Delhi District Court
Cbi vs (1)Sidharth Kumar on 13 September, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.03/2004
Unique Case ID No.02402R0055282004
FIR No.RCDAI2003A0032
Under Sec.120B IPC r/w Sec. 7/8 and 13(2)
r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
CBI Versus (1)Sidharth Kumar
Son of Sh. Shambhu Ram
R/o E177/2, Ward No.2, Mehrauli,
New Delhi.
(2)Joginder Singh
Son of Sh. Matru Lal
R/o H.No.41, LBS Hospital, Khichri
Pur, Delhi.
(3)Sudama @ Bhagat
Son of Late Sh. Brahmanand
R/o A1/117, Lajpat Nagar, New
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 23.02.2004
Date of reserving the order : 19.08.2010
Date of pronouncement : 27.08.2010
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 1 of 66
JUDGMENT
Three accused persons, namely, Sidharth Kumar, Joginder Singh and Sudama @ Bhagat (all on bail) have been sent to face trial by the Anti Corruption Branch of the CBI, for the offences punishable under Section 120 B IPC r/w section 7/8 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
2 At the time of commission of the offence, the accused Sidharth Kumar was posted as Mortuary Attendant and accused Joginder Singh was posted as Sweeper cum Chowkidr in the mortuary of LBS Hospital, Delhi. Accused Sudama @ Bhagat was working as Attendant in AC Plant installed mortuary of LBS Hospital. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the FIR, Ex.PW12/A of the case was registered against the accused persons on the basis of a written complaint dated 8.6.2003, Ex.PW4/A, made by Shri Brijesh Kumar Singhal (PW6) (hereinafter shall be referred as complainant) to the CBI to the effect that on 7.6.03 he along with his brother Vipin Singhal ( PW9) had gone to LBS Hospital Mortuary to receive dead body of Suman wife of Sanjay, son of his maternal uncle who committed suicide on 6.6.03. In the hospital, two persons came to AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 2 of 66 them and asked as to who was accompanying the dead body of Suman. They informed that they were with the dead body as husband Sanjay was arrested by the police and their maternal uncle was admitted in the hospital due to kidney failure. Both those persons took the complainant (PW6) to a corner of the hospital and disclosed their names as accused Sidharth and Jogender. They claimed themselves to be PM attendant and Assistant. They further told the complainant that he had to give kharcha panni else anything could be written in the report. Both the accused further told that complainant had to give Rs 2025,000/ if he required a favourable report otherwise anything could be written in the report and nobody could challenge their report. The complainant told them that the case did not contain anything to worry then the accused persons told that if the complainant did not accede to their demand, hurt to the liver of the deceased and consumption of poison by her, would be written in the report. When the complainant showed his inability to arrange such a huge amount, then accused Jogender reduced the bribe amount to Rs 15,000/ as the same was to be distributed amongst Doctor Vinay and both of them. They also told to bring the money as soon as possible because the report was kept pending for this reason only. AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 3 of 66 3 Inspector S.C. Bhalla (PW4) was entrusted with the complaint Ex.PW4/A for verification. A telephonic conversation between the complainant (PW6) and the accused persons was arranged in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, Mohd Aslam Khan (PW8) and Rohtash Kumar (PW10). The said conversation was recorded in a digital tape recorder. The same was transferred into cassette Ex.P3. Its inlay card is Ex.P121 and cloth pulanda is Ex.P122. During conversation, it came out that accused Sidharth and Jogender were demanding the bribe from the complainant for preparing a favourable postmortem report. The proceedings were recorded in telephonic conversation memo Ex.PW4/B. The conversation was identified vide transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW7/G and its transcription Ex.PW7/H was prepared.
4 On 9.6.2003, Insp. C.B. Ojha (PW12) constituted a trap team, consisting of himself, independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW 10) and Mohd Aslam Khan (PW8) along with officials of CBI. The complainant ( PW6) and his brother Sh. Vipin Singhal were introduced to the team members and independent witnesses. The complainant (PW6) produced sum of Rs.15,000/ in AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 4 of 66 the form of 100 GC notes of Rs.100/ denomination each and 10 GC notes of Rs 500 denomination each Ex.P11 to Ex.P120. The numbers of the GC notes were noted down in Annexure A1 and A2, Ex PW7/B to the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. The significance of reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution was explained by practical demonstration. The GC notes produced by the complainant (PW6) were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The tainted currency notes of Rs.15,000/ was kept in the left side pant pocket of the complainant (PW6) and he was directed to hand over the same to the accused Sidharth or Jogender on their specific demand or on their specific direction to some other person. The independent witness Rohtash Kumar (PW10) was directed to act as shadow witness to hear the conversation and to watch the transaction. He was directed to give signal by scratching his head with both hands after the transaction of bribe. A Samsung Digital Recorder was handed over to the complainant (PW6) for recording the conversation. The handing over memo Ex.PW7/A was completed at 8.20 a.m. 5 At about 9.30 AM, the trap party including independent witnesses and the complainant reached LBS hospital. The complainant (PW6), his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9) and AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 5 of 66 shadow witness Rohtash Kumar (PW10) had gone to the mortuary. Some conversation between accused Sidharth and complainant had taken place. The proceedings in this regard were recorded vide memo Ex PW7/C. Thereafter the trap party along with complainant, his brother Vipin and independent witnesses returned to CBI Office. At about 12.50 p.m. Vipin Singhal made telephonic call to the mortuary. Accused Sidharth spoke to him and told that he would ring back on the mobile of the complainant but no call was received. The conversation was recorded vide telephone conversation recording memo Ex PW7/D. At about 1.30 p.m., Vipin Singhal (PW9) again made telephonic call to the mortuary and accused Sidharth spoke to him. The conversations were recorded in cassettes Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Their inlay cards are Ex.P123 and Ex.P125 and cloth wrappers are Ex.P124 and Ex.P126. At about 3.30 p.m. Vipin Singhal (PW9) received a call on his mobile from accused Sidharth and directed him to come alone. The said conversation was recorded vide memo Ex.PW7/E. The investigating officer (PW12) handed over the tainted money to Vipin (PW9). He was also handed over the digital tape recorder. At about 3.45 PM, the trap party left the CBI office and reached LBS Hospital at about 4.10 PM. Vipin Singhal (PW9) went AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 6 of 66 near the mortuary and the remaining members of the trap party followed him from safe distance. Some conversation between Vipin (PW9) and accused Sidharth and Joginder had taken place. It was seen that accused Joginder pointed his finger towards accused Sudama who standing nearby. Vipin (PW9) went near accused Sudama and handed over the tainted money to him and gave the pre appointed signal. Thereafter, the trap party caught hold all the three accused persons who made attempt to run away from the spot. Accused Sudama was a private person doing the job of attendant of AC plant installed in the mortuary. The tainted money of Rs.15,000/ was recovered from the right side pant pocket of accused Sudama by independent witness Rohtash Kumar (PW10) which was found wrapped in a handkerchief. The GC notes recovered from accused Sudama were tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. Both the hands, handkerchief and the pant pocket of accused Sudama were washed in the colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned into pink colour. The same were marked as RHW Ex.P7, LHW Ex.P8, HKW Ex.P9 and RPPW Ex.P10. The solutions were sealed in the bottles with cloth wrappers Ex.P7A, Ex.P8A, Ex.P9A and Ex.P10A. The pant Ex.P1 AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 7 of 66 and handkerchief Ex.P2 of accused Sudama were seized by the investigating officer.
6 The conversation recorded at the spot, was replayed which confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused. The micro cassette was kept in its cover, wrapped with a piece of cloth and sealed with CBI seal. The independent witnesses signed on the cloth wrapper and on the paper slip and cloth wrappers on the bottles containing washes. The rough site plan Ex.PW8/C was prepared.
7 Accused Joginder was arrested vide personal search cum arrest memo Ex.PW8/A, whereas accused Sidharth was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/B. Accused Sudama was arrested vide arrst memo Ex.PW3/A. The posttrap proceedings were recorded in the recovery memo, Ex.PW7/F. The specimen seal impressions of CBI seal were taken on a sheet of paper Ex.PW8/D. 8 On 12.6.2003, the specimen voices of accused Sidharth and Joginder were recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and complainant vide Specimen Voice recording memo Ex.PW8/E. The same was recorded in the cassette Ex.P6. Its inlay card is Ex.P127 and cloth wrapper is Ex.P128. The search of the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 8 of 66 office of Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh was conducted and documents Ex.PW12/B1 to Ex.PW12/B8 were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/F. 9 During investigation, the investigating officer collected the call details Ex.PW11/B of mobile phone no.32035046 vide letter dated 7.8.2003 Ex.PW11/A issued by Reliance Company. Insp. S.S. Bhullar (PW13) seized the attendance roll Ex.PW13/A1 and A2 from the contractor Ajit Chawla (PW3) pertaining to AC Plant installed at the mortuary of LBS Hospital vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. 10 The washes and cassettes were got sent to CFSL vide letter Ex.PW13/B1 and B2. The washes were examined by Dr. C.L. Bansal (PW1), expert of CFSL who gave his report, Ex.PW1/A. Sh. Deepak Kumar (PW2) expert of CFSL examined the voices of the accused persons and prepared the report, Ex.PW2/A. 11 Dr. Veer Singh (PW5), the then Medical Superintendent of LBS Hospital granted the sanction, Ex.PW5/A under Section 19 (1)(c) of the PC Act, for the prosecution of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, being public servants. During investigation, Dr. Veer Singh (PW5) gave the appointment AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 9 of 66 order Ex.PW5/B of Dr. Vinay Kumar and appointment order of accused Sidharth Kumar Ex.PW5/C to the investigating officer. Witness PW5 also handed over some documents vide letter Ex.PW5/D. He also handed over the attendance register Ex.PW5/E of mortuary staff and daily entry register Ex.PW5/F to the investigating officer.
12 After completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the court where the accused persons were supplied with the copies of the chargesheet and the documents of the CBI. 13 The charges were framed by my learned Predecessor against the accused persons on 12.1.2005. The accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/8 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, which reads as under : "You Sidharth and you Joginder being public servants, while working as mortuary attendant and sweeper cum Chowkidar at LBS Hospital demanded Rs 20,000/ , 25,000/ from the complainant Sh Brijesh Signal for giving favourale postmortem report of the dead body of Smt Suman wife of his maternal cousin Sanjay and on the request of complainant you Sidharth and you Joginder agreed to reduce the demand of bribe to Rs 15,000/ thereafter you Sidharth and you Joginder AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 10 of 66 entered into a criminal conspiracy with you coaccused Sudama @ Bhagat and on 9.6.03 at about 4.10 p.m. at LBS Hospital, you Joginder and you Sidharth demanded bribe from Vipin ( complainant's brother) and you Joginder directed Sh Vipin to hand over the bribe to you Sudama @ Bhagat and thereby you Sudama accepted the bribe of Rs 15,000/ and thereby you all three committed an offence U/s 120B IPC read with 7,8 & 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
14 The accused persons have also been charged for committing the substantive offences under Section 7, 8 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act. The charge framed reads as under :
"Firstly you Sidharth and you Joginder Singh being public servants on 7.6.03 demanded bribe of Rs 20,000/ 25,000/ as illegal gratification other than your legal remuneration from the complainant Sh Brijesh Singhal for motive or reward for giving favourable postmortem report of the dead body of Smt Suman wife of his maternal cousin Sanjay and in furtherance of abovesaid demand on 9.6.03 at about 4.10 p.m. at LBS Hospital, you both demanded bribe from Vipin (brother of Sh Brijesh Singhal) and on the direction of you Joginder, Sudama @ Bhagat accepted bribe of Rs 15,000/ from Vipin and thereby you both committed the offence U/s 7 of P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 11 of 66
Secondly, you both working in the above capacity demanded bribe amount for the aforesaid purpose in the name of Dr. Vinay and on the abovesaid time and place you both obtained Rs 15,000/ through your co accused Sudama @ Bhagat from Sh Vipin and thereby you both committed an offence U/s 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, you both while working in the abovesaid capacity on the abovesaid time and place by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as public servant obtained the pecuniary advantages to the tune of Rs 15,000/ through your co accused Sudama @ Bhagat from Sh Vipin and thereby you both committed an offence specified in section 13 (1)(d) and punishable U/s 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and within my cognizance."
15 The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
16 The prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. Out of those witnesses, PW6 Sh. Brijesh Kumar Singhal is the complainant and PW Sh. Vipin Singhal is his brother. PW8 Sh. Mohd Aslam Khan and PW10 Sh. Rohtash Kumra are the independent public witnesses. PW1 Dr C.L. Bansal chemically examined the washes in CFSL. PW2 Deepak Kumar Tanwar conducted the voice identification test of the voice record of the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 12 of 66 accused persons. PW7 Inspector Prem Nath remained associated with the investigation. PW4 Inspector S.C. Bhalla, PW12 Inspector C.B. Ojha and PW13 Inspector S.S. Bhullar were investigating officers of the case. PW 5 Dr Veer Singh the then Medical Superintendent in LBS Hospital granted sanction for prosecution of accused Sidhartha Kumar and Joginder Singh. PW3 Sh Ajit Chawla was the contractor of the Air Conditioning Plant in LBS Hospital and accused Sudama @ Bharat was working under him. PW11 Sh Sanjeev Lakra proved the call details of Reliance Communications. 17 The statements of all the accused have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The accused persons have either showed their ignorance or denied the present case against them. Accused Sidharth and Joginder have stated that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant and his brother due to job profile of Vipin Singhal in CBI. They had no role to prepare the postmortem report. No money was ever demanded, reduced or accepted by them. The postmortem was already done before 9.6.03 and postmortem report and notes were in the possession of Dr Vinay who had been left by the CBI intentionally. The trap money was planted upon and documents were fabricated. Accused Sudama stated that he had been AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 13 of 66 made scapegoat by the CBI and bribe money was planted upon him. He had no interaction with co accused persons and was not acquainted with them. He was lifted from his office and implicated in this case.
18 Accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginer Singh opted to lead defence evidence and examined DW1 Sh Ali Kaushal. Witness DW1 produced the postmortem report No 117/03 Ex DW1/A. 19 I have heard Shri S. Krishna Kumar, learned PP for the CBI as well as Shri Sanjay Gupta, learned defence counsel for accused Sidharth Kumar and Shri Joginder Singh and as Amicus Curiae for accused Sudