaint dated 26.04.2019 of the complainant, FIR and Verification Memo dated 26.04.2019.
14. The investigation further revealed that the complainant produced a sum of Rs. 25,000/- comprising of 12 GC notes of Rs. 2,000/- each denomination and 2 GC notes of RS.500/- each denomination, which he brought to give to the accused, as per his demand. The demonstration was given by Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Delhi, to all the members present to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein powder and its CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 8/174 chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water.
15. The seized Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) used during the course of verification was taken back from Sh. Nand Kishore, the independent witness. Thereafter, the function of the DVR was further explained to the complainant and the independent witnesses. The new memory card was inserted in the DVR and introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in the memory card through DVR after ensuring its blankness.
16. Thereafter the CBI trap team, at about 1435 hrs, reached near Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya, Block-14, Tilak Nagar, Delhi adjacent to the office premise of accused. TLO briefed the complainant to handover the bribe amount to accused on his specific demand or on his specific direction to any other person.
17. It is alleged that at about 1445 hrs, complainant along with Sh. Nand Kishore, the independent witness was directed to approach Shri Sukh Ram Meena in his office. He entered in the office room of MCD whereas, Sh. Nand CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 9/174 Kishore took his position outside the MCD Office room in a disguised manner. The door of the said office room was open and shadow witness Sh.Nand Kishore was able to see that the complainant was sitting and talking with accused.
18. It is alleged that at about 1510 hrs, accused Sukh Ram Meena, took out the bribe money from the right side pocket of track pant of complainant, as the complainant was unable to open the zip of his track pant pocket due to injury in both his hands. Accused Sukh Ram Meena was counting the bribe amount with both his hands. When transaction of bribe was over, Sh. Nand Kishore, the independent witness informed the TLO Sh.Parveen Kumar through a missed call, as a pre-decided signal of transaction of bribe. The trap team members immediately reached inside the MC Office room, where complainant alongwith accused Sukh Ram Meena, Sanitary Inspector Ward No. 13S, SDMC, New Delhi were found present in the said office. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. The CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 10/174 complainant informed the TLO about accused Sukh Ram Meena for demanding and accepting bribe money. Sh. Parveen Kumar, TLO introduced himself and other trap team members to accused, Sukh Ram Meena. And challenged him for demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/-from the complainant.
19. During investigation hand washes of both the hands of accused were obtained in the presence of both the independent witnesses, in colourless solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of both the solutions turned pink. The said pink colour solutions were kept in separate bottles and marked as RHW & LHW in RC-14(A)/2019. As per direction of the TLO the independent witness Sh. Satbir Singh recovered the tainted bribe amount of Rs 25,000/- from the inner side pocket of the grayish black pant worn by the accused. The said recovered bribe amount was counted and tallied with the number of GC notes as mentioned in Handing Over Memo and the same were found tallied in toto. The said CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 11/174 recovered bribe money of Rs. 25,000/- was kept in a brown envelope and sealed with the brass seal of CBI. The envelope was marked as "Bribe money in RC-14(A)/2019 (Rs 25,000/-)".
20. As per investigation thereafter, a track pant was arranged from the local market for the accused and he changed the pant with the track pant. Thereafter, wash of the inner side pocket of the said pant of accused was also obtained in the presence of both the independent witnesses, in colourless solution of sodium carbonate. The color of the solution turned pink and was marked as 'IPPW in RC-14(A)/2019' denoting inner side pocket pant wash of accused. Thereafter the said pant was kept in yellow color envelope and sealed with the CBI seal and marked as "Pant of accused in RC 14(A)/2019". The said envelop was also signed by the TLO and both the independent witnesses.
21. During investigation the office search of the accused was also conducted in the presence of aforesaid independent witnesses and Shri CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 12/174 Surendera Singh, Sanitation Superintendent, SDMC and the relevant documents (original attendance register of temporary/permanent workers who were working under the supervision of accused and a complaint against him for not paying the salary of a temporary worker namely Ashok was taken into possession vide separate office search memo in RC 14(A)./2019-DLI, dated 29.04.2019.
22. During investigation the memory card used for recording the conversation held between the accused and complainant was taken out from the DVR, a copy of the recorded conversation of the above memory card was prepared with the help of write blocker for investigation purpose. After that the said memory card was kept in its plastic cover and further kept in envelope, sealed with CBI brass seal and marked as 'Q-2 in RC-14(A)/2019-CBI, ACB, DLI'. The relevant conversation which took place between Sh. Ravinder Kumar, complainant with accused recorded in memory card Q-2 was heard in the presence of independent witnesses. The conversation CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 13/174 corroborated the demand and acceptance of Rs. 25,000/- by accused from the complainant.
23. After brief interrogation, accused, Sukh Ram Meena was arrested at 2130 Hrs. on 29.04.2019 vide a separate Arrest-cum-Personal search memo after informing him the grounds of arrest.
24. During investigation specimen sample voice of accused Sh. Sukh Ram Meena was recorded which he gave voluntarily in a new blank Memory Card in the presence of both the witnesses and marked as 'S-1 in RC-14/2019, CBI, ACB, DLI'. It was kept in the envelope and sealed with CBI brass seal and marked as 'S-1 in RC-14/2019, CBI, ACB, DLI'.The DVR used in recording the conversations during the course of verification and trap proceeding was also sealed with the CBI seal in a white envelope and marked as 'DVR used in RC- 14(A)/2019, CBI, ACB, DLI'. All the above seized exhibits and articles were taken into police possession. CBI brass seal used during the trap proceedings was then handed over to the independent witness.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 14/174
25. As per allegation that the transcription of the conversation recorded in the copies of memory card Q-1 & Q-2 was prepared in the presence of the complainant and the independent witnesses. Sh.Ravinder Kumar, complainant confirmed his voice as well as identified the voice of accused, Sukh Ram Meena during verification proceedings vide Transcription cum Voice Identification Memo dated 09.05.2019. Sh. Surender Singh, Sanitary Superintendent, West Zone, SDMC, Delhi also confirmed and identified the voice of accused vide Transcription cum Voice Identification Memo dtd. 21.05.2019. Shri Surender Singh being the supervisory officer of the accused and the complainant was well acquainted with their voices.
26. During the investigation Sh. Samunder Singh and Sh.Satya Dev, ASI West Zone, SDMC also identified the voices of the complainant (being colleagues of him) and the accused (being his subordinates) vide Transcription cum Voice Identification Memo dtd. 14.05.2019.
27. During investigation the hand washes and pant CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 15/174 wash of accused marked as 'RHW, LHW & 'IPPW' were sent to CFSL, CBI for CFSL examination. The chemical examination expert CBI has given positive opinion of presence of phenolphthalein in exhibits RHW, LHW & IPPW.
28. As per the charge sheet the Memory cards Q-1 to Q-2, DVR along with S-1 have also been sent to CFSL, CBI, New Delhi vide forwarding letter no.5038 dated 10.05.19 for examination and opinion.
29. During further investigation in respect of mobile No. 9899079110 of the complainant and mobile phone No. 9810835199 of the accused. The concerned nodal officers of Airtel Mobile Services Ltd and Vodafone Ltd. were requested to provide the CAF, CDR, Cell ID chart along with certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The information provided by above said nodal officials corroborates the facts recorded in verification and post-trap proceedings.
30. During investigation it was revealed that accused not only demanded the bribe from CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 16/174 Sh.Ravinder Kumar, the complainant but also demanded the bribe from Sh.Samunder Singh (ASI) and Sh. Satyadev (ASI), who are also working in ward-13-S, MCD Tilak Nagar, Delhi as Assistant Sanitary Inspector. Both of the above witnesses confirmed that accused was pressuring them to collect money from the temporary workers. Both the above witnesses further confirmed the demand of bribe of Rs.25,000/- by the accused from the complainant on 25.04.2019, regarding passing of muster roll of the temporary workers working under supervision of complainant Sh.Ravinder Kumar. They further informed that on their advice Ravinder Kumar lodged the present complaint against the accused for demanding bribe to SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi.
31. During further course of investigation Sh.Satish, Regular Sanitation worker and friend of the complainant Sh.Ravinder Kumar was also examined, who confirmed the contents of the complaint dated 26.04.2019 submitted to SP,CBI, ACB, Delhi by Sh.Ravinder Kumar, which was written by him as dictated by CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 17/174 complainant. He further informed that on 25.04.2019, when accused demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/ from the complainant then complainant and his colleague met him and decided not to pay the bribe and make a complaint against the accused person. On the request of the complainant and his colleague, he assisted the complainant to lodge the present complaint.
32. As per allegation the investigation established that from the aforesaid facts and circumstances disclose the commission of offence punishable U/s 7 of PC Act 1988 (amended in 2018) on the part of accused Sukhram Meena, Sanitary Inspector, ward-13S, MCD Tilak Nagar, Delhi.
33. During the course of investigation of the case, Sanction for prosecution of accused U/s 19 of P.C Act, 1988 was obtained from the competent Authority and filed with the charge sheet. The charge sheet has been filed accordingly.
FRAMING OF CHARGES CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 18/174
34. Vide order dated 02.09.2019, Ld. Predecessor of this Court decided the charges against the accused. Accordingly, charge was framed against accused for the offence U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( As amended by the Prevention of Corruption ( Amendment ) Act, 2018)
35. Accused pleaded not guilty to the aforesaid charges so framed against him and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
36. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 25 ( Twenty Five ) witnesses in support of its case.
37. PW 1 is Sh Ramesh Verma, he has deposed that on 21.06.2019, he was posted as Additional Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, JLN Marg, New Delhi. He has deposed that on 21.06.2019, he had received file from Vigilance Section regarding sanction for prosecution pertaining to accused who was working as Sanitary Inspector in Ward No. 13-S, SDMC.
38. He has deposed that after going through all the documents i.e. FIR, memos, statements of witnesses and other documents, he found the case CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 19/174 fit for grant of sanction U/s 19 of PC Act, 1988 for prosecution and after applying his mind he had accorded sanction vide Ex. PW 1/A.
39. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
40. PW 2 is Sh Ashok, he has deposed that he was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD since 1992, in Tilak Nagar, Delhi (Ward No. 20) (now Ward No. 13-S) and in the said Ward, Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Guide. Accused Sukh Ram Meena was working as Sanitary Inspector supervising the said Ward. He has identified complaint dated 22.02.2019, Ex. PW 2/A written by him to the Deputy Commissioner, SDMC against accused for not giving his salary.
41. He has further deposed that in File (D-15/5), there is muster roll from 16.12.2018 to 15.01.2019 wherein at serial number 13 (66), his name had been struck off and name of Smt. Sharda w/o Babu Lal had been inserted in place of his name,at encircled portion in red colour Ex. PW 2/B. He has deposed that he had worked from 16.12.2018 to 15.01.2019 but accused marked his absent in the muter roll. He has depoed that in the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 20/174 attendance register from 16.02.2019 to 15.03.2019 at serial no. 10, his name is appearing wherein his attendance has been marked for 09 days in encircled portion in red colour,Ex. PW 2/C.
42. He has further deposed that in the said register from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019 at serial no. 10, his name is appearing wherein his attendance has been marked for 07 days in encircled portion in red colour,Ex. PW 2/D. He has deposed that after making complaint Ex. PW2/A, accused did not remove his absence from the muster roll but engaged him for 9 & 7 days respectively for the said period.
43. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
44. PW3 is Smt. Santosh, she has deposed that she was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar, N Delhi from 1997 till date. She has deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor and Sukh Ram Meena, the accused was their Sanitary Inspector.
45. She has further deposed that she is illiterate and whenever she used to go to work, she used to put her thumb impression on the attendance register.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 21/174 She has deposed that she got less pay for the months of December, 2018 and March, 2019. She has identified attendance register (Mark PW 3/A) from 16.12.2018 to 15.01.2019; attendance register (Mark PW 3/B) from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019 wherein, she used to put her thumb impression.
46. She has further deposed that she had asked Ravinder as to why her pay was less to which he replied that he could not tell the same and he further asked her to come with him to CBI if she wanted full pay. She has deposed that Ravinder had told her that the Inspector had deducted the pay but he did not tell why Inspector had deducted the pay. She had never asked accused about deduction in her pay.
47. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
48. PW 4 is Smt. Vimla she has deposed that she was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar,New Delhi for the last 15- 16 years. She has further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was her Sanitary Supervisor and accused Sukh Ram Meena was their Sanitary Inspector.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 22/174
49. She has deposed that she was illiterate and she used to put her thumb impression on the attendance register. She further deposed that she got less pay for the month of January, 2019. She has further deposed that she had worked for 22 days but got pay for only 6 days. She was temporary sanitary worker i.e. daily wager. She used to put her thumb impression on the attendance register, Mark PW3/А from 16.01.2019 to 15.02.2019. She has deposed that when she asked Ravinder about her less pay to which Ravinder replied that she should go to higher authority and also told that accused Sukh Ram Meena, Inspector used to deduct her pay.
50. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused.
51. PW 5 is Sh Jagbir, he has deposed that he was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the last 20 years. He was temporary sanitary worker. He has further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor and accused Sukh Ram Meena was their Sanitary Inspector
52. He has further deposed that he was illiterate. He CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 23/174 used to put his thumb impression on the attendance register. He got less pay for one day for the month of January, 2019. He has identified attendance register Mark PW3/А from 16.01.2019 to 15.02.2019 in which he used to put his thumb impression as mark of attendance.
53. He has deposed that he asked Ravinder about his less pay to which Ravinder replied that accused Sukh Ram Meena, Inspector deducted his pay.
54. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
55. PW 6 is Smt. Kavita she has deposed that she was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar for the last 7-8 years and was temporary sanitary worker. She further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor.
56. She has deposed that she was illiterate, however, she was able to sign her name on the attendance register. She further deposed that she got two days less pay for the month of January, 2019. She has identified attendance register Mark PW3/A from 16.01.2019 to 15.02.2019 in which she used to mark her attendance. She has identified her CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 24/174 signature at portion encircled in red at point A Ex. PW6/A) against her name and particulars at serial no.5.
57. She has further deposed that when she asked Ravinder about her less pay to which Ravinder replied that accused Sukh Ram Meena,Inspector deducted her pay.
58. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
59. PW 7 is Smt. Bala, she has deposed that she was working as Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar, Delhi for the last 20-22 years. She has further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor and accused Sukh Ram Meena was their Sanitary Inspector.
60. She has deposed that she was illiterate and she used to put her thumb impression on the attendance register. She further deposed that she got less pay for the month of December, 2018 and January, 2019. She has deposed that for the month of December, 2018 January, 2019, she got one day's less pay and for the month of January, 2019 - February, 2019, she got seven day's less pay. She CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 25/174 has identified attendance register Mark PW3/А from 16.12.2018 to 15.02.2019, in which she used to put her thumb impression as mark of attendance.
61. She has further deposed that when she asked Ravinder about her less pay to which Ravinder replied that he used to prepare full pay but accused Sukh Ram Meena, Inspector deducted her pay.
62. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
63. PW 8 is Smt. Roshni, she has deposed that she was working as Temporary Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar,New Delhi for the last 20 years. She further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor and accused Sukh Ram Meena was their Sanitary Inspector
64. She has deposed that she was illiterate and she used to put her thumb impression on the attendance register. She has further deposed that she got less pay for one day for the month of January, 2019 February, 2019. She has identified attendance register, Mark PW3/А from 16.01.2019 CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 26/174 to 15.02.2019 in which she used to put her thumb impression as mark of attendance. She has deposed that she asked Ravinder about her less pay to which Ravinder replied that she should ask Inspector Sukh Ram Meena. She could not ask Inspector Meena as he was never available.
65. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
66. PW 9 is Sh. Surender, who has deposed that he was 5th class passed and he was able to sign his name on the attendance register.
67. He has deposed that he got less pay for the month of January, 2019 - February, 2019 for one day. He has identified attendance register Mark PW 3/A from 16.01.2019 to 15.02.2019 in which he used to mark his attendance. He identified his signature at portion encircled Ex. PW9/A at point A against his name and particulars at serial no.1 of the register.
68. He has deposed that he asked Ravinder about his less pay to which Ravinder replied that accused Sukh Ram Meena deducted his pay.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 27/174
69. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
70. PW 10 is Sh. Bansi, she has deposed that he was working as Temporary Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar for the last 20 years. He has further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor and accused Sukh Ram Meena was their Sanitary Inspector. He has deposed that he was illiterate but was able to sign.
71. He has identified attendance register Mark PW 3/A from 16.12.2018 to 15.01.2019, in which he used to mark his attendance. He has identified his signatures at portion encircled in red colour Ex. PW10/A at point A against his name and particulars at serial no.5.
72. He has further deposed that he got 7 days' less pay for the abovesaid period. He has identified attendance register Mark PW 3/A from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019 in which he used to mark his attendance. He has identified his signatures at portion encircled in red colour Ex. PW10/B at point A against his name and particulars at serial no.6.He got 13 days' less pay for the abovesaid CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 28/174 period.
73. He has further deposed that when he asked Ravinder about his less pay to which Ravinder replied that he had prepared full wages but accused Inspector Sukh Ram Meena had deducted his pay and he also told that accused Inspector Sukh Ram Meena used to demand money from him for preparing full wages. He has deposed that he did not contact accused Sukh Ram Meena about this.
74. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
75. PW 11 is Sh. Rajesh, he has deposed that he was working as Temporary Sanitary Worker in MCD (now SDMC) at Tilak Nagar, Delhi since 1998. He has further deposed that one Sh. Ravinder was their Sanitary Supervisor. He was illiterate but was able to sign.
76. He has identified attendance register Mark PW3/A from 16.02.2019 to 15.03.2019 in which he used to mark his attendance. He identified his signatures at portion encircled in red colour Ex. PW11/A against his name and particulars at serial CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 29/174 no.9. He has deposed that he did not get his pay for the abovesaid period.
77. He has identified attendance register Ex. PW 3/A from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019 and his signatures at portion encircled in red colour Ex. PW11/B at point A against his name and particulars at serial no. 9. He has deposed that he got 20 days less pay for the abovesaid period.
78. He has deposed that when he asked Ravinder about his less pay to which Ravinder replied that he had prepared muster roll for full wages but Inspector had deducted his pay and he also told that Inspector used to demand money from him for preparing full wages. He has deposed that he did not contact the said Inspector about this.
79. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
80. PW 12 is Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, he has deposed that he was working as Alternate Nodal Officer in Vodafone Company since October, 2010 and was authorised to issue certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Customer, Application Form (CAF) and Call Data Record (CDR).
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 30/174
81. He has deposed that CBI had issued notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C. for furnishing certain documents through which he had provided documents such as CDR, Certificate and copy of CAF.
82. He has deposed that vide forwarding letter dated 27.05.2019 Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point A, he had provided documents such as CDR Ex. PW12/C of mobile no. 9899079110 for the period 25.04.2019 to 29.04.2019, Certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW12/D and copy of CAF Ex. PW12/B in respect of abovesaid mobile number to CBI.
83. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
84. PW 13 is Sh. Surender Kumar he has deposed that he was working as Nodal Officer in Bharti Airtel Ltd. since 03.08.2015 and he was authorised to issue certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, Customer Application Form (CAF) and Call Data Record (CDR).
85. He has further deposed that CBI had issued notice U/S 91 Cr.P.C. for furnishing documents through which he had provided documents such as CDR CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 31/174 Ex. PW13/C of mobile no. 9810835199 for the period 25.04.2019 to 29.04.2019. The Certificate U/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW13/E, copy of CAF Ex. PW13/B and Tower Location Chart Ex. PW13/D in respect of abovesaid mobile number to CBI vide forwarding letter dated 28.05.2019 Ex. PW13/A. It bearing his signature as well as official stamp at point A.
86. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
87. PW 14 is Sh. Ravinder Kumar, he has deposed that he was working as Sanitary Guide in MCD, now SDMC since 2016. And accused Sukh Ram Meena was working as Sanitary Inspector in the SDMC, in Tilak Nagar, Delhi Ward i.e. Ward No.13-S of SDMC.
88. He has deposed that on 25.04.2019, accused Sukh Ram Meena called him to Nala behind Pacific Mall at Subhash Nagar, Delhi which falls in Tilak Nagar Ward. He met the accused and accused Sukh Ram Meena demanded money from him for approving muster roll and pay of Temporary Sanitary Workers (Safai Karamchari). He has CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 32/174 depoed that when he refused to pay, accused Sukh Ram Meena threatened him that he would not approve the muster roll, pay of temporary workers and also he would get huge garbage thrown in his area and would take the photographs of the same and send the same to the senior officers and would destroy his career.
89. He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. 26.04.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., he alongwith Satish, a Safai Karamchari, went to CBI, ACB Office where Satish wrote a complaint dated 26.04.2019,Ex. PW 14/A on his instructions. As he was having plaster on both hands due to injuries suffered in an accident. Somehow, he had signed the same at point A. He has deposed that he has narrated all the events and demand of bribe by accused Sukh Ram Meena in the said complaint. The said complaint also bears signature of Satish at point B.
90. He has further deposed that one Inspector C.M.S. Negi alongwith SI Denesh Kumar, both of CBI met them. Inspector Negi called one official namely Sh. Nand Kishore, Additional Director, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 33/174 Central Jal Board, R.K. Puram as public witness.
91. He has deposed that CBI officials brought one DVR and showed them one chip which was blank. It was shown to them on computer that it was blank. Thereafter, the blank chip was put in the DVR and Inspector Negi recorded voice of Sh. Nand Kishore in the same. SP of CBI whose name he did not recollect was also there. After recording the voice of Sh. Nand Kishore, he directed all of them to go to Tilak Nagar Ward i.e. Ward No. 13- S and to conduct investigation. They left CBI Office at about 1:00 p.m. and reached at the Ward at 2:15 p.m. They had gone in the vehicle of CBI. Satish was also with them.
92. He has further deposed that from inside the vehicle, at about 2:27 p.m., he made mobile phone call from his number 9899079110 to mobile phone of accused Sukh Ram Meena. He had put the phone on speaker mode. The conversation was recorded in the DVR by CBI officials. He has deposed that when he asked accused Sukh Ram Meena to meet him, accused told him to finish some work first which he disclosed him during CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 34/174 conversation on mobile phone. He has deposed that thereafter he contacted the Safai Karamcharis on phone and directed them to finish of the work. Thereafter, at about 3:00 p.m., he again made call to accused Sukh Ram Meena and accused told him that the work had been finished.
93. He has deposed that accused Sukh Ram Meena asked him to send photograph of the same which he sent. This call was also recorded in the DVR. He has deposed that accused Sukh Ram Meena told him that he would be reaching to his office within 10 minutes and asked him to meet him there. At about 3:30 p.m., accused called him on mobile phone and asked him to come to his office. This call was also recorded in the DVR. SI Dinesh Kumar put the DVR beneath plaster on his hand in switched on mode and asked him to meet accused Sukh Ram Meena.
94. He has deposed that CBI officials also directed Sh.
Nand Kishore to follow him. They both went out of vehicle and Sh. Nand Kishore was accompanying him. He has deposed that at some distance, prior to office of accused, he (PW 14) CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 35/174 asked Sh. Nand Kishore to come later as there were various persons there. He has deposed that he entered into the office of accused Sukh Ram Meena. He was there alongwith Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) Satyadev and ASI Samunder Singh.There, he discussed with accused regarding demand made by accused on 25.04.2019. He explained to accused that temporary workers cannot pay such a huge amount and he requested accused to reduce the demand to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. However, accused Sukh Ram Meena flatly refused to reduce the bribe amount.
95. He has further deposed that ASI Satyadev and ASI Samunder Singh also told accused to reduce the bribe amount as temporary workers could not meet the said demand. However, accused did not listen to them. Accused told that he could not reduce the money as he has to pay to higher officials such as Sanitary Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner also.
96. He has deposed that during the aforesaid conversation, Sh. Nand Kishore came inside the office briefly on pretext of being Election Officer CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 36/174 and had seen all of them in the said office and he went back outside of the office. When accused did not agree to reduce the amount, he told him that he would pay the bribe on Monday i.e. 29.04.2019 as Banks were closed due to holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. He has deposed that the whole conversation was being recorded in the DVR which was inside his plaster. He has deposed that he had remained in the said office for about 30 minutes. Thereafter, he came back to the vehicle. He has deposed that Nand Kishore had already came there. And inside the vehicle, DVR was taken out and switched off by SI Dinesh Kumar and, thereafter, they all came back to CBI Office at about 6 p.m.
97. He has further deposed that at CBI Office, the recorded conversations were played on the DVR and transcripts were also prepared. The proceedings continued till 11:30 pm- 12:00 midnight. He also deposed that CBI officials prepared verification memo dated 26.04.2019 Ex. PW 14/B regarding the said proceedings bearing his signature at point A. CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 37/174
98. He has deposed that the chip/SD card, Ex. P-1 in which conversations were recorded was put in a plastic cover Ex. PW 14/C2 and thereafter, in an envelope Ex. PW 14/C1 and, thereafter in khaki envelope Ex. PW 14/C3 which bearing his signatures and which was sealed and seized.
99. He has deposed that as per directions of CBI, he alongwith Satish reported at CBI Office on 29.04.2019 at about 10:30 a.m. and they met Duty Officer in the CBI Office. He has further deposed that Sh. Nand Kishore also reported at the CBI Office. They were told to report to Praveen Kumar, Inspector of CBI.
100. He has deposed that they all met Praveen Kumar, Inspector in his cabin where CBI team were already assembled. One another independent witness, namely, Satbir Singh was also called in the CBI Office who also reported in the said cabin of Praveen Kumar.
101. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar introduced each member who were assembled in his cabin. Inspector Praveen Kumar had shown complaint dated 26.04.2019 made by him (PW14) CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 38/174 as well as verification memo dated 26.04.2019 and FIR to all present there. The DVR which was given to the independent witness Nand Kishore on 26.04.2019 was taken back from him.
102. He has deposed that thereafter, they were sent to Inspector Dharmender who was having his cabin adjacent to the room. He has further deposed that he had brought Rs.25,000/- as per directions of CBI officials given on 26.04.2019, including 12 Government Currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination and 2 GC Notes of Rs.500/- denomination.
103. He has further deposed that Inspector Dharmender explained to them that he was going to put some powder on the said currency notes and also explained, if hand wash of the said notes is taken in sodium carbonate and water, it would turn pink. He has deposed that Inspector Dharmender put powder on each currency notes in there presence.
104. He has further deposed that thereafter, Inspector Dharmender asked independent witness Nand Kishore to touch the currency notes and thereafter, asked him to dip his fingers in the solution of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 39/174 sodium carbonate and water. On doing so, the said solution turned into pink colour. The said coloured solution was thrown away and everybody was asked to wash their hands. The remaining powder was also thrown in the dustbin.
105. He has further deposed that thereafter, a bag was requisitioned from the office and in the said bag two glass bottles, sodium carbonate solution, stationary items and sealing materials were put in the bag. He has deposed that thereafter, his search was taken and his belongings were taken out and he was not allowed to keep anything except his mobile phone.
106. He further deposed that thereafter, another independent witness Satbir Singh had put the tainted currency notes of Rs.25,000/- in his right side pocket of the pants after ensuring that nothing incriminating was left in the said pocket. He was told to hand over the tainted bribe amount to accused on his demand and not otherwise.
107. He has deposed that a new memory card was also requisitioned and it was put in the DVR and its blankness was checked. Thereafter, voices of both CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 40/174 the independent witnesses were recorded in the said memory card. Functions of the DVR were also explained by SI Dinesh.
108. He has further deposed that Inspector Praveen also gave instructions to Sh. Nand Kishore to accompany him (complainant) as a shadow witness. They were directed to give signal after money was handed over to accused by moving his right hand over his head and Nand Kishore was directed to give phone call.
109. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen also directed Sh. Nand Kishore to remain close to him (PW 14) and to overhear conversation and to watch the handing over of the money to the accused. He has deposed that particulars of the aforementioned currency notes were also noted down and memo dated 29.04.2019, Ex. PW 14/D was prepared regarding the proceedings on which he had also signed alongwith other persons.
110. He has deposed that at about 1:30 p.m., they all left CBI Office for going to office of Tilak Nagar Ward 13-S, SDMC in two different CBI vehicles. They reached there in about one hour i.e. at about CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 41/174 2:35 p.m. near Sarvodaya Kanya Vidhalaya, Block-14, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. The Vehicles were parked at some distance.
111. He has deposed that SI Dinesh Kumar switched on the DVR and put the same inside his plaster on left hand. On instructions of Inspector Praveen Kumar, independent witness Sh. Nand Kishore accompanied him while the other members also took their positions nearby.
112. He has further deposed that at the office, its door was lying opened and accused Sukh Ram Meena was sitting inside. He has deposed that he went inside the office, whereas Sh. Nand Kishore took position near the door so that he could hear the conversation and watch the proceedings.
113. He has deposed that in the office, he greeted accused Sukh Ram Meena and accused asked him to sit down. He discussed with accused the issue of money as was discussed on 26.04.2019 upon which accused asked him to accompany him to a retirement party of an employee. But he (PW14) asked him to finish of the matter then and there. He has deposed that thereafter, accused signaled CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 42/174 from his hand to handover money to accused , whatever was brought by him. (PW14).
114. He has deposed that he again requested accused to take only Rs.20,000/- as he was having injuries on his hands but accused told him that accused would reduce the money from the next month and demanded Rs.25,000/- for the current month. He has deposed that thereafter, he asked accused to take out the money from his right pocket of his pants explaining the accused that due to injuries in his hands, he could not take it out.
115. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused took out money from the said pocket using his right hand and counted the money. He has deposed that when accused was counting money, he (PW14) signaled as per directions by moving his right hand upon his head and independent witness also gave call to the team.
116. He has deposed that after counting the money, accused put the same in the right side inside pocket of the pants. The transaction of handing over money was completed by 3:10 p.m. He has deposed that thereafter, immediately, Inspector CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 43/174 Praveen Kumar alongwith other team members reached in the said office. Upon asking of Inspector Praveen Kumar as to who had taken bribe, he told him that accused Sukh Ram Meena had taken Rs.25,000/- from him.
117. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar explained to accused that he was from CBI and accused was detained. He has further deposed that he told Inspector Praveen Kumar that accused had kept the money in the right side inside pocket of his pants. He has deposed that SI Dinesh Kumar had taken out the DVR from under his plaster and switched it off.
118. He has deposed that thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared in two glasses and hand wash of both hands of accused were taken by dipping the hands in the solution which turned pink and was poured separately in two bottles and they were labled right hand wash Ex. P-2 and left hand wash Ex. P-3 accordingly. The bottles were duly sealed as well. He alongwith both the independent witnesses signed on the bottles.
119. He has deposed that on instructions of Inspector CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 44/174 Praveen, the other independent witness, namely, Satbir Singh took out bribe amount from the inside pocket of grey colour pant of accused Sukh Ram Meena. He has deposed that the recovered currency notes were counted and tallied with the handing over memo and were found to be the same currency notes.
120. He has further deposed that the currency notes of Rs.25,000/- were kept in envelope and sealed. He had signed on the envelope and the envelope (Ex. PW14/E) bearing seals of CBI ACB ND 14/2019 having marking "Bribe money in RC 14(A)/2019"
and 25,000 below these words, bears his signature as well as right thumb impression encircled at point A.
121. He has deposed that on opening the said envelope, GC notes in the denomination of Rs.2,000/- (12 notes) and Rs.500/- (2 notes) were taken out. He identified those to be the same currency notes which were recovered from accused and sealed in his presence.
122. He has deposed that thereafter, one track pant was arranged from local market for the accused and he CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 45/174 was asked to change his pant as wash of his pant was also to be taken. Accused took out his pant and thereafter, the left pocket of accused's pant was dipped into sodium carbonate solution which was kept in another glass and it also turned pink. The solution was poured into separate bottle Ex. P-5 and it was also sealed. He has identified one grey coloured pant to be the same pant, Ex. P-6 which accused was wearing at the time of receiving the bribe money and its recovery.
123. He has deposed that one site plan Ex. PW14/F was prepared by Inspector Dharmender Kumar of CBI and he had signed the same as well as put his thumb impression at point B. He has deposed that thereafter, search was conducted in the office/seat of accused and some documents were found and seized by CBI officials.
124. He has deposed that thereafter, CBI officials enquired from him as to what had happened and he told them everything. He has deposed that various persons had started gathering at the spot, the CBI team alongwith all the members including him and accused left from there at 5:20 pm and CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 46/174 reached CBI Office at CGO Complex at about 6:20 pm.
125. He has deposed that at the CBI Office, the DVR was taken from them and memory card was taken out from the DVR and it was played on the laptop. The conversation which was recorded in the DVR was written down as transcript in his presence. Thereafter memory card was put in a small plastic pouch and it was sealed. The seal was handed over to public witness Nand Kishore. He has deposed that both the public witnesses namely, Nand Kishore and Satbir Singh signed the said plastic pouch and the proceedings continued till 9:30 pm.
126. He has further deposed that thereafter, accused Sukh Ram Meena was arrested and documents regarding his arrest were prepared. He has deposed that wife of the accused was also intimated on phone by CBI officials. Thereafter, a fresh memory card was taken and put in DVR by CBI officials. Thereafter, voice of both the public witnesses and accused Sukh Ram Meena were recorded in the same.
127. He has further deposed that accused spoke some CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 47/174 lines as were earlier recorded during the raid. The fresh chip was also taken out and put in a plastic pouch and sealed after signatures of both the public witnesses. The DVR was also seized. Both these articles were seized as well.
128. He has deposed that all the proceedings which took place from 26.04.2019 to 29.04.2019 were typed on a computer by CBI officials. These proceedings continued till 3:00 am of next day. He has identified one recovery memo dated 30.04.2019 Ex. PW14/G bearing his right hand thumb impression at point A and signature at point B on each page.
129. He has deposed that he was called at the office of CBI on 09.05.2019 and he reached there at 10.30 a.m. where he met the IO Inspector Kuldeep Sharma and there the recordings of 26.04.2019 and 29.04.2019 were played for him on the laptop. He has deposed that the person who was playing the recording, was also preparing the script at the same time. He has deposed that he was asked to identify the voices in the recording. He identified his voice as well as that of accused and two other CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 48/174 persons, namely, Nand Kishore and Satbeer.
130. He has further deposed that Nand Kishore was the panch witness on 26.04.2019 and both were there on 29.04.2019. He has identified his signature on voice identification cum transcription memo Ex PW 14/H. He further deposed that the script Ex PW 14/I was prepared in Hindi (Q-1) and he (PW 14 ) identified his signature at point A on all 12 pages thereof. He further deposed that the script Ex PW 14/J was prepared in Hindi and he (PW
14) identified his signature at point A on all 3 pages thereof.
131. He has further deposed that the file was heard from 38 minutes 30 seconds and the first person who speaks from the said time is accused Sukh Ram Meena and the second person is he (complainant)
132. He has deposed that a sealed yellow envelope containing endorsement of Parcel no. 2 Exhibit Q-
2, CFSL-2019/P-440/RC-DAI-2019-A-0014
sealed with seal of A.K
SSO-II(PHY)CFSL/CBI,New Delhi Ex. PW14/K was opened and an unsealed white envelope Ex.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 49/174 PW14/L bearing endorsement no. Q2 in RC- 14(A)/2019,CBI, ACB, DLI and also having endorsement as CFSL-2019/P-440 Ex Q-2 was taken out, out of which a memory card paper cover Ex. PW14/M was taken out, from which memory card Ex. PX and Micro SD Adapter Ex. PY in a plastic cover Ex. PW 14/N was taken out.
133. He has deposed that memory card containing three folders by the name of 'capability_02', 'MUSIC' and 'PRIVATE' and folder named 'MUSIC', date of modified 29.04.2019, time 12.44 p.m. was opened and was empty. He further deposed that the folder named 'PRIVATE', date of modified 29.04.2019, time 12.44 p.m. type file folder containing a folder named 'SONY', date of modified 29.04.2019, time 12.44 p.m. type file folder and folder 'SONY' containing a folder namely 'REC_FILE', date of modified 29.04.2019, time 12.44 p.m. type file folder, containing two folders by the name of 'FOLDER01' and 'RADIO01', both date of modified 29.04.2019, time 12.44 p.m. type file folder. He has deposed that 'RADIO01' was empty and 'FOLDER01' CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 50/174 contained 3 files. They were played one by one on the laptop fitted with speakers.
134. He has deposed that on playing file no.
190429_1248, title 190429_1248, contributing artist 'My Recording' and 'Album' and on matching with the transcript Q-2 Ex. PW14/J, he identified the introduction of the panch witness Nand Kishore in the said file.
135. He has deposed that on playing file no.
190429_1249, title 190429_1249, contributing artist 'My Recording' and 'Album' and on matching with the transcript Q-2 Ex. PW14/J, he identified the introduction of the second panch witness Satvir Singh, UDC, Office of Executive Engineer, INA, Project Division, CPWD.
136. He has deposed that on playing file no.
190429_1447, title 190429_1447, contributing artist 'My Recording' and 'Album' and on matching with the transcript Q-2 Ex. PW14/J, it was found that the file opened with background sounds till about 3 minutes and thereafter, the first person, who spoke was the complainant, asking whether accused was sitting and the answer of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 51/174 'Haan' was the voice of safai karamchari Dayanand and after some time, the other person who spoke apart from the complainant was accused Sukh Ram Meena.
137. He has deposed that the portions circled in red in Q-2 Ex. PW 14/J are same as in the voice file and certain portions in the voice file were not contained in the transcript and at such places 'M' has been noted in red.
138. He has deposed that Muster Roll is prepared once in a month with regard to the 'kache karamchari' giving their work days and raising the bill for the same and accused could decrease the number of days of some of such 'kache karamchari' in the muster roll. He has deposed that he maintained the attendance registers Ex. PW 14/O and Ex. PW 14/P and same are in his handwriting. He has further deposed that file Ex. PW 14/Q prepared by him in his handwriting contains muster rolls for the periods noted therein.
139. He has deposed that in the first muster roll at portion 'X', the number of working days of Bansi S/O Sh. Shiesh Ram at serial no. 5 had been CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 52/174 reduced from 21 to 10 and similarly, changes were made by accused in the working days of others at point 'X'.
140. This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused.
141. PW 15 is Sh. Satyadev, he has deposed that he was working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in Ward No. 22-S, Maharani Enclave in SDMC. Prior to this, he was working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in Ward No.13-S till August, 2019.
142. He has deposed that accused was Sanitary Inspection Sh. Samunder Singh and Sh. Ravinder Singh were also working as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in the same Ward in April, 2019.
143. He has deposed that in Ward No. 13-S, there were 59 Safai Karamchari under him, which included permanent as well as temporary workers in April, 2019. He used to maintain the attendance register as well as muster roll of the safai karamcharis and he used to sign on both attendance register and muster roll. He has deposed that thereafter, muster roll was sent to Sanitary Inspector for preparation CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 53/174 of pay bills of the safai karamcharis.He has further deposed that it was duty of Sanitary Inspector to approve the pay of the safai karamcharis.
144. He has deposed that on 26.04.2019, at about 3:00 p.m., he was present in the office of Ward No.13- S and at that time, ASI Samunder Singh and accused Sukh Ram Meena were also present there. At about 3:45-4:00 p.m., ASI Ravinder Kumar also came there and who discussed about demand of money by accused for approving pay of safai karamcharis. He has deposed ASI Ravinder had told accused that he could pay only Rs.20,000/- but accused was adamant on demanding Rs.25,000/-.
145. He has deposed that he (PW15) also intervened and told accused that he and ASI Samunder would pay Rs. 2,500/- each and that accused should take Rs. 25,000/- from ASI Ravinder Kumar and should sort out the matter. However, Ravinder went back.
146. He has deposed that he did not remember the date but he was called to CBI Office where CBI officials made enquiries from him and recorded CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 54/174 his statement. He has further deposed that thereafter, on 23.05.2019, he again visited CBI Office where CBI officials played some audio recordings on laptop. He heard the said recordings which contained voices of accused Sukh Ram Meena, ASI Samunder Singh, ASI Ravinder Kumar and of him (PW 15). He has identified those voices.
147. He has deposed that at the CBI Office transcript of the conversation was also prepared in his presence vide voice identification-cum-transcription memo Ex. PW15/A. He has deposed that Memory Card Ex. P-1 containing 5 files out of which file no. 190426_1533_01 was played in the Court. He (PW 15) identified voices of accused Sukh Ram Meena as well as complainant Ravinder Kumar in the said file. He has also identified his voice.
148. He has deposed that however, one particular line in the transcript Ex. PW15/A at internal Page 4 now encircled at point X, has been described by the witness as spoken by accused, whereas in the transcript it is described as voice of complainant.
149. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 55/174 accused.
150. PW 16 is Sh. Nand Kishore, he has deposed that on 26.04.2019, he was posted as Assistant Director II in Central Water Commission, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and on that day, he received a letter from the Under Secretary stating that he had to report to CBI office on 26.04.2019. He accordingly reached the CBI office on 26.04.2019 at 9:30 a.m. where the Duty Officer informed him that he has to report to Inspector C.M.S. Negi.
151. He has deposed that he reached the first floor to report to Inspector C.M.S. Negi where he met SI Dinesh Kumar and two other persons were also present there, one was the complainant accompanied by his friend Satish.
152. He has deposed that both hands of the complainant was injured and he dictated the complaint to his friend Satish who wrote the same. He has deposed that Inspector Negi told him (PW16) that the complainant had complained that Sukh Ram Meena was demanding Rs. 25,000/- from him (complainant) and if the money was not given. The accused had told the complainant that accused CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 56/174 would litter trash in the area of the complainant that is Ward No. 13, Tilak Nagar, take photographs and complain to the higher officials that the complainant was not working properly.
153. He has further deposed that Inspector Negi told him that they were to verify the complaint and SI Dinesh got a Sony DVR and a SandDisk 8GB memory card and took out the memory card from the cover and placed the same in the DVR and played the same to show that nothing was recorded therein. There was nothing recorded on it. Inspector recorded his (PW16) voice in the DVR.
154. He has further deposed that he along with the Inspector, SI, complainant and his friend went in a vehicle driven by a driver by leaving CBI office at 1:00 p.m. They reached at park in ward No. 13, Tilak Nagar in about an hour. He has deposed that the complainant received a call and he informed them that it was from accused. He has further deposed that SI Dinesh switched on the DVR and instructed the complainant to put his mobile phone on speaker mode and increase the volume.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 57/174
155. He has deposed that accused instructed the complainant on phone that the cleaning had not been done in an area and instructed the complainant to clean the same and inform the accused thereafter. He has deposed that apparently, there was a complaint made by a lady about a carcass of a dog. The complainant called one of his Safai Karamchari and instructed him to get the cleaning done and call him back thereafter.
156. He has deposed that half an hour later, the complainant received another call from accused asking him whether the cleaning had been done and if so, to send a photograph. Accused also told the complainant during the call that "wo budget ko nazdik lagao". The complainant told accused that he wanted to meet accused and accused told the complainant to meet him ( accused) at the office. After half an hour, accused came there to the office.
157. He has deposed that the complainant also took them near the office and SI Dinesh strapped/placed the DVR on arm of the complainant and the complainant went inside the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 58/174 office and he (PW16) was outside but near to the office. He has deposed that there were two-three other persons in the office and he could see the complainant Ravinder Kumar talking to the accused but he could not hear their conversation.
158. He has further deposed that Inspector Negi told him to go inside and listen their conversation. He (PW16) went inside where four-five people were there. He stayed only for 15-16 seconds and then he came out. The complainant continued talking with accused.
159. He has deposed that at about 5:00 p.m., the complainant came out from the office and came to them. SI Dinesh took the DVR from the complainant and switched it off. They all started to return to CBI office in the vehicle. He has further deposed that on the way, the complainant told them that two Sanitary Inspectors, Samunder Singh and Satyadev were also sitting in the office. The complainant told accused during a conversation that he could not pay such an amount as he had only 15 men and out of them one was retiring that month, leaving only 14 men.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 59/174 Therefore, he could not pay such an amount. Accused told the complainant that he ( accused ) could not reduce the amount as there was no scope.
160. He has further deposed that accused also told that had there been scope, accused would had reduced the amount, the complainant then had informed accused during the conversation that he could pay Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/- and that the following two days were Saturday and Sunday. He has further deposed that the complainant further stated that on Monday he would withdraw Rs. 20,000/- and give the same to accused.He has further deposed that they reached CBI office at about 6:30 p.m.
161. He has deposed that SI Dinesh switched on the DVR and through a Laptop played the recording. SI Dinesh prepared a report noting the main points of the recording. By this time it was 11:30 p.m. SI Dinesh took out the memory card, placed it in the plastic cover and then placed it in the cardboard cover and then placed it in a brown envelope. He took their signatures and sealed the same.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 60/174
162. He has further deposed that SI Dinesh handed over him (PW16) the DVR and seal and prior to that, SI Dinesh had again recorded his voice in the DV. He has deposed that he was told that he was to come again to the CBI office on 29.04.2019. And the complainant was instructed to arrange for Rs. 25,000/- and SI Dinesh had also got him to sign the report he had prepared. He has identified his signature on each page of the verification memo dated 26.04.2019 Ex. PW14/B and thereafter, he went home.
163. During his examination the DVR and Q-1 in sealed envelope Mark PW14/C4 was opened and a brown envelope Ex. PW14/C1 was taken out. He identify his signature on the said brown envelope at point B, from which, memory card Ex. P1 in its cover Ex. PW14/C2 was taken out. He identified his signature thereon at point B. The Memory card in its plastic cover, Ex. PW14/C3 was taken out. He identified his signature thereon at point B. The memory card was played.
164. He has further deposed that the card has 3 folders namely: Music, Private and Capability_02. On CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 61/174 opening Folder Music, no file was found and on opening Folder Private, a folder by the name of Sony was found which contains a folder by the name of REC_File which also contains two folders namely; FOLDER01 and RADIO01. FOLDER01 contains five files namely:
190426_1245; 190426_1427; 190426_1505; 190426_1533 and 190426_1533_01.
165. He has deposed that on playing 190426_1245, first voice was his introductory recording. On playing 190426_1427, first voice was of the complainant and second voice is of accused as per the information given by the complainant that he had received this call from the accused. The memory card was taken out and resealed.
166. He has further deposed that he (PW16) produced the seal i.e. 'CBI 32/2010 ACB N.D.', handed over to him by SI Dinesh which was taken on record.
167. He has deposed that he reached CBI office at 9:30 a.m. on 29.04.2019 and he marked his attendance with the Duty Officer. Where another witness Satbir Singh was also present. He has further CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 62/174 deposed that at about 12 noon, Duty Officer told them to meet Inspector Praveen Kumar. He alongwith Satbir Singh went to Inspector Praveen Kumar where a team was already there, that is, SI Dinesh, SI Dharmendra Kumar, complainant Ravinder Kumar and the friend of complainant Satish. The team already had the complaint as well as the verification note as well as the FIR.
168. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen introduced everyone to each other. He told them that today they had to go for trap of accused Sukh Ram Meena. He has deposed that the complainant handed over Rs. 25,000/- (12 notes of Rs. 2,000 each and two notes of Rs. 500/- each) which he had been directed to pay earlier.
169. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar inspected the notes and thereafter, noted down the numbers of each currency note and the said noting of the numbers was made in a trap note that was being prepared step by step. He has deposed that he and Satbir Singh signed on the note after the number of the currency notes were noted. He (PW
16) identified his signature on handing over CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 63/174 memo Ex. PW14/D.
170. He has deposed that SI Dharmendra told them that whenever they go for a trap, a powder Phenolphthalein is applied on the currency notes and when the accused touches the currency notes, his hand is dipped in a solution of Sodium Carbonate which will turn the solution pink. He has deposed that SI Dharmendra produced Phenolphthalein powder and applied it to each currency note which had been produced by the complainant. He was asked to touch said currency note and SI Dharmendra prepared a solution of Sodium Carbonate and asked him to dip his right hand in the same and the solution turned pink. Which was thrown and the remaining Phenolphthalein powder was also thrown. He has deposed that his hands were properly washed with soap.
171. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen asked the other witness Satbir Singh to search the person of the complainant to ensure that the complainant had no article upon him, stating that the complainant should only had his phone when they CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 64/174 would go for the trap. He has deposed that accordingly, witness Satbir Singh searched the complainant and stated that the complainant had nothing on him.
172. He has deposed that the complainant was wearing a black track pant and he kept all the currency notes in the right pocket of the track pant. Inspector Praveen instructed the complainant that the amount had to be handed over to the accused only after the accused demanded the same.
173. He has deposed that the complainant was told that the accused would either ask for the amount to be handed over to him or to be handed over to another person or to be kept at a specific place. He has deposed that the complainant was further instructed by Inspector Praveen that after handing over the amount, the complainant would indicate by placing his right hand over his head. He has further deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar instructed him (PW16) to stay with the complainant as a shadow witness. He was also instructed that after the complainant gave the indication, he would call Inspector Praveen on the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 65/174 mobile.
174. He has deposed that other witness Satbir Singh was instructed to stay with the trap team and that he would go inside the office when the trap team would go there.
175. He has deposed that SI Dinesh then asked him (PW16) to hand over the DVR which was given to him on 26.04.2019. He gave the same to SI Dinesh and a new Kingston 8GB card was placed therein. The blankness of the card was ensured by playing the same. There was nothing recorded in it. He has deposed that his voice was recorded in the said DVR and thereafter, voice of the other witness Satbir Singh was recorded.
176. He has deposed that after switching off the DVR, the complainant was told that when he would go inside the office, the DVR shall be placed on his arm and that the complainant should not touch it. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen then called for a seal from the Malkhana. The said seal was number 14 and kept it with him. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen then took a black leather bag and placed empty bottles, glasses, sodium CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 66/174 carbonate powder, some stationary material, a copy of FIR and verification note that was prepared on 26.04.2019 and some other sundry articles in the bag.
177. He has deposed that Insp. Praveen prepared a trap memo and got them all to sign it. He (PW16 ) has identified his signature on handing over memo dated 29.04.2019, Ex. PW14/D. He has deposed that after completing these formalities, the CBI team, both witnesses, the complainant and his friend, they all left the CBI office at about 1:30 p.m. by two vehicles. They reached the office where accused worked in the Tilak Nagar in about an hour. The vehicles were parked at some distance from the office.
178. He has further deposed that the team got off the vehicles and walked towards the office for about five minutes. Inspector Praveen repeated his instructions to the complainant that the amount had to be handed over to the accused only after demand was raised and thereafter, the complainant should indicate by placing his right hand over his head.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 67/174
179. He has deposed that he (PW 16) was also instructed again to call Inspector Praveen on his mobile after the complainant would give the indication. The CBI team surrounded the office. He and the complainant were directed to go to office, but before that, SI Dinesh had put the DVR in the sleeve of the left hand of the complainant, which was switched on before putting it in his sleeve.
180. He has deposed that the complainant and he (PW16) walked to the office and about 15 feet from the office, a car was parked and he hid behind the car but he could see inside of the whole office. He has deposed that the complainant entered the office where accused was sitting inside the office on one chair. The complainant went and sat across the table from accused. The complainant talked with accused for about 10 minutes and he (PW16) could not hear the conversation though he could see them.
181. He has deposed that after talking for about 10-15 minutes, both complainant and accused got up and accused put his right hand in the right pocket CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 68/174 of the track pant of the complainant, took out the notes, counted the same with both of his hands and then placed the money in the right inside pocket of his pant. He has deposed that the complainant then placed his right hand on his head and gave the indication. As soon as he saw the same, he gave a missed call to Inspector Praveen as instructed, who alerted the CBI team. All of them came to the office. They all went inside the office. Inspector Praveen introduced himself and his team to accused.
182. He has deposed that the complainant told that, accused had put the money in his right inside pocket of the pant. On hearing this, accused got alarmed. Accused was made to sit on the chair. He has deposed that SI Dharmendra prepared the solution of sodium carbonate in a glass and the right hand of accused was dipped in the same, which turned pink and same solution was transferred to a bottle. The bottle was capped over which a white cloth was placed and the same was tagged. A paper was pasted on the bottle which was signed by him (PW16), other witness Satbir CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 69/174 Singh, Inspector Praveen and other team members and the bottle was labelled as right hand wash.
183. He has deposed that prior to that, after Inspector Praveen had introduced the team, the DVR was taken out from the sleeve of the complainant and switched off. He has deposed that a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and left hand of accused was dipped in it, which turned pink and the same process was repeated and the solution was transferred to a bottle, similarly capped and tagged. A paper was pasted which was signed by all of them and it was noted thereon left hand wash.
184. He has deposed that the bottle was sealed and Inspector Praveen instructed the other witness Satbir Singh to search the person of accused. Who who accordingly took search of accused and took out the money from the right inside pocket of his pant. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the ones noted in the CBI office. The numbers were found to be the same. The currency notes were kept in a brown envelope and sealed. Signatures of all of them were taken thereon.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 70/174
185. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen got purchased a fresh pant from the local market which was provided to accused and the pant which accused was wearing in which he had kept the amount was taken. He has deposed that a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared by SI Dharmendra and the right inside pocket of the pant was put in the solution which turned pink. He has deposed that the whole process of capping, tagging of the bottle was done and it was labelled as inner pocket wash and signatures of all were taken. Thereafter, a white cloth was placed on the inside right pocket which had been washed. All of them signed on the white cloth. After the pant dried a bit, the pant was placed in a yellow envelope and sealed. They all signed the envelope.
186. He has identified his signature on bottles of RHW (Ex. P-2), LHW (Ex. P-3) and IPPW RC14(A)/2019 (Ex. P-5). He has also identified yellow envelope bearing 'Pant of accused in RC.14(A)/2019', Malkhana SI. NO. 5 and some signatures, sealed with the seal of 'SB', out of which, a grey pant was taken out (Ex. P-6) to be CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 71/174 the same which was worn by accused at the time of the trap and he also identified a white cloth on the inside right pocket whereon certain signatures are there.
187. He has also identified the envelope containing a label 'Bribe money in RC. 14(A)/2019 over (Rs. 25,000/-)' having his signature (Ex. PW14/E), same was opened, out of which, 12 notes of Rs. 2,000/- and two notes of Rs. 500/- (Ex. P-4 (colly.) were taken. The accused was asked by Inspector Praveen about the contact numbers of the superior of accused and he called his superior, informed about the trap and then asked to come there. Accordingly, Surinder Singh, Sanitary Superintendent reached there. He has deposed that the office was then searched. Some registers were found. PW 16, other witness Satbir Singh, Inspector Praveen and some other signed on each page of the attendance register, muster roll register and one other register. He (PW16) identified his signature on search memo dated 29.04.2019 (Ex. PW16/A); Attendance Registers (Ex. PW16/B) and (Ex. PW16/C) containing his signatures.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 72/174
188. He has deposed that SI Dharmendra prepared the site plan (Ex. PW14/F) of the office and the same was signed by them. He identified his signature on point C thereon. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar asked the complainant what had transpired when he had come inside the office. The complainant informed before the whole team that he sat across the table from accused and asked him to reduce the amount. The accused stood and stated that he had to go to a party of a colleague and asked the complainant to accompany him. However, the complainant told to end the matter there and then go to the party. He has deposed that, thereafter, accused signalled by rubbing accused thumb with the first two fingers and thereby asked the complainant for the money.
189. He has deposed that the complainant told him Inspector Praveen Kumar ) that the money was in his pocket and asked accused to take it out as he could not do so because of the injury in his hand. Accused then took out the money from the pocket of the complainant with his right hand. The complainant asked accused to count the money.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 73/174 Accused counted the same and kept the money in the right inside pocket of his pant.
190. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen then asked him (PW 16) what he had seen. He told him that he had walked towards the office with the complainant who had gone inside the office and hid behind a vehicle. He (PW 16) saw the complainant sitting across the table from accused, who was inside the office. They talked for some while. Then they both got up. Accused took out the money from the pant of the complainant and counted it and kept it inside the pocket. Then the complainant gave the per-determind signal and he called Inspector Praveen.
191. He has deposed that nearby residents had started gathering there and Inspector Praveen decided to leave for CBI office. He has deposed that the office where the trap was conducted, was handed over to Surinder Singh, Sanitary Superintendent while leaving at around 5:30 p.m. He has further deposed that CBI team along with accused, complainant, the other witness and he returned to CBI office and they reached the CBI office at CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 74/174 around 6:30 p.m. He has deposed that SI Dinesh connected the DVR with the laptop and they all heard the recording on the same. SI Dinesh noted the main points on the separate paper. The memory card was then taken out, placed in its covering, placed in a white envelope and sealed. They all signed the envelope.
192. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen questioned accused whether any of his superiors were involved in the taking of the bribe, accused denied the same and stated that it was only him. He has deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex. PW 16/D bearing signatures of PW16, other witness and Inspector Praveen. He has deposed that family members of accused were informed telephonically about his arrest. SI Dinesh asked accused to give his voice sample for which, accused agreed. A fresh memory card was got and it was inserted in the DVR. The blankness of the same was ascertained by playing it. His (PW16) introductory voice was recorded first. Thereafter, introductory of the other witness was recorded and then sample voice of accused CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 75/174 was recorded wherein accused spoke the lines given to accused by SI Dinesh.
193. He has deposed that thereafter again his (PW16) voice was recorded and then of the other witness. The DVR was switched off and the memory card was taken out. The memory card was placed in its cover and sealed in a white envelope which was signed by him, the other witness and TLO, Inspector Praveen.
194. He has deposed that from yellow envelope sealed with the seal of A.K. SSO-II (PHY) CFSL, New Delhi bearing the particulars parcel 3/Ex. S-1 CFSL-2019/P-440 over RC-DA1-2019-A-0014 was opened, out of which, a white envelope, Ex. PW16/E, was taken out bearing particulars S-1 in RC-14/2019, CBI, ACB, Delhi CFSL-2019/P-440 Ex. S-1, bearing his signature at point A. He has deposed that from the said white envelope, a kingston 8gb cardboard cover Ex. PW16/E2 was taken out, bearing his signature at point A, out of which, a memory card with adapter in its plastic cover Ex. PW16/E3 was taken out, bearing his signature at point A. CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 76/174
195. He has deposed that the memory card, Ex. P-7 was played with the help of the write blocker and laptop produced by the Malkhana, which contained two folders namely MUSIC and PRIVATE and one supporting file namely Capability_02. MUSIC folder was found empty and PRIVATE folder was found to have contained a folder namely SONY. He has deposed that SONY folder was found to have contained a folder namely REC_FILE which contained two folders namely FOLDER01 and RADIO01. FOLDER01 was found to have contained five VLC media files namely: 190430_0049, 190430_0050, 190430_0055, 190430_0101 and 190430_0102. File 190430_0049 was played which was found to have contained his (PW16) voice. File 190430_0050 was played and it was found to have contained the voice of the other witness Satbir Singh. He recognised his voice as they talked to each other during these days of investigation/trap and it was recorded in his presence.
196. He has deposed that file 190430_0055 was played and it was found to have contained the voice of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 77/174 accused. He recognised his voice as he had heard him speaking during the trap proceedings. He has deposed that file 190430_0101 was played and it was found to have contained his voice. He has deposed that file 190430_0102 was played and it was found to have contained the voice of other witness, Satbir Singh.
197. He has further deposed that thereafter, the DVR was packed in a brown envelope and sealed and was got signed by him (PW16) and the other witness. He has further deposed that a sealed yellow envelope, sealed with the seal of A.K. SSO-II (PHY) CFSL, New Delhi bearing the particulars parcel 4/Ex. DVR CFSL-2019/P-440 over RC-DA1-2019-A-0014 was opened and a white envelope, Ex. PW16/F bearing his (PW16) signature at point A, was taken out bearing particulars DVR in RC-14/2019, CBI, ACB, Delhi CFSL-2019/P-440 Ex. DVR.
198. He has further deposed that from the said envelope, DVR, Ex. P-8 of make SONY was taken out bearing his (PW16) signature on the said DVR at point A. Thereafter, sample seal of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 78/174 the seal used during the trap proceedings was taken on a blank paper, with ink and lac, which was signed by him (PW16) , the other witness and TLO Insp. Praveen the other witness and him. He has identified his signature on recovery memo dated 29/30.04.2019,Ex. PW14/G.
199. He has further deposed that the seal was then handed over to him with directions to produce the same in Court which was taken on record. He has deposed that by that time, it was 4:00 a.m. on 30.04.2019. He (PW16) and the other witness were told that they could go back as the trap proceedings had concluded. Accordingly, they left for their home.
200. He has deposed that on 07.05.2019, he received a call from CBI office asking him to report to CBI office on 09.05.2019. Accordingly, he and other witness reached the CBI office on 09.05.2019 at 10:00 a.m. They reported to the Duty Officer, who asked to report to Inspector Kuldeep Sharma. They were shown memo of the proceedings of 29.04.2019. They read the same. He (PW16) identified his signatures thereon. He has deposed CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 79/174 that the complainant and accused also came there and they too identified their signatures on the memo. Thereafter, voice recordings of 26.04.2019 and 29.04.2019 were played on a laptop. He (PW16) identified his voice and the other witness identified his voice. Inspector Kuldeep prepared a Hindi transcript of the voice recordings and was got signed by him (PW16), other witness, complainant and accused. The complainant and accused had also identified their voices on the recording. He has deposed that thereafter, a memo was prepared it was also got signed by him and the other witness.
201. He has deposed that Voice Identification Cum Transcription Memo dated 09.05.2019,Ex. PW14/H bears his signature at point B and the transcript Ex. PW14/I and Ex. PW14/J in respect of Q1 and Q2 respectively bear his (PW16) signatures on all the pages at point B respectively. At about 3:00 p.m. they were told that the proceedings were ended and they went home.
202. He has further deposed that a yellow envelope sealed with the Court seal, Ex. PW14/K was CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 80/174 opened. Out of which, a white envelope Ex. PW14/L was taken out. He identified his signature thereon at point A. He has deposed that from the aforesaid white envelope, a cardboard cover, Ex. PW14/M was taken out on which, he identified his signature, out of which, a plastic cover Ex. PW14/N was taken out bearing his signature at point A.
203. During his deposition the memory card, Ex. PX was taken out and played with the help of the write blocker and the laptop produced by the Malkhana Incharge. The memory card contained two folders namely MUSIC and PRIVATE and one supporting file namely capability_02. Folder MUSIC was opened which was empty. Folder PRIVATE was opened, it contained a folder in the name of SONY. The SONY was opened which contained a folder in the name of REC_FILE which was opened and it was found to have contained two folders namely FOLDER01 and RADIO01.
204. During his deposition FOLDER01 was opened which was found to have contained three VLC CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 81/174 media files namely: 190429_1248, 190429_1249 and 190429_1447 and file 190429_1248 & 190429_1249 which were played and were found to have contained his voice and voice of the other witness Satbir Singh respectively. He has deposed that 190429_1447 was played which started with miscellaneous sounds. Conversation start in the said file from about 6 minutes 24 seconds. He could not identify the second voice also. At about 10 minutes, he identified the voice as that of accused. At about 13 minutes 25 seconds, he identified the voice as that of accused. At about 17 minutes 15 seconds and at about 19 minutes 20 seconds, he identified the voice as that of the complainant.
205. He has identified the accused, present in the Court.
206. PW17 is Sh. Satbir Singh he has deposed that in April, 2019, he was posted as UDC, INA Project Division, CPWD, INA, New Delhi. He was told by the Executive Engineer that he had to report at the CBI office on 29.04.2019. He has deposed that he reached CBI office on the said date at 9:30 a.m. CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 82/174 and reported to the Duty Officer. He was asked to report to Inspector Praveen, who took him to a hall in the office where he (PW17) was introduced to SI Dinesh Kumar, Inspector Dharmendra, one Nand Kishore and Ravinder Kumar/complainant.
207. He has deposed that there were some other persons also present there. The complainant told that accused Sukh Ram Meena was demanding money from him. He was shown the complaint, the FIR and the verification memo. He has deposed that the complainant told him that accused had demanded Rs. 25,000/- and he produced 12 currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- each and two currency notes of Rs. 500/- each and handed them over to Inspector Praveen. The serial numbers of these 14 currency notes were noted and typed and memo of serial numbers was signed by him and also by Nand Kishore.
208. He has deposed that he identified his signature on handing over memo dated 29.04.2019,Ex. PW14/D and his signature at point D1 on the table containing the serial numbers, Ex. PW17/D1. He CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 83/174 has further deposed that Inspector Dharmendra brought two powders, one was the Sodium Powder and the other Phenolphthalein powder and the phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes.
209. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen asked Inspector Dharmendra to touch the notes thereafter his right hand with which he had touched the notes was dipped in the solution prepared with water and sodium powder. The water turned pink. The solution was thrown away. The remaining Phenolphthalein powder was deposited with the Malkhana.
210. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen called for a leather bag and CBI seal along with the stationary and sealing material. Empty bottles and glass were also got. Everything was kept in the leather bag. The complaint, FIR and the verification memo were kept in a file cover.
211. He has deposed that SI Dinesh called for a memory card of 8gb which was placed in the DVR, it was played and ensured that it was blank. A laptop was also taken from CBI office. The CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 84/174 DVR was switched off.
212. He has deposed that they were then told about their duties. Nand Kishore was told to stay with the complainant. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen handed over the treated money to Nand Kishore who put the same in the right pocket of the complainant's track pant. They were told that the money will not be touched till accused demands the same whereupon it shall be handed over to accused or to whoever he states to hand over the money.
213. He has deposed that those proceedings ended about 1:30 p.m. and a handing over memo Ex. PW14/D was prepared which was signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and himself (PW17). He identified his signatures at point D thereon. All of them departed the CBI office at around 1:35 p.m. in two cars.
214. He has deposed that they reached Tilak Nagar, Block 14, Sarvodhya Bal Vidhalaya at about 2:35 p.m. They were again briefed by Inspector Praveen. The complainant was told to signal by putting his hand on his head after handing over the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 85/174 money to accused and Nand Kishore was told to give a missed call to Praveen after the money had exchanged hands.
215. He has further deposed that Nand Kishore was also told to stay with the complainant. The rest of the team would be around. He has deposed that at about 2:45 p.m. the complainant went inside the office of accused. Nand Kishore was outside the office and the rest of them were outside the office, around the boundary wall.
216. He has deposed that at the time of briefing at the spot, the DVR was switched on and inserted inside the plaster of the hand of the complainant. He has deposed that at about 3:15 p.m. Inspector Praveen received a missed call from Nand Kishore. The team was alerted and everyone entered the office of accused. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen told accused that they were from CBI and showed his I-Card. He has deposed that accused stood up and was nervous.
217. He has further deposed that the complainant told them that he had handed over the money to accused and who had counted the same with both CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 86/174 his hands and kept the money in the inside right pocket of his pant.
218. He has deposed that Inspector Dharmendra took out a glass and prepared a solution with sodium powder and right hand of accused was inserted in the said solution which turned pink which was transferred to a bottle Ex. P-2, same was sealed, covered with a white cloth and sealed and tied with a green tag. It was labelled with the FIR No and the said label was signed by Nand Kishore, Inspector Praveen and he himself.
219. He has deposed that the DVR had been taken out from inside the plaster of hand of the complainant and switched off by SI Dinesh. A fresh solution was prepared in a glass and left hand of accused was dipped in the same which turned pink and same was transferred to a bottle Ex. P-3 which was then sealed, covered with a white cloth and sealed and tied with a green tag. It was labelled with the FIR No and the said label was signed by Nand Kishore, Inspector Praveen and himself. He ( this witness ) has identified his signature thereon at point B. CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 87/174
220. He has deposed that he took out the money from the pant of accused. The currency notes were checked with the serial numbers noted earlier in the office of CBI. The serial numbers of the said money tallied with the noted serial numbers. The currency notes were placed in an envelope Ex. PW 14/E, sealed and signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and himself.
221. He has further deposed that a track lower was arranged from the market. Accused was asked to change his track lower with the same. A fresh solution was prepared in a glass and the right inside pocket of the track lower of accused was dipped in the same which turned pink. He has deposed that the lower was then placed in an envelope and sealed. A white cloth was taken, particulars of the case noted and signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and himself and the said white cloth was attached to the inside pocket of the track lower of accused.
222. During his deposition a big yellow envelope Ex.
PW17/A sealed with the Court seal was opened and a trouser was taken out. He (PW 17) has CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 88/174 identified his signature on the white cloth over the inside pocket Ex. P-6 of the same, at point B. He has deposed that the pink solution was transferred to a bottle Ex. P-5 which was then sealed, covered with a white cloth and sealed and tied with a green tag. It was also labelled with the FIR number and the said label was signed by Nand Kishore, Inspector Praveen and himself. He (PW17) has identified his signature thereon at point B.
223. He has further deposed that Inspector Praveen seized the attendance register, muster roll register and some attendance slips of Jamadars from the drawer of the table of accused and the almirah. Inspector Praveen called the MCD office and a Superintendent named Surinder reached there who was apprised that accused had been caught red handed. The office was handed over to the Superintendent.
224. He has deposed that they all came back to the CBI office along with accused. Before leaving from there, a memo was prepared which too was signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and himself. Sh. Satbir Singh that he identified his signature on CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 89/174 search memo Ex. PW16/A. He has further deposed that the attendance register, muster roll register and the attendance register for all, were signed on each page by Nand Kishore and himself.
225. He has identified his signature at points A on each page of muster roll Ex. PW17/B and that of the other independent witness, Nand Kishore at points X. He has also identified his signature at points A on each of list Ex. PW17/C of Jamadars comprising of 11 pages and that of Nand Kishore on each page at points X. He has identified his signatures at points B on each page thereof on attendance register Ex. PW16/B. He has identified his signatures at points B on pages 1 to 19 thereof on attendance register Ex. PW16/C.
226. He has further deposed that he left the office of accused at about 5:30 p.m. and before leaving, a site plan Ex. PW14/F was prepared by Inspector Dharmendra which was signed by Nand Kishore and him (PW17). He identified his signature thereon at point D.
227. He has deposed that they reached the CBI office at about 6:20 p.m. Before leaving for the trap on CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 90/174 29.04.2019, his voice as well as voice of Nand Kishore had been recorded in the DVR. After coming back to the CBI office, the DVR was taken out and played on the official laptop by inserting the memory card therein. He has identified his voice therein and Nand Kishore identified his voice. The complainant identified his voice and that of accused in the recording of the conversation between them which included the conversation regarding the demanding of the money.
228. He has deposed that the memory card was placed in a plastic cover which was placed in an envelope as sealed in a white cloth on which the case details were noted on the paper stuck on it. He has deposed that Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and he (PW17) signed the paper.
229. He has deposed that at about 9:30 p.m. the arrest papers Ex. PW16/D of accused were prepared and wife of accused was informed about his arrest through phone call. He further deposed that Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and he (PW17) signed the arrest memo. He identified his CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 91/174 signatures at point B on all three pages of the memo.
230. He has deposed that a new memory card was called, same was inserted in the official laptop and his voice sample and that of Nand Kishore were taken and voice sample of accused was also taken and a transcript was also prepared.
231. He has deposed that thereafter, some lines of the conversation i.e. Q2, that had taken place between the complainant and accused about the demand of money, was got recorded from accused then his voice was again recorded and that of Nand Kishore. He has deposed that the memory card was taken out from the DVR, placed in its plastic cover and then in the card board cover and thereafter sealed with the seal of CBI. The details of the case noted thereon as also 'S1' was noted on it. He further deposed that Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore, accused and he (PW17) signed out on the same.
232. He has deposed that the DVR was then placed in an envelope and sealed with the seal of CBI. The case details were noted thereon and it too was CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 92/174 signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore and he (PW17) signed on it. He has deposed that the trap memo and a plain paper was then stamped with the CBI seal with ink and lac. The CBI seal was handed over to Nand Kishore and he was directed that he had to produce the same in the Court. He has deposed that the recovery memo was completed by 3:10 a.m. on 30.04.2019 and it was read out to all of them which was signed by Inspector Praveen, Nand Kishore, by him (PW17) and other members of the CBI team. Thereafter, he went to his home.
233. During his deposition a big yellow envelope Ex.
PW17/D bearing the case number and CFSL- 2019/P-440, sealed with the Court seal was opened and an unsealed smaller white envelope Ex. PW16/E1 was taken out. He identify his signature on the said envelope at point B. From the said envelope, a card board cover Ex. PW16/E2 containing a memory card Ex. PW16/E3 in its plastic cover was taken out. He identified his signature on Ex. PW16/E2 and E3 at points B .
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 93/174
234. During his deposition the memory card Ex.
PW16/F was taken out and inserted in the laptop to play the memory card through the forensic card reader. The memory card contained two folders and one system file namely 'MUSIC' and 'PRIVATE' folders and 'capability_02'. The folder 'PRIVATE' was opened and it contained a folder namely 'SONY'. The folder 'SONY' was opened and it contained a folder 'REC_FILE'. Same was opened and it contains two folders namely 'FOLDER01' and 'RADIO01'.
'FOLDER01' was opened and it contained five recording files namely 190430_0049, 190430_0050, 190430_0055, 29.04.2019 190430_0101 and 190430_0102.
235. During his deposition file 190430_0049 was played, containing voice of Nand Kishore. File 190430_0050 was played containing his voice. File 190430_0101 was played, containing voice of Nand Kishore and file 190430_0102 was played, which contained his voice. He has deposed that the memory card was taken out and placed in the plastic cover which was placed in the card CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 94/174 board cover. Same is placed in a white envelope.
236. During his deposition a big yellow envelope bearing the case number and CFSL-2019/P-440 Ex. PW14/K was opened and an unsealed smaller white envelope Ex. PW14/L was taken out. He has identified his signature on the said envelope at point B. From the said envelope, a card board cover containing a memory card in its plastic cover was taken out (Ex. PW14/M), (Ex. PX) and Ex. PW14/N. He identified his signature on Ex. PW14/M and Ex. PW 14/N at points B.
237. During his deposition the memory card, Ex. PX, was taken out and inserted in the same which was found containing two folders and one system file namely 'MUSIC' and 'PRIVATE' folders and 'capability_02'.The folder 'PRIVATE' was opened and it was found containing a folder namely 'SONY'. The folder 'SONY' was opened and it contained a folder 'REC_FILE' which was opened and it contained two folders namely 'FOLDER01' and 'RADIO01'. 'FOLDER01' was opened and it contained three recording files namely 190429_1248, 190429_1249 and CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 95/174 190429_1447.
238. During his deposition 190429_1248 was played which was found containing the voice of Nand Kishore. File 190429_1249 was played which was found containing his ( PW17) voice. He identified the voice of Nand Kishore as he had spent two days with him during the investigation and his voices were recorded in his presence.
239. During his deposition the memory card was taken out which was placed in the plastic cover and in the card board cover. Same was placed in a white envelope and in the yellow envelope duly sealed with the Court seal. He has identified his signature on each page of both transcript at points C of the transcriptions, of Q1, Ex. PW14/I and of Q2 Ex. PW14/J.
240. He has deposed that on 23.05.2019, Inspector Kuldeep again called him and he went to the CBI office. Three employees of MCD were already present there namely Samunder Singh, Satyadev and Surinder. Inspector Kuldeep played Q1 and Q2. He (PW17) identified his voice and the three employees identified the voices of accused Sukh CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 96/174 Ram Meena and of the complainant Ravinder. He has deposed that Satyadev and Samunder also identified their respective voices. A voice identification memo was prepared as well as the transcripts. He and three employees signed the memo and the transcripts. He (PW17) identified his signatures on each page at points B respectively on voice identification-cum- transcription memo, transcript of Q1 and transcript of Q2, Ex. PW15/A.
241. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused at length.
242. PW18 is Sh Satish, he has deposed that he did not know the exact date but it was 25 th of the month when complainant Ravinder, his colleague, had come to him and told him that someone was demanding illegal money for marking the attendance of adhoc employees who were under the supervision of that person. He has deposed that he suggested the complainant to complain to CBI office.
243. He has further deposed that they both went to the CBI office on 26th of the same month. Matter was CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 97/174 informed to a lady officer/official sitting in the office at the ground floor and thereafter, it was conveyed by her to senior officer. They were taken to the senior officer. He has further depose that there complainant Ravinder told to senior officer in the CBI office that accused Sukh Ram Meena, Sanitary Inspector was asking Rs. 25,000/- for marking the attendance of the temporary workers. CBI officer carried out the routine official proceedings.
244. He has deposed that the officer asked Ravinder to give this in writing by way of an application but Ravinder was having injury in his both hands and he was not in position to write. Therefore, he (PW18) had to write the application and accordingly, he had written that application, Ex. PW 14/A. He has deposed that thereafter, CBI called a punch witness namely, Nand Kishore who was made aware about the aforesaid complaint Ex. PW14/A.
245. He has deposed that thereafter one memory card or something like transistor, he did not know the exact name of that instrument, was shown to the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 98/174 Nand Kishore and it was told that it was empty and blank. The same was given to Ravinder by CBI officer for recording purposes. He has deposed that he remained in the office but Ravinder, punch witness Nand Kishore and few CBI officers left for Tilak Nagar. He was told that they are going to Tilak Nagar firstly for verification. They came back to the office at around 6:00 p.m. Till then, he remained in the CBI office on that day.
246. He has deposed that after returning to the office, CBI officers put that instrument/transistor with a system and by using the lead, listen/hear the recorded conversations. He has deposed that after hearing the recorded version, the CBI officers were of the opinion that prima-facie there are evidence for registration of the case. He was not familiar with the english language. Some proceedings in english language took place but he did not know the nature of those proceedings. He has identified his signature on verification memo Ex. PW14/B. He has deposed that next two days i.e. 27th and 28th of that month being holiday, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 99/174 Ravinder was called by CBI for 29th along with the money to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.
247. He has deposed that on 29th of that month Ravinder came to the CBI office along with the money at around 10:00 a.m. He (PW18) also reached there at the same time alongwith the Ravinder. CBI officers called another punch witness in the office, who was also made aware about the entire episode and also about the complaint made by Ravinder. He has deposed that said punch witness was further made aware that he has to accompany Ravinder to see if the complaint made by Ravinder to the effect that someone was asking illegal amount of Rs. 25,000/-, is correct or not.
248. He has further deposed that CBI officers had given a demonstration of the chemical/powder reaction by putting the same on the currency notes and then dipping the hands in the water. The water turned into pink colour. He has deposed that it was said to the witness that water turned pink if any objects come in contact with the same. The water which has turned pink in colour was thrown away.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 100/174
249. He has further deposed that after arranging the transistor/recorder and memory card which was blank and fixed on the hand of Ravinder Kumar. The CBI team left for the Tilak Nagar for raiding purpose. He (PW18) remained at the office only.
250. He has deposed that raiding team came back to the office at around 5-6:00 p.m. till then he remained in the CBI office. They were talking that the raid was successful and they carried out the routine proceedings. Thereafter, the recorded version was heard and the transistor/recorder was sealed by the CBI officers.
251. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
252. PW19 is Ms Deepti Bhargava,Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Chemistry), CFSL, Block-IV, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. She has deposed that in this case vide letter no. RC-DAI- 2019-A-0014/DLI dated 07th of May, 2019 Ex. PW19/A, three sealed glass bottles marked as RHW, LHW and IPPW were forwarded by the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi to the Director CFSL, New Delhi. Which was received in Chemistry Division CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 101/174 on 7th of May, 2019 under the supervision of HOD Chemistry and allotted to her on 10 th of May, 2019.
253. She has deposed that at the time of opening of the case, the seals on three sealed glass bottles were found to be having seal impression as C.B.I.A.C.B.N.D 14/2019, which were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression provided by the forwarding authority.
254. She has deposed that the exhibits RHW Ex. P-3, LHW, Ex. P-2 and IPPW Ex. P-5 were examined by her and gave positive tests for the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. Thereafter, report was prepared by her and remnants of exhibits in glass bottles were sealed with her official seal impression i.e. D.B.CHEM.DIV.CFSL.NEW DELHI.
255. She has deposed that the cloth wrappers (Ex. P-7, P-8 and P-9) along with remnants of seal impression removed from the mouth of above said exhibit glass bottles and same were kept in an envelope Ex. PW 19/D and also sealed with her official seal impression i.e. CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 102/174 D.B.CHEM.DIV.CFSL.NEW DELHI.
256. She has deposed that the original report Ex. PW 19/B along with remnants of exhibits and an envelope were handed over to the authorized messenger of CBI. She has further deposed that vide Letter no. CFSL-2019/C431/1841 dated 22.05.2019, Ex. PW 19/C sent by the Director, CFSL, New Delhi to the SP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi for collection of remnants of exhibits and report by sending the authorized messenger bearing the signature of Sh. N.B. Bardhan, the then Director, CFSL
257. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
258. PW 20 is Sh. Amitosh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I (physics) CFSL, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, MHA, New Delhi. He has deposed that he prepared forensic voice examination report dated 02.09.2019, CFSL No. CFSL-2019/P- 440,Ex. PW20/A.
259. He has deposed that in this case, a request letter from the SP, CBI, New Delhi vide letter no. RC-
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 103/174 DAI-2019-A-0014-5038 dated 10.05.2019 along with four sealed parcels, specimen seal impression and copy of rough transcriptions were received in the office of CFSL on dated 10.05.2019. He has deposed that the sealed parcels were marked as Q- 1, Q-2, S-1 and DVR.
260. He has deposed that the said case was allotted to him for examination by the Head of Physics Division. He received the parcel and opened for examination. Before opening the sealed parcels, the seals on the parcels were tallied with the specimen seals forwarded and found intact.
261. He has deposed that he opened the parcel for examination and found that 3 micro SD cards and one DVR which were marked as Ex. Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and DVR. The micro SD cards Q-1 and Q-2 containing the questioned recorded conversation and the micro SD card marked as S-1 contained the specimen voice.
262. He has deposed that the questioned recorded conversation and the specimen voice were transferred to the instrument namely Speech Science Lab (SSL) for examination. After that the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 104/174 questioned voice of suspected persons were segregated from the recorded conversation and compared with the specimen voice.
263. He has further deposed that after comparing and identifying the questioned voice with specimen voice, it was opined that questioned voice marked as Q-1 (1)(A) to Q-1 (4)(A) and Q-2 (1)(A) and the specimen voice marked as S-1 (1)(A) are similar and of the same person namely, accused Sukh Ram Meena, on the basis of auditory and spectrographic examination.
264. He has deposed that accordingly, he prepared his detailed opinion vide CFSL No. CFSL-2019/P-
440. He further deposed that the micro SD cards marked Q-1, Q-2 and S-1 were also examined for tampering vide regarding query no. 2 as per the forwarded letter. He has deposed that after examination on the basis of waveform, spectrographic and critical auditory listening, it was opined that the recordings contained in the above mentioned Micro SD cards are continuous and no form of tampering detected.
265. He has deposed that regarding query no. 3, the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 105/174 DVR was also examined for recording of the micro SD cards Q-1, Q-2 and S-1.After test recording done by same DVR, it was opined that the recordings contained in the Micro SD cards (Q-1), (Q-2) and (S-1) could have been used for recording. After examination of the micro SD cards were sealed with his official seal and sent to the CBI, ACB, New Delhi along with the original report through his official procedure.
266. He has deposed that a request letter no. RC-DAI-
2019-A0014/5038 dated 10.05.2019 Ex. PW20/B of CBI addressed to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, Block No. 4, CGO complex, New Delhi dated 10.05.2019 (CFSL- 2019/P-440) was received by Case Assistant, CFSL, New Delhi.
267. He has identified signature of N.B. Bardhan, Director, CFSL on intimation letter Ex. PW20/C addressed to the SP, CBI, ACB dated 03.09.2019. He has identified his signature at point 'A' on the envelope Ex. PW20/D, out of which, one brown envelope Ex. PW14/C1 was taken out and witness identified his signature at point 'C', out of which, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 106/174 one paper card cover bearing marking of Sandisk 8 GB, Ex. PW14/C2 was taken out, on which, he identified his signature at point 'C' on the paper card cover and a small initial on the micro SD card at point 'C'.
268. He has identified his signature at point 'A' on yellow envelope Ex. PW14/K, out of which, one white envelope Ex. PW14/L was taken out on which, he identified his signature at point 'C', out of which, one paper card cover bearing marking of Kingston 8 GB Ex. PW14/M was taken out and shown to the witness, on which, witness identified his signatures at two places at points 'C' on the paper card cover and small initials on the micro SD card along with its adapter at point 'X'
269. He has identified his signature at point 'A' on yellow envelope Ex. PW17/D. Out of which, one white envelope Ex. PW16/E1 was taken out on which he identified his signature at point 'C'. From the said white envelope, one paper card cover bearing marking of Kingston 8 GB Ex. PW16/E2 was taken out on which, he identified his signature at point 'C' on the paper card cover CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 107/174 and small initials on the micro SD card along with its adapter at point 'X'.
270. He has also identified his signature at point 'A' on yellow envelope Ex. PW20/E sealed with Court seal (CFSL 2019/P-440 RC-DAI-2019-A-0014, Parcel 4, Exhibit DVR) addressed to I/C, Superintendent Of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. And from the said envelope, one white envelope Ex. PW16/F was taken out on which he correctly identified his signature at point 'C', out of which, one DVR Ex. P8 was taken out on which he correctly identified his signatures at two places on the said DVR at points 'C1' and 'C2'.
271. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
272. PW 21 is Sh. C.M.S. Negi, Inspector, ACB, Delhi.
He has deposed that on 26.04.2019, he was called by his Supervisory S.P, Sh. N.M.P. Sinha in his chamber. Where he was introduced to one Sh. Ravinder Kumar informing that Sh. Ravinder Kumar had came up with a complaint of demand of bribe from a SDMC official. He has deposed that he took Sh. Ravinder Kumar to his work CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 108/174 station and learnt that he was accompanied by another person whom he introduced as Sh. Satish. Sh. Ravinder informed that he had a complaint against accused Sukh Ram Meena, Sanitary Inspector, SDMC, Ward No. S-13.
273. He has deposed that Ravinder further informed him that due to injury in his hands, his complaint had been drafted by his friend Sh. Satish on his narration and direction. He has deposed that the said complaint was got registered in the complaint section of CBI, ACB, Delhi as CO-21/2019.
274. He has deposed that for the purpose of verification, he arranged through office an independent witness namely Sh. Nand Kishore, Assistant Director, Central Water Commission. He also took along SI Dinesh of CBI ACB Delhi for assisting him in the verification. He has further deposed that a CBI Brass Seal and sealing material was also arranged through the Malkhana. The complainant was introduced to the independent witness and other members of the CBI. The complaint of Sh. Ravinder Kumar was then shown, read over and explained to all present.
275. He has deposed that for the purpose of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 109/174 verification, a DVR and a sealed blank memory card was arranged from the care taker of the branch, the blankness of the DVR was ensured and the memory card was taken out of its seal in presence of the independent witness. The blank memory card was then inserted in the DVR and after ensuring the blankness of the memory card, the introductory voice of the independent witness Sh. Nand Kishore was recorded in the memory card through the DVR.
276. He has deposed that it was informed by the complainant that the accused Sukh Ram Meena was very cautious and would not speak of the demand of the bribe over a telephonic call. Hence, it was decided to visit the office of accused in Tilak Nagar. He has deposed that the complainant also informed that generally accused/ suspect officer used to visit the office at Block-14 at about 2 to 3:00 p.m. when the Safai Karamcharis come to record their attendance.
277. He has deposed that accordingly, he along with the complainant, the independent witness and Sub Inspector Dinesh proceeded to the said office in Tilak Nagar on an official CBI vehicle at about CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 110/174 13:05 hours on 26.04.2019. The team reached in the vicinity of the area at about 14:15 hours and the vehicle was parked at a safe distance from the said office at Tilak Nagar. At about 14:27 hours, a call was made from the phone of the complainant to the mobile phone of accused/suspect officer, Sh. Sukh Ram Meena wherein, the complainant told accused that he had come to meet accused on which accused gave him some cleaning task and stated that they would meet after the said task was completed. The said call was made in presence of the independent witness by keeping the mobile phone of the complainant in speaker mode and the same was recorded in the memory card through the DVR.
278. He has deposed that the team waited in the vicinity and at about 15:06 hours the mobile phone of the complainant rang. The complainant informed that the call was from accused Sukh Ram Meena. On which, the complainant was directed to receive the said call in speaker mode which was got recorded in the memory card through the DVR which was handled by SI Dinesh. He has deposed that in the said call, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 111/174 accused inquired about the task given to the complainant and directed him to take the photographs of the cleaned area and accused also told the complainant "Wo Budget Ko Toh Kahi Nazdeek Laga". On which, the complainant told accused that he wanted to meet him (accused) for the said purpose only. The accused was then heard telling the complainant that accused would be in the office at Block-14 in about 10 minutes and the complainant could meet accused there.
279. He has deposed that the complainant informed that the office was adjacent to Rajkiya Sarvodaya Bal Vidhayala-I which was nearby. Accordingly, he ( complainant ) was directed to meet accused in the said office and the independent witness was also directed to accompany the complainant from a safe distance and to remain as close as possible to him. So as to over hear the likely conversation between the complainant and accused.
280. He has deposed that the DVR in recording mode was then kept within the left hand sling support of the complainant and he was sent towards the office at ward-14. The independent witness also followed him from some distance. He has deposed CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 112/174 that he along with SI Dinesh also then followed the complainant who was seen entering an office adjacent to the Rajkiya Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya- I. Wherein the door of the said office was open and some five to six persons were seen present in the said office. After some time, the witness was also seen entering the said office and coming out of it after some 10 to 15 seconds
281. He has deposed that the complainant remained in the office for more than an hour or so. The CBI team and the witness kept changing their positions to avoid any suspicion. He has deposed that the complainant came out of the said office at about 17:00 hours and was seen approaching the spot where the CBI vehicle was parked. He along with SI Dinesh reached the CBI vehicle and the DVR was taken back from the complainant which was switched off immediately in presence of the independent witness who had also reached at the CBI vehicle.
282. He has deposed that the complainant was directed to narrate the sequence of event on which he stated that when he entered the said office of SDMC at block-14, he found Sanitary Inspector CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 113/174 i.e. accused Sukh Ram Meena and some other staff and Safai Karamcharis there. He has further deposed that the complainant spoke to accused about his demand of Rs. 25,000/- and requested accused to lower the said amount as he was not in a position to pay the same. He also narrated that accused Sukh Ram Meena did not agree to lower the amount.
283. He has further deposed that the complainant also narrated that accused had been told that he would get Rs. 20,000/- on Monday on which accused agreed but insisted that the demanded money should not be lowered. He has deposed that the independent witness was also asked to narrate the sequence of events on which he stated that he followed the complainant to the said office at Block-14. He also narrated that he also entered the said office and posed as an Election Officer.
284. He has deposed that the independent witness further narrated that he had seen the complainant talking to a person who was sitting opposite to the complainant in the said office. The CBI team along with the complainant and the independent witness then left the spot and reached in the CBI CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 114/174 ACB, Delhi office at about 18:00 hours.
285. He has deposed that the memory card was taken out of the DVR in presence of the independent witness and a copy of the recordings in the memory card was prepared using a Write Blocker. He has deposed that the recorded conversations were heard in presence of the independent witness and the same were found to be corroborating the version of the complainant and the independent witness.
286. He has deposed that the memory card was then kept in the plastic covering marked as Q-1 in CO- 21/19, containing the memory card was then kept in the original packaging of the memory card. Which was signed by him, the complainant, and the independent witness and was kept in a brown envelope which was then sealed using the CBI brass seal. The said envelope was also marked as Q-1 in CO-21/19 and was signed by him, the complainant and the independent witness. He has identified his signature at point D on envelope Ex. PW20/D. Out of which, one brown envelope Ex. PW14/C1 was taken out, having his signature at point D out of which Paper cover Ex. PW14/C2) CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 115/174 was taken out having his signature at point D, out of which the plastic cover Ex. PW14/C3 was taken out having his signature at point X.
287. He has further deposed that the specimen seal impression of the CBI brass seal, which was used during the verification proceedings were also taken in Ink and Lac on blank white sheet.
288. He has deposed that the voices of accused Sukh Ram Meena and the other SDMC officials present in the said office of Ward-14, were identified by the complainant when the same were played in the CBI ACB Delhi office and the details of the proceedings were recorded in a memorandum which was prepared in CBI, ACB New Delhi.He has deposed that the memorandum was shown, read over and explained to all concerned in the proceedings and the same was then signed by all concerned including him (PW21).
289. He has deposed that the verification memo IN CO-
21/2019/CBI/ACB/Delhi dated 26.04.2018 Ex. PW14/B bearing his signature with date 26.04.2019 on each and every page of this memorandum at point D. He has further deposed that due to typographical error the date in the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 116/174 heading of the verification memo had been inadvertently put as 26.04.2018 whereas the proceedings were actually carried out on 26.04.2019.
290. He has further deposed that the CBI brass seal and the DVR were handed over to the independent witness Sh. Nand Kishore with the directions to produce the same on 29.04.2019.
291. He has deposed that the verification had clearly established a demand on the part of accused Hence, the complainant was directed to arrange Rs. 25,000/- and report with the same on 29.04.2019 as the same had been established to be the date of handing over of the bribe amount to the suspect officer as per his demand. He has deposed that he had submitted his report to the Supervisory SP after conclusion of the verification proceedings.
292. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused at length.
293. PW 22 is Sh Surinder Singh, he has deposed that in the month of April, 2019, he was posted as Sanitation Superintendent, West Zone, MCD and accused Sukh Ram Meena was posted in Tilak CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 117/174 Nagar as a Sanitary Inspector in April 2019.
294. He has deposed that his main duty was to have an overall supervision over the staffs and to ensure proper sanitation in the area and the complainant Ravinder Kumar was Sanitary Guide at that time in Tilak Nagar area. He was working under the supervision of accused at that time.
295. He has deposed that before registering of the FIR in the present case, complainant Ravinder Kumar came to him making a complaint against accused. He has deposed that he asked Ravinder Kumar to give in writing about his grievances and complaint against accused.
296. He has deposed that he had visited the CBI office around 8-9 times and he submitted documents which were required during investigation to CBI. He has deposed that office search memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW16/A was prepared in his presence bearing his signatures at points 'B'. He has further deposed that vide production-cum- seizure memo Ex. PW22/A dated 21.05.2019, he had submitted documents required in the present case and the said production-cum-seizure memo bears his signatures at points 'A'.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 118/174
297. He has deposed that vide production-cum-seizure, memo dated 24.05.2019, Ex. PW22/B he had submitted documents required in the present case and the said production-cum-seizure memo bears his signatures at points 'A'. He has depsoed that vide production-cum-seizure memo Ex. PW22/C dated 31.05.2019, he had submitted documents required in the present case and the said production-cum-seizure memo bears his signatures at points 'A'.
298. He has deposed that notice dated 29.05.2019 under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW22/D was received by him and he had replied the same vide reply dated 31.05.2019 Ex. PW22/E which bears his signature at point 'A'.
299. He has deposed that he had visited the CBI office several times. He might had visited on 23.05.2019 and on that day, one or two Assistant Sanitary Inspector, namely, Satyadev and Samundar Singh had already been called by the CBI. He has deposed that on that day i.e. 23.05.2019, one CD was played in his presence and the voice available therein was identified.
300. He has deposed that Samunder Singh and CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 119/174 Satyadev had identified their own voices and he identified the voices of complaint Ravinder Kumar and accused vide voice identification cum transcription memo dated 23.05.2019 Ex. PW15/A bearing his signatures at points 'C'.He has deposed that thereafter, some proceedings were recorded and the same were signed by him also.
301. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
302. PW 23 is Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar Manish, he has deposed that during the month of April, 2019, he was posted as Assistant Commissioner, West Zone, MCD and his duty was to look after all the 29 wards of his zone. There were so many departments in the said zone which he had to supervise.
303. He has deposed that his role in respect of payment to the Sanitary workers in the said zone was almost negligible and he was just passing the bills of said sanitary workers in the capacity of DDO and his job was not to verify the facts.
304. He has deposed that as far as the passing of the bills of the sanitary workers are concerned, there was already a mechanism in use and their bills CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 120/174 used to be verified at four levels i.e. Assistant Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Inspector, Chief Sanitary Inspector and then by Sanitary Superintendent.
305. He has deposed that muster rolls bears his signatures at certain pages pertaining to the period from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019, from 16.02.2019 to 15.03.2019 and from 16.02.2019 to 15.03.2019 at points 'X' Ex. PW23/A, Ex. PW23/B and Ex. PW23/C respectively. He has deposed that an office order no. AC/WZ2018/D-338 dated 25.04.2019 Ex. PW23/D was issued by him bearing his signatures at point 'X'.
306. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
307. PW24 Inspector Parveen Kumar Maheshwari, has deposed that on 29.04.2019, SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi marked the investigation of case FIR No. 14(A)/2019 to him. Informing that the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar filed a complaint against accused Sukh Ram Meena, Sanitary Inspector working in MCD on 26.04.2019. He has deposed that the SP further informed him that verification of the complaint CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 121/174 had already been conducted and he had been entrusted as a TLO.
308. He has deposed that FIR no. RC-DAI-2019-A-
0014 dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW24/A bears the signature of Sh. N.M.P. Sinha, SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi at point 'A'. He identified the signature of Sh. N.M.P. Sinha as he had worked under him and seen him writing and signing. He has further deposed that the SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi also introduced with the complainant.
309. He has deposed that after discussion, a team was constituted and thereafter, at about 1220 hours, the team consisting of PW 24 as a TLO, Inspector Harnam Singh, Dharmender, Raman Shukla, A.K. Singh and two Sub Inpsectors namely Sanjeev and Dinesh and other lower staffs were assembled in the office of SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi. He has deposed that the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sh. Nand Kishore working in Central Water Commission and Satbir Singh was also secured through duty officer.
310. He has deposed that thereafter members of the team were introduced with each other and they were informed that Sh. Ravinder Kumar had made CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 122/174 a complaint against accused Sukh Ram Meena. The contents of the FIR, complaint in Hindi dated 26.04.2019 made by Ravinder Kumar and verification memo dated 26.04.2019 were shown to all the team members, read over and explained the same.
311. He has deposed that the complainant did not want to give bribe to accused hence, he made the complaint with the CBI. He has further deposed that the verification of the said complaint was carried out by Inspector C.M.S. Negi with the assistance of SI Dinesh and in the presence of independent witness Nand Kishore. Which revealed that accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant Sh. Ravinder Kumar in lieu of clearing the attendance register of the temporary workers on dated 26.04.2019.
312. He has deposed that the complainant had also informed that accused had fixed the day for delivery of bribe amount on dated 29.04.2019 at his office. And the trap team members including the independent witnesses satisfied with the complaint and verification. He has deposed that the memory card containing recorded conversation CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 123/174 used during the verification was marked as CO- 21/2019, CBI, ACB, Delhi was taken into possession through handing over memo dated 29.04.2019.
313. He has deposed that thereafter, complainant Sh.
Ravinder Kumar produced Rs. 25,000/- consisting of denomination of 12 GC note of Rs. 2,000/- and two GC note of Rs. 500/- each. The said amount was brought by the complainant for giving it to accused as bribe. The denominations and number notes of the aforesaid GC notes were recorded in the handing over memo.
314. He has deposed that thereafter, Inspector Dharmender Kumar was directed to give demonstrations and explained the purpose of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water. It was orally informed to all including independent witnesses that if any part/object came into the contact of phenolphthalein powder and that particular part is dipped/washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and water, the colorless solution will be changed in pink color.
315. He has deposed that Inspector Dharmender CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 124/174 Kumar treated the aforesaid currency notes with the phenolphthalein powder. And the independent witness Nand Kishore was directed to touch these GC notes with the finger of his right hand. Further, he was directed to dip his finger in the freshly prepared solution of sodium carbonate and water. On doing so, the colorless solution turned into pink color and the chemical reaction was explained to all. The said solution was thrown away as not required. The remaining phenolphthalein powder was also thrown away.
316. He has deposed that thereafter, the other independent witness Satbir Singh was directed to conduct personal search of the complainant for the purpose that he should not carry any incriminating articles in his possession except his mobile phone with ear buds.
317. He has deposed that thereafter, the independent witness Nand Kishore put the aforesaid tainted amount in the right side pocket of the pant worn by the complainant with further direction to not to touch the said tainted amount with him and give it to ) accused Sukh Ram Meena on his specific demand not otherwise or on his ( accused) CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 125/174 specific direction to any other person.
318. He has deposed that the team member mutually searched each other except complainant to ensure that nothing incriminating articles/object should be in their possession during the trap proceedings. All the trap team members washed their hand.
319. He has deposed that thereafter, the independent witness Nand Kishore was directed to remain as shadow witness and remained close to the complainant for the purpose of hearing conversations, delivery of bribe amount which might take place between the complainant and accused.
320. He has deposed that both i.e. complainant and the independent witness Sh. Nand Kishore was directed to move right hand over the head after the transaction of bribe. Both were also briefed to give miss call from their phone to the mobile number of TLO after the transaction of bribe. The other witness namely Satbir Singh remained with the trap team.
321. He has deposed that thereafter, the DVR used during the verification was taken back from the independent witness for further proceedings. A CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 126/174 fresh sealed pack memory card make Kingston 8 GB was arranged from the office. He has further deposed that SI Dinesh, who was acquainted with the operation and function of the DVR, was directed to explain the functions and operations of DVR to the independent witnesses and other team members. The said memory card was opened and inserted into the DVR.
322. He has deposed that the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded to ensure the emptiness of memory card and the said DVR containing memory card was to be used during further proceedings. SI Dinesh was directed to operate and keep the said DVR under his possession for further proceedings.
323. He has deposed that CBI brass seal was also got issued from the Malkhana and a leather bag was also arranged for carrying sodium carbonate powder, neat and clean tumblers, neat and clean bottles, sealing materials. He has deposed that the file cover containing copy of FIR, verification memo, complaints and stationary articles required to be used during further proceedings were also taken into possession.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 127/174
324. He has deposed that the proceedings of handing over memo were prepared in the office of SP, CBI, ACB on the official laptop and concluded at about 1330 hours. The contents of the handing over memo were shown to all and it was signed by them in token of correctness including PW24 himself. The said memo was also carried for further proceedings.
325. He has identified his signatures at points 'D', that of Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Inspector at points 'E', of Sh. Harnam Singh, Inspector at points 'F', of Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, Inspector at points 'G', of Sh. Dinesh, SI at points 'H', of Sh. Sanjeev Chandra, SI at point 'I' and that of Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector at point 'J' on all the pages of the handing over memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW14/D, as they all had signed the handing over memo in his presence.
326. He has deposed that at about 13.35 hours, the whole trap team including independent witnesses and the complainant left for Tilak Nagar in two CBI vehicles. He has deposed that at about 14.35 hours, the trap team reached in the area where office of accused was located. He has deposed CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 128/174 that the vehicle was parked at a safer distance. The complainant was again briefed to give tainted amount to accused on his specific demand and not otherwise or to the specific person as per his ( accused ) directions.
327. He has deposed that at about 14.45 hours, SI Dinesh was directed to give DVR in the recording mode and accordingly DVR was fixed in the left hand sling support of the complainant as his both the hands were plastered. He has further deposed that the complainant and independent witness Nand Kishore were directed to approach accused at his office situated near Block No. 14, Tilak Nagar near Government Survodhya Bal Vidhyalaya.
328. He has deposed that accordingly, they started to move towards the office of accused. The remaining trap team followed them in a undoubtful manner. The independent witness Nand Kishore took his position near to the office of accused i.e adjoining to Survodhya Bal Vidhyalaya School.
329. He has deposed that the complainant was seen entering into the office of accused and the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 129/174 independent witness was waiting outside the office of accused. He has deposed that at about 15.10 hours, the independent witness gave the miss call from his mobile number to the mobile number of the PW 24, as a pre-decided signal of transaction of bribe. Immediately thereafter, the trap team members were alerted and reached inside the office of accused where the complainant and accused were found present.
330. He has deposed that DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. He has deposed that the complainant informed that accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from him. He has further deposed that introduction of the trap team including ( PW24) was given to accused and challenged for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant. Over this, the complexion of accused turned perplexed and kept mum for sometime
331. He has deposed that the complainant informed that accused had accepted bribe of Rs. 25,000/- through his right hand and counted the same and kept in the right side pocket of the pant worn by accused. He has deposed that the right hand of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 130/174 accused was caught hold by SI Sanjeev Chander and left hand by him ( PW24) and accused also disclose his identity. He has deposed that thereafter, a fresh colorless solution of sodium carbonate and water was prepared in the neat and clean tumbler in the presence of witnesses and accused was directed to dip his right hand fingers into the solution.
332. He has deposed that by dipping fingers of accused, the colorless solution turned into pink color and the same was transferred into neat and clean bottle. The said bottle was capped, wrapped with white cloth, tied with yellow color tag and sealed with CBI seal. The paper label was also pasted on the bottle and marked as 'RHW in RC14-A/2019 denoting right hand wash'. He has deposed that he (PW 24) along with independent witnesses put signatures on paper label pasted on the bottle and the cloth used for wrapping.
333. He has further deposed that another fresh colorless solution of sodium carbonate and water was prepared in the neat and clean tumbler in the presence of witnesses and accused was directed to dip his left hand fingers into the solution. And by CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 131/174 dipping fingers of accused the colorless solution turned into pink color and the same was transferred into neat and clean bottle.
334. He has deposed that the said bottle was capped, wrapped with white cloth, tied with yellow color tag and sealed with CBI seal. The paper label was also pasted on the bottle and marked as 'LHW in RC14-A/2019 denoting left hand wash'. He has further deposed that he (PW 24) along with independent witnesses put signatures on paper label pasted on the bottle and the cloth used for wrapping.
335. He has deposed that thereafter, independent witness Satbir Singh was directed to recover tainted bribe amount from the right side pant pocket worn by accused. He has deposed that he recovered tainted bribe amount from the right side pant pocket worn by accused. He has deposed that the amount recovered was counted and denomination and number note were tallied with the handing over memo and the same was found to be same. Which were kept in brown color envelope, sealed with the CBI seal and marked as 'Bribe in RC No. 14-A/2019 (Rs. 25,000/-)'. He CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 132/174 along with independent witness signed on the envelope and thumb impression of the complainant was also taken on it.
336. He has deposed that thereafter, a track pant was arranged for accused for the purpose of getting wash of the pocket of the pant worn by accused. Accordingly, accused was asked to change his pant in dignified manner. He has deposed that another colorless solution of sodium carbonate and water were prepared in the neat and clean tumbler in the presence of the independent witnesses.
337. He has deposed that the right side inner pocket of the pant of accused was dipped into the said solution by dipping the same into the colorless solution. The color of the solution turned into pink color and the same was transferred into neat and clean bottle. He has deposed that said bottle was capped, wrapped with white cloth, tied with yellow color tag and sealed with CBI seal. The paper label was also pasted on the bottle and marked as 'IPPW in RC14-A/2019 denoting Innerside pocket pant wash'.
338. He has further deposed that he along with independent witnesses put signatures on paper CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 133/174 label pasted on the bottle and the cloth used for wrapping. For the time being, the said pant kept to get dry.
339. He has deposed that the residential address of accused was obtained from him for the purpose of conducting search. And authorization U/s 165 (3) Cr.P.C. was issued in the name of Inspector Sandeep Kumar for conducting search at his residential premises due to urgency. The said authorization was sent through special messenger.
340. He has deposed that after sometime, pant of accused was got dried and piece of cloth was attached with the pocket for the purpose of visible signatures. He has deposed that he along with independent witnesses signed on the piece of cloth attached with the pocket. Thereafter, the said pant was kept in yellow envelope and sealed with the CBI seal, marked as 'Pant of accused in RC No. 14-A/2019'.
341. He has deposed that Inspector Dharmender Kumar was directed to prepare a rough site plan( not to scale) and a site plan dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW14/F was prepred showing the positions of trap team members, independent witnesses, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 134/174 complainant and accused. After going through the same, the witness (PW24) states that the rough site plan bearing his signatures at point 'E' and signature of Sh. Dharmender, Inspector at point 'F'.
342. He has deposed that search of the office of accused was conducted in the presence of witnesses and the documents seized were taken into possession through office search memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW16/A bearing his signatures at points 'C' and 'C1'. He has deposed that the complainant was directed to narrate the incident who informed that he entered into the office of accused while sitting on (his) chair. He also sat in front of accused. The complainant discussed bribe amount with accused for getting some discount i.e. reduce bribe amount.
343. After discussion, accused stood from his chair and asked the complainant to visit the place where the retirement party of the colleague was going on. The complainant insisted to settle the matter there. On this, accused demanded the money through gestures of his right hand from the complainant. The complainant asked accused to take out the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 135/174 bribe amount from his right side pocket of the pant by opening of zip of the pocket as his both the hands were injured.
344. He has further deposed that the complainant also narrated that accused took out the bribe amount from his ( complainant) right side of his pocket of pant and accused accepted the bribe amount through his right hand. On asking by complainant, accused counted the bribe money with his both hands and kept the same in his right side pocket of the pant.
345. He has further deposed that then the independent witness namely Nand Kishore was directed to narrate the incident who informed that he followed the complainant and waited outside office of accused. The door of the office was opened so he could able to see inside. Both complainant and accused stood from the chair in the office and complainant gave the bribe amount to accused. But he could not hear the conversations held between accused and complainant. After the transaction of bribe, he gave the missed call from his mobile phone to the TLO on his mobile phone.
346. He has deposed that the place was not conducive CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 136/174 for further proceedings, therefore, the trap team including the independent witnesses, complainant, accused and with articles left the place at about 17.25 hours for the office of CBI and reached the CBI office at 18.20 hours.
347. He has further deposed that the conversations held between complainant and accused was heard by playing the DVR. Few lines were noted for the purpose of getting specimen voice of accused and the memory card in the DVR was taken out.
348. He has deposed that SI Dinesh prepared the office copy of the memory card through write blocker for the purpose of investigation. The said memory card was kept back in the original packing and finally in the envelope marked as 'Q2' in RC No. 14-A/2019.
349. He has deposed that before placing the said memory card in the envelope, it was signed by him and the independent witnesses. The envelope having the memory card was also signed by him and by the independent witnesses.
350. He has deposed that accused was arrested at around 21.30 hours vide arrest-cum-personal memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW16/D. The CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 137/174 intimation of arrest of accused was given to his wife through Inspector Sandeep Kumar.
351. He has deposed that accused was directed to give his specimen voice to which he had voluntarily agreed for which purpose a fresh memory card was arranged. The same was opened in the presence of the witnesses in which the introductory voice of both the witnesses were recorded through DVR after ensuring its blankness.
352. He has further deposed that accused was directed to speak few lines already taken from the earlier memory card, Q2. Accordingly, specimen voice of accused was recorded in the memory card and thereafter, concluding voice of both the independent witnesses were also recorded.
353. He has deposed that the memory card in the DVR was taken out which was kept back in the original packing. And finally in the envelope marked as 'S1 in RC No. 14-A/2019' and before placing the said memory card in the envelope. It was signed by him ( PW24), by accused and the independent witnesses.
354. He has deposed that the DVR used for the purpose CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 138/174 of recording was also signed by himself (PW24) and the independent witnesses and further kept in the brown color envelope and sealed with the CBI seal. The envelope was also signed by him (PW24) and both the independent witnesses.
355. He has deposed that the impression of the CBI seal used during the proceedings, was put on the recovery memo in both ink and lac. The brass seal was handed over to the independent witness namely Sh. Nand Kishore with the direction to produce as and when required before the lawful authority.
356. He has further deposed that the proceedings of the above facts were reduced in the writing by preparing recovery memo which was signed by him (PW24) and by all other members of the team present there.
357. He has deposed that all the above articles/documents were taken into possession vide aforesaid recovery memo dated 30.04.2019 Ex. PW14/G bearing his signatures at points 'D' and that of Sh. Dharmender Kumar, Inspector at points 'E', and of Sh. Harnam Singh, Inspector at points 'F', of Sh. Raman Kumar Shukla, Inspector CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 139/174 at points 'G', of Sh. Dinesh, SI at points 'H', of Sh. Sanjeev Chandra, SI at points 'I' and of Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh, Inspector at point 'J' on all the pages along with the impression of the brass seal at point 'K'.
358. He identified the signatures of the aforesaid officers as he had seen them signing and writing in discharge of their ordinary duties and also that they all had signed the handing over memo in his ( PW24) presence.
359. He has deposed that the said proceedings were concluded in the office of CBI at around 3:10 a.m. on 30.04.2019. The specimen of the brass seal was also taken on a paper and the same was also signed by him (PW24) and independent witnesses. He has identified his signature at point C on one sealed bottle having RHW (Right Hand Wash), Ex. P-2, of accused which was put in the said bottle and then sealed on the spot.
360. He has also identified his signature at point C on one sealed bottle having LHW (Left Hand Wash), Ex. P-3 of accused, which was put in the said bottle and then sealed on the spot. He also identified his signature at point C on one sealed CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 140/174 bottle having the inner pocket pant wash, Ex. P-5 of accused, which was put in the said bottle and then sealed on the spot. He has identified accused's grey colour pant worn by accused at the time of raid and it was taken into possession and seized and sealed at the spot.
361. He has deposed that the pocket, Ex. P-6 of the said pant was washed at the spot itself which bears his signature at point 'C', which was kept in yellow colour envelope Ex. PW17/A bearing his signatures at point 'C'. He has identified currency notes Ex. P-4 (colly.) in the denomination of Rs. 2,000/- (12 in number) and of Rs. 500/- (2 in number) in one brown color envelope duly sealed with the seal of Court Ex. PW14/E bearing his (PW24) signatures at point 'D'. Which were recovered from the possession of accused and were seized and sealed in his presence at the spot.
362. He has also identified a yellow envelope duly sealed with the seal of the Court having the endorsement Ex. Q-2,Ex. PW14/K. Out of which, one white color envelope Ex. PW14/L, bearing his signature at point 'D', which was unsealed and easily openable, is taken out. He has deposed that CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 141/174 from the said white envelope, a memory card duly covered with the paper/packaging bearing his signatures at point 'C', is taken out Ex. PW14/M. He has deposed that from the said packaging, the memory card Ex. PX and micro SD adopter Ex. PY which was there in a plastic cover Ex. PW14/N bearing his PW24) signature at point 'X', is taken out.
363. He has further deposed that yellow color envelope duly sealed with the Court seal having the endorsement Ex. DVR, Ex. PW20/E was opened and one white envelope Ex. PW16/F was taken out on which he identified his signature at point 'X'. Out of which, one DVR Ex. P-8 was taken out, on which he correctly identified his signature at point 'X'.
364. This witness has identified one more yellow color envelope duly sealed with the seal of Court and having the endorsement Ex. S-1 (Ex. PW17/D). It is opened and one unsealed white envelope (Ex. PW16/E1) was taken out. On which he identified his signature at point 'D' and signatures of accused at point 'E', out of which, a card board cover having the memory card,Ex. PW16/E-2, Ex.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 142/174 PW16/F and Ex. PW16/E-3, in its plastic cover were taken out. He has deposed that Ex. PW16/E- 2 bears his signature at point 'X' and Ex. PW16/E- 3 at point 'X'.
365. He has deposed that he was the initial IO of the present case and subsequently the investigation of the present case was handed over by the order of the competent authority to Inspector Kuldeep Sharma.
366. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
367. PW25 is Inspector Kuldeep Sharma, I.O of the case. He has deposed that he was assigned the investigation of this case by the SP in the FIR Ex. PW24/A which was registered on the basis of complaint of Ravinder Kumar and verification was conducted by C.M.S. Negi.
368. He has deposed that after receiving the investigation from Inspector Praveen Kumar, TLO. He recorded his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses mentioned in the list of witness and were filed with chargesheet. He has deposed that he prepared transcription memos as well as voice identification memos.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 143/174
369. He has deposed that he also sent hand washes/ pant washes etc. to CFSL vide forwarding letter. He also collected CAF and CDR along with certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He also sent Q-1, Q-2 and S-1 along with DVR to CFSL for obtaining expert opinion. He has identified his signature at point D on Handing over Memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW14/D, Recovery Memo dated 29/30-04.2019 Ex. PW14/G, Arrest cum Personal Search Memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW16/D, Rough Site Plan Ex. PW14/F, Office Search memo dated 29.04.2019 Ex. PW16/A.
370. He has further deposed that Voice Identification cum Transcription Memo Ex. PW14/H and deposed that this document Ex. PW14/H was prepared by him during investigation. He has deposed that transcription of Q-1 Ex. PW14/I and transcription of Q-2 Ex. PW14/J, were prepared by him during investigation and he also identified his signature at point D on each page.
371. He has deposed that Voice Identification cum Transcription memo dated 23.05.2019 Ex. PW15/A was prepared during investigation. And he also identified his signature at point D. He has CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 144/174 further deposed that forwarding letter dated 07.05.2019 Ex. PW19/A was addressed to CFSL, CBI New Delhi by the then SP N.M.P Sinha and he identified his signature at point X, as he had him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
372. He has deposed that a letter dated 22.05.2019 Ex.
PW19/C, received from CFSL was addressed to SP, CBI, ACB New Delhi in respect of collection of reports and exhibits in respect of washes, had been received from CFSL during investigation. He has further deposed that Chemical Examination Report dated 16.05.2019 Ex. PW19/B had been collected during the course of investigation.
373. He has deposed that vide a forwarding letter no.
5038 dated 10.05.2019 in respect of voice examination of exhibits Ex. PW20/B, the exhibits Q-1, Q-2, S-1, DVR had been sent to CFSL, New Delhi by CBI with the signature of the then SP NMP Sinha. He identified signature of NMP Sinha at points A, as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties.
374. He has deposed that a Notice dated 10.05.2019 Ex. PW25/A was sent to Nodal Officer Vodafone CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 145/174 Mobile Service Ltd. by him during investigation and he also identified his initial at point A and signature at point B. He has deposed that a letter Ex. PW12/A was addressed to him was sent by Saurabh Agarwal, Alternate Nodal Officer for Vodaphone Idea Ltd. vide which a CDR Ex. PW12/C, CAF Ex. PW12/B and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW12/D had been received during investigation.
375. He has deposed that a notice dated 10.05.2019 Ex.
PW25/B was sent to Nodal Officer, Airtel Mobile Service Ltd by him to obtain the CDR, CAF, certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act bearing his initial at point A and his signature at point B. He has deposed that a letter was addressed to him, sent by Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd dated 28.05.2019 Ex. PW13/A, vide which, CDR Ex. PW13/C, Site address Ex. PW13/D, CAF Ex. PW13/B and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW13/E have been received for the purpose of investigation.
376. He has further deposed that vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 21.05.2019, Ex. PW22/A, a certified copy of service bio-data of accused and CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 146/174 his salary slip for the month of April, 2019, Certified copy of permanent/temporary (substitute) worker of Ward 13S, Tilak Nagar, Delhi as per control of Sanitary Guide/ASI, certified copy of ward wise allocation of workers (Safai Karamchari) of West Zone, SDMC, Delhi, till January 2019 and till March 2019, a copy of visit allocation for year 2019-2020 for establishment and contingency of department of Environment and Management Services, Delhi, had been seized for purpose of investigation of the present case. And he also identified his signature at point B.
377. He has deposed that vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 24.05.2019 Ex. PW22/B, documents mentioned in the Seizure Memo had been seized during investigation and he also identified his signature at point B. He has deposed vide Production cum Seizure Memo dated 31.05.2019 Ex. PW22/C, documents mentioned in the Seizure Memo had been seized during investigation and he also identified his signature at point B.
378. He has deposed that vide Notice U/s 91 and 160 Cr.P.C. dated 29.05.2019 Ex. PW22/D, document CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 147/174 mentioned in the notice had been received from Sanitary Superintendent Zonal Office, West Zone for the purpose of investigation of the present case and he also identified his signature at point B.
379. He has deposed that on the basis of these documents, he found that accused could be prosecuted for offence U/s 7 of P.C. Act and after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the Competent Authority pertaining to accused, he had filed charge-sheet in the present case.
380. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of accused.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr P.C
381. After conclusion of prosecution evidence. The statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 04.12.2024 by this Court.
382. In the statement of accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC. He has answered to most of questions in the manner as either " I do not know or it is a matter of record. "
383. So far as the question put to accused that he has demanded money from approving muster roll and CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 148/174 pay of Temporary Sanitary Workers is concerned. Accused has denied it and has stated that he had never demanded any money from the complainant. He has denied that he has accepted any bribe from complainant.
384. The accused has answered the question on sanction as: " It is incorrect. Prosecution sanction has been granted without proper application of mind and without perusing the relevant record. It was granted only the basis of draft sanction sent by prosecuting agency."
385. When the accused was asked as to why this case is against him , he replied that "The complainant in the present case namely Ravinder Kumar, who was working as ASI under me, had prepared a false list of 106 substitute (Temporary) Safai Karamchari (Sweeper) of Ward No.13 S, Tilak Nagar, in which he inserted the name of his two sons namely Saurav and Gaurav at Serial No.44 and 50 respectively and even put the official stamp of the accused after putting his signature, signature of one Om Prakash and Mahender (All working as Sanitary Guide) with their respective stamp. When the fraudulent act came into my knowledge, I reduced the list of temporary workers to the 74 names, which was there in original list. Due to this reason, I was falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with the help his friends i.e. other Sanitary Guides.". Accused opted to lead evidence in his CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 149/174 defence but he has not examined any witness in his defence. Accordingly case was posted for hearing final arguments.
386. I have heard finally Ld Counsel for the accused as well as Ld Senior PP for CBI and have gone through the file also. I have considered the submissions being made my Learned counsel for accused and CBI as well as evidence on record.
387. Ld Senior PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by adducing cogent evidence against the accused. The witnesses have categorically deposed that bribe was demanded by the accused and same was accepted by him. It is argued that pre trap recording and recording of acceptance of bribe money corroborates the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution.
388. It is argued by Learned Senior PP for CBI that presumption U/S 20 of P.C Act can be raised against the accused as he has demanded bribe, accepted the same and bribe money was recovered from him. It is further argued that minor contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses are not of such degree which can be considered as CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 150/174 fatal for the prosecution case. And these minor contradictions in the evidence has to be ignored. It is argued that all the circumstances as adduced through evidence of the witnesses leads to the guilt of accused.
389. Learned Senior PP for CBI has relied upon the following case law:
i) State of UP Vs Zakaullah, AIR 1998 SC 1474
ii) Vinod Kumar Garg Vs State, ( Govt of NCT Delhi) AIR 2-19 SC 1601.
iii) Jahan Singh Vs.CBI the State 1021(1) JCC 35
iv) M Narsigha Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 Cr. L.J 515
v) CM Sharma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2006 dated 25.11.2010.
390. On the other hand, Ld Counsel for accused has argued that demand and acceptance has to be proved by the prosecution in the present case, which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove.
391. It is argued that to attract Section 7 of P.C Act demand and acceptance of gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that prosecution has to prove the allegations against the accused under P.C Act CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 151/174 by direct evidence or substantial evidence each link of the chain of event is establish pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
392. It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused and there are so many major contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses including the complainant which creates doubt about the prosecution story.
393. It is argued that there is no specific demand on the part of the accused, has been proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sealing of electronic evidence, being recorded in memory card, either qua pre trap recording or recording being done at the time of alleged acceptance of bribe money by the accused is free from doubt.
394. Ld Counsel for accused has argued that link evidence in respect of safe custody of the case property is missing in the present case. It is argued that there is no evidence at all on record, showing in whose possession the case property remained from its seizure till it was sent to CFSL for expert opinion. This fact in itself creates doubt about the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 152/174 prosecution story and sufficient to acquit the accused.
395. The Learned Counsel for accused argued that the Hon'ble High Court in case titled Rajinder Kumar Narang Vs State, 2014 (2) JCC 1085 has observed that each linking evidence has to be proved by the prosecution such as how the case property was handled.
396. Learned Counsel for accused has relied upon the following case law:
i) Jagat Singh Vs State of Punjab 2023 LiveLaw (SC)232
ii) Rajinder Kumar Narang Vs State, 2014 (2) JCC 1085.
iii) Jahan Singh Vs.CBI the State 1021(1) JCC 35
iv) Prem Singh Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2011)2) JCC 1059.
v) Nepal Singh Rawal Vs. CBI 2011(4) C.C Cases (HC) 41
vi) P.Parasurami Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 294.
vii) A Subir Vs State of Kerela Criminal Appeal No.639 of 2004.
viii) Mukhtiar Singh ( since Deceased) through his L.R Vs State of Punjab 2017 V AD ( CRI) (S.C.) 277.
ix) State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede 2009(4) C.C. Cases (SC) 31
x) Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana II (2010) DLT ( CRI.) 211 (SC)
xi) Roshan Lal Saini & Anr. Vs. CBI 2011 (1) JCC 102.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 153/174
397. Having considered the argument of the Ld Counsel for CBI and accused, hereinafter I am dealing with the case of the prosecution and complicity of accused.
398. As per allegations the demand of Rs.25,000/-
allegedly demanded by accused from complainant Ravinder Kumar, on 25.04.2019. The demand was made during the cleaning of drain behind Pacific Mall Tilak Nagar, Delhi. Since the prosecution is asserting that accused has demanded bribe of Rs.25,000/- on 25.04.2019 from complainant and same was accepted by the accused on 29.04.2019. But on the other hand, accused has denied that he has demanded and accepted the bribe money. So to ascertain whether any alleged demand was made on 25.04.2019 by the accused or not, and same was accepted by accused on 29.04.2019. The evidence as adduced by the prosecution has to be evaluate. The relevant evidence are Ex PW14/A ( Complaint ), the verification report Ex PW 14/B, Ex PW13/C ( the CDR ) and PW13/D, (the location chart) .The testimony of complainant and shadow witness ie PW 16 Nand Kishore as well as the recording Ex P-1 and Ex PX are also relevant.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 154/174
399. On perusal, document Ex PW14/A ( complaint) find mentioned that " Kal denak 25.04.19 ko mere Safai Nirikshak Sukh Ram Meena muje Tilak Nagar Pacific Mall ke peeche nale kee safai karvane ke doran mile aur unuho nai mujse 25,000/- rupay batore rishvat mange" ( On 25.04.19 my Sanitary Inspector Sh Sukh Ram Meena met me behind Pacific Mall during cleaning of drain and he demanded Rs.25,000/- as bribe from me. ). On perusal of this version in complaint it reveals that meeting of accused and complainant could have been held on 25.04.2019. It could be held either any one of them have called each other to meet there or they could have met there by chance. But while complainant ( Ravinder Kumar PW14) was examined as witness, he has deposed that " on 25.04.2019, accused Sukh Ram Meena called me to Nala behind Pacific Mall Subhash Nagar, which falls in Tilak Nagar Ward. I met him. Accused Sukh Ram Meena demanded money from complinant for approving Muster roll and pay of temporary sanitary workers. This deposition suggest that it was accused who has called the complainant to CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 155/174 meet him at Nala behind Pecific Mall. In that circumstances, the complainant may be called either through mobile phone call or through any messenger or message. But the PW14 has deposed in his cross examination that on 25.04.2019, the accused has not talked to him on phone on that day. But these facts of non talking between accused and complainant on mobile phone has been falsified by document Ex PW 13/C ie call detail chart of accused Sukh Ram Meena. From this document it reveals that atleast four times there were talk on mobile phone between complainant and accused. This piece of evidence shows that complainant has concealed these facts which may be deliberate to hide some facts. The complaint must have disclosed all the facts in his complaint. The prosecution story is totally silent by which mode complainant was called by the accused at the spot at which the demand of bribe was made on 25.04.2019. And it is not case of the complainant that he has met the accused by chance at the time of cleaning of nala. The argument has also been tendered on behalf of accused that on 25.04.2019 the location of the accused, at relevant CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 156/174 time ( At 1.00 p.m. as deposed by PW14 of meeting time) as alleged by the complainant, was not found at the spot where the alleged demand was made by the accused from complaint. To rebut this argument Learned Senior PP for CBI has argued that it is not conclusive that accused could have keep his mobile phone with him at the time demand was made by him (accused). This argument of Learned Senior PP for CBI is not tenable because Ex PW13/C (CDR) shows that there are other calls also being made by accused to other numbers. It means that the mobile was with him (accused), particularly where accused has specifically denied the meeting with the complainant. It reveals from the evidence that the meeting between the complainant and accused on 25.04.2019 is doubtful.
400. The Learned Senior PP for CBI has argued that to verify the allegations and veracity of version of complainant as stated in the complaint Ex PW14/A. The investigating agency has got verified the allegations through verification proceedings being conducted by involving the independent witnesses as well as by recording ( In CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 157/174 memory card Ex P-1) of demand of bribe by the accused. In this regard the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW 14 and PW16 as well as conversation recorded in Ex P-1. On analysis, the Ex PW14/I ( prepared on the basis of conversation in Ex P-1) ie transcription is not relied upon by the prosecution as Learned Senior PP for CBI has given statement in this regard on 05.05.2022 that she would not rely upon the transcript Q-1 ( Ex PQW14/I). Now the document Ex P-1 was played in the Court in the presence of Learned Senior PP for CBI, Ld. Counsel for the accused and accused. Learned Senior PP for CBI has brought to the notice of the Court that specific demand was made by the accused at time ( 01: 19:40 time). And argued that it was the demand being made by the accused. On perusal, the relevant recording at 01:
19:40 time is the version in the voice of complainant and is as " Ab Phir Kehe Kar Ja raha hue kai Pachees ke Bees kar do" ( I am going by saying reduce 25 into 20). Though this version is there in Ex P-1. But question is whether it can be considered as demand of bribe by the accused. At the outset the version is of complainant himself CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 158/174 and not of accused. Moreover, the entire recording in Ex P-1 has to be considered whether demand was made by the accused and not once sentence from here and there. In the entire recording Ex P-1 there is no specific demand of Rs.25,000/- being made by the accused from the complainant. Rather on listening the recording in Ex P-1 it reveals that the persons, whose voice is recorded in Ex P-1 are discussing about the adjustment of amount for settlement of an account by calculating figures in plus and in subtract, to arrive at a final figure. The conversation talks reveals about discussing of an amount of Rs.1,57,000/-, Rs.1,55,000/-, Rs.8,67,000/-, Rs.99,260/- and so on. The conversation must be read in totality and not in isolation. The isolated version of the complainant himself regarding reducing 25 to 20 cannot be presumed as demand of bribe by the accused where there is no specific version in Ex P- 1 of demand of Rs.25,000/- being made by the accused himself. So factually the specific demand by the accused, as alleged, is doubtful.
401. Now come to the direct evidence of PW 14 and PW16 qua demand of bribery by the accused. The CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 159/174 document Ex PW14/B i.e verification memo was prepared by the IO of the proceedings being conducted for verification of demand being made by the accused. It find mention in Ex PW14/B that once the complainant came back from the office of accused after getting recording the conversation in Ex P-1. The complainant was asked to narrate all the events. The complainant has narrated that when he entered into the office he found that Sukh Ram Meena, Satyadev, ASI SDMC, Samunder, ASI SDMC, and some Safai Karamchari were also present there. He further narrated that he urged the accused not to cut the attendance of Safai Karamchari and also apprised him about his inability to pay Rs.25,000/- as demanded by Sukhram Meena. But Sukhram Meena told him that he ( complainant) would have to pay it as it has to go to A.C and Sanitary Supervisor also.
402. The same document Ex PW14/B also find mentioned that independent witness was also asked to narrate the facts he perceived but in the said memo he has not disclosed any fact qua demand by the accused being perceived by him except the fact that 5-6 persons were sitting in the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 160/174 room of the accused.
403. On the other hand, when the complainant was examined as PW14 he has deposed that he entered into the office of accused Sukh Ram Meena. He ( accused) was there alongwith Assistant Sanitary Inspector Satyadev and ASI Samunder Singh. There he discussed with him regarding demand made by him on 25.04.2019. He ( complainant) explained him that temporary workers cannot pay such a huge amount and he requested him to reduce the demand to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.25,000/- . However, accused Sukh Ram Meena flatly refused to reduce the bribe amount. He further deposed that ASI Satyadev and ASI Samunder Singh also told the accused Sukh Ram Meena to reduce the bribe amount as temporary workers could not meet the said demand. As per version stated in Ex PW14/B and as per version deposed before the Court there are material contradictions. As per Ex P.W 14/B there 3-4 Safai Karamchari were also present in the room/office of accused but PW14 ( complainant) during his deposition before the Court he has not disclosed the presence of any Safai Karamchari in CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 161/174 the office. The version as deposed by the complainant in the Court is also not matched with the recording in Ex P-1. In Ex P-1 only one person is intervening in the conversation and not other person and there is no specific recording in Ex P-1 as deposed by PW14 qua demand of bribe and reducing of bribe amount. However, prosecution has examined that person as PW 15 ASI Satyadev. If ASI Samunder Singh could have been present in the office of accused, then he has also to be conversant. But his ( Samunder Singh ) voice has not been identified in Ex P-1. On the other hand, as per complainant ASI Samunder Singh has also participated in the conversation. If ASI Samunder Singh could have been present there then his participation in conversation could have recorded in Ex P-1. It is also highly doubtful that an accused would demand bribe in the presence of ASI Satyadev, ASI Samunder Singh as well as in the presence of other 3-4 Safai Karamchari who were present in the office of accused. The fact has also been admitted by CBI official that 5-6 persons were present in the office of accused on 26.04.2019. The complainant has no where CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 162/174 disclosed that Safai Karamchari have left the office of accused till he remained in the office of accused. The deposition of the complainant is doubtful.
404. The Ld Senior PP for CBI argued that PW 15 Satyadev is the eye witness, in whose presence demand was made by the accused, and who has deposed accordingly. The Ld Senior PP has drawn attention of this Court to the specific deposition of PW 15. The relevant portion is "On 26.04.2019, at about 3:00 p.m., I was present in the office of Ward No.13- S. At that time, ASI Samunder Singh and accused Inspector Sukh Ram Meena were also present there. At about 3:45-4:00 p.m., ASI Ravinder Kumar also came there. ASI Ravinder discussed about demand of money by Inspector Sukh Ram Meena for approving pay of safai karamcharis, ASI Ravinder had told Sukh Ram Meena that he could pay only Rs.20,000/- but Sukh Ram Meena was adamant on demanding Rs.25,000/-. I also intervened and told Inspector Sukh Ram Meena that I and ASI Samunder would pay Rs.2,500/- each and that he should take Rs.25,000/- from ASI Ravinder Kumar and should sort out the matter. However, Ravinder went back." On perusal, if that was the conversation held in the presence of PW15. In that circumstances, it could have been CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 163/174 recorded in Ex P-1. But there is no such conversation in Ex P-1, as deposed by PW15 in his examination in chief. Even otherwise this witness in his cross examination categorically admitted that there was a quarrel took place between accused and complainant on 25.04.2019. It further creates doubt regarding the concealment of facts of dated 25.04.2019 by the complainant. The complaint Ex PW14/A is completely silent about the quarrel between the accused and the complainant on 25.04.2019. The suggestion was given to this witness that the quarrel between the complainant and accused occured due to preparation of list of 106 temporary workers in which names of both the son of complainant included which were struck off by the accused. It means the quarrel was taken place between the complainant and accused on 25.04.2019 in the presence of PW15. But PW15 was not present at the alleged site near Pacific Mall, where complainant and accused met and accused has demanded the bribe of Rs.25,000/-. And no other meeting between complainant and accused has been shown on 25.04.2019 or disclosed in the CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 164/174 prosecution story. These all facts deepen the doubt about the allegations being levelled by the complainant. The testimony of PW15 is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove the fact of demand of bribe by the accused being doubtful.
405. So far as acceptance of bribe money by the accused is concerned. In this regard the case of the prosecution is based upon the testimony of PW 14 (complainant), PW16 (Nand Kishore) and recording being recorded in memory card Ex PX. The relevant portion of deposition of PW 14 is " At the office, I greeted accused Sukh Ram Meena who asked me to sit down. I discussed with him the issue of money as was discussed on 26.04.2019 upon which accused asked me to accompany him to a retirement party of an employee but I asked him to finish of the matter then and there. Thereafter, accused signaled from his hand to handover money to him whatever was brought by me. I again requested him to take only Rs.20,000/- as I was having injuries on my hands but accused told me that he would reduce the money from the next month and demanded Rs.25,000/- for the current month. Thereafter, I asked accused Sukh Ram Meena to take out the money from my right pocket of my pants explaining him that due to injuries in my hands, I could not take it out. Thereafter, accused Sukh Ram Meena took out money CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 165/174 from the said pocket using his right hand. Thereafter, he counted the money. When accused was counting money, I signaled as per directions by moving my right hand upon my head and independent witness also gave call to the team. Accused, after counting the money, put the same in the right side inside pocket of the pants. The transaction of handing over money was completed by 3:10 p.m."
406. On perusal of this testimony it reveals that the money from the pocket of the complainant was taken out by accused. But in transcript Ex PW14/J it reveals that the alleged conversation is taking place about adjustment of some workers and their deployment. The conversation is also about the adjustment of calculation of account is revealed. The only incriminating evidence as revealed: "Aisa hain ji dekho unhone 5 chhodh liye na jo vo agle mahine se hote hain, main Pharwari pe jo hain, pharwari ke to de raha hun 25000/- aur March ke Somvar ko 20 dunga aur ab waise ki itna mere kar lo Sir, theek han jo gin lo." These contents of the recording in Ex PX must be read as a whole and not in isolation. The conversation shows that it pertains to adjustment of some amount. But complainant has not disclosed which amount or account they were discussing. The accused is not demanding any amount of CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 166/174 Rs.25,000/- from complainant on 29.04.2019. And recording in Ex PX and transcript Ex PW14/J reveals that only one sentence as attributed to accused is "Theek hai jee" ( All right). These words "Theek hai jee" cannot be read in isolation leaving other entire conversation and in which context these words "Theek hai jee" was uttered by the accused. The prosecution has not explained the entire context of the conversation recorded in Ex PX. And it was the duty of the prosecution to clear the clouds about in which context the conversation was going on as recorded in Ex PX.
407. The fact of handing over of bribe money to accused is also contradictory in the deposition of complainant and shadow witness PW16. While PW14 deposed that it was the accused who has bring out money from his pocket. While PW16 Shadow witness Nand Kishore stated in document Ex PW14/G that he has seen that it was the complainant who has handed over the money to the accused. This contradiction in the testimony of PW14 and PW16 shadow witness, is major contradiction about the fact of acceptance of money by the accused.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 167/174
408. There is another major contradiction in the testimony of PW14 ( complainant) and the case of the prosecution story. PW14 has deposed in his examination in chief that left pocket of pant of accused was dip into sodium carbonate solution which was kept in another glass. While the story of the prosecution is that it was right inside pocket of accused of which sample was taken and same was dip in sodium carbonate and was sealed accordingly as 'IPPW' in RC-14(A)/2019.
409. There are another facts also which creates doubt regarding the prosecution story. As the complainant has admitted that he was having plaster in his both hand. The question arises in that circumstances how could he reach his office or at work. He can reach his office either by driving a vehicle by himself or by a public transport. If the complainant was not able to bring out money from his pocket in that circumstances, he could not have driven any vehicle himself. It is highly doubtful that he could have traveled in a public transport because he has to board and de- board by holding any support of public transport from his either hand, which he could not do as per CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 168/174 his injuries.
410. Moreover, it is also highly doubtful that complainant who is unable to put his hand in his pocket can put his hand on his head to give signal to the trap team, because he himself stated that he could not bring out money from his pocket. If he could have signaled by putting his hand on his head then he could have also put his hand in his pocket and bring out money from his pocket. In that circumstances, it was not occasion for the accused to put his hand in the pocket of complainant. The prosecution story is also doubtful and creates doubt regarding its worthiness.
411. There is one anther lacunae in the story of prosecution which cannot be rectify at all. The prosecution is totally silent from where the seal with which case property was sealed and from where the memory cards in which recording was done, were arranged. If same were arranged from the department itself then there must have been entry in any record in the office of the investigating agency. But no such record has been brought before this Court.
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 169/174
412. The handling of case property is also doubtful because it has not been brought on record how the case property is kept in safe custody. There is no document being placed on record that after seizing the case property it was kept in safe custody and being not tempered with. The prosecution is totally silent on this aspect. The case property was sent to CFSL on 07.05.2019 and received in CFSL on 10.05.2019. It is not clear from 26.04.2019 till 07.05.2019 where the case property was kept. Though PW16 has brought a seal in the Court but it was in unsealed condition. There is no memo showing the handing over of seal to PW16 being prepared. The Forensic Expert has admitted in the cross examination that sealed material was not received by him with sample seal. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the recording in Ex P-1 and Ex PX was remained in safe custody and is free from temper.
413. So far as the testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4,PW5,PW6, PW7,PW8, PW9,PW10 and PW11 are concerned, their testimony is not helpful to the prosecution case. As none of the witness has deposed that any bribe was demanded from them CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 170/174 by the accused or bribe was handed over in their presence to the accused. The preparation of salary is cumulative act of accused and their senior officers. The accused was not the sole person who could have withheld the salary of temporary workers or other workers. The admitted fact is that the salary of the workers was directly remitted to their bank accounts. So far as document Ex PW2/A is concerned, in this document there is no allegations against the accused that he has demanded any bribe from PW2. So this complaint Ex PW2/A does not have any bearing upon the fact of present case.
414. Moreover, one another fact which is very important and has to be considered. The fact, why the accused will demand bribe from the complainant. Because not marking presence or absence of any Sanitary worker, the complainant was not having any gain or loss. The sanitary workers who could have affected from not marking of their presence but none of the sanitary workers being examined by the prosecution, have deposed that they used to pay any amount to the complainant for paying either as commission or CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 171/174 bribe to accused. The complainant has also not disclosed these facts that he used to collect money from the sanitary workers for paying the same to accused as monthly bribe. Then there is doubt about the prosecution story that why complainant will pay bribe to the accused. So the prosecution has failed to prove the fact and motive of the accused to demand bribe from the complainant.
415. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the case property ie Ex P-1, Ex PX as well as sample bottles Ex P-2, Ex P-3 and Ex P-5 were kept in safe custody ruling out the probability of tempering with the case property. Because the prosecution has nowhere disclose in whose possession the articles were kept before sending the same to CFSL.
416. The prosecution has also failed to prove on record the obtaining of seal from the department, which has been shown being used in sealing the case property. There is no such memo being placed on record which shows that seal was obtained from a particular department/Malkhana. The apprehension of the accused qua tempering with Ex P-1, Ex PX as well as sample bottles Ex P-2, Ex P-3 and Ex P- 5 cannot be ruled out. Though the Forensic experts CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 172/174 have given positive report qua Ex P-1, Ex PX as well as sample bottles Ex P-2, Ex P-3 and Ex P-5 but it looses its significance, once doubt has been created qua safe custody of these articles before sending the same to the CFSL for opinion.
417. The submission of Ld Senior PP for CBI that presumption U/S 20 of PC Act should be drawn in the present case is also not sustainable. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt regarding the demand being made by the accused and acceptance of bribe money of the accused.
418. So far as the submission of Learned Senior P.P. for CBI that minor contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses is concerned. Here in the present case the contradiction are not minor in nature. These contradictions are on the fasts which goes into the root of the case such as demand, acceptance and recovery. So submission of Learned Senior PP for CBI is not sustainable.
419. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt. In that circumstances the testimonies of CBI officials and other witnesses, CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena CBI Case No.:400/2019 173/174 who are being relied upon by the prosecution, are not helpful to the prosecution.
CONCLUSION:
420. The basic criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it is principle of criminal jurisprudence. The clear and convincing evidence is missing in the present case. The evidence as adduced on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and to hold accused as guilty of offences charge with. So in view of the above discussion, accused is acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. His bail bond stands cancelled and his surety also stands discharged.
421. Let digitally signed copy of the judgment be uploaded on the Court's official website, Digitally signed by JAGDISH accordingly.
JAGDISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.08.30
15:34:50 +0530
(Jagdish Kumar )
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI) 16
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi
Announced in the Open Court
today :30.08.2025
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena
CBI Case No.:400/2019 174/174
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena
CBI Case No.:400/2019 175/174
CBI Vs Sukh Ram Meena
CBI Case No.:400/2019 176/174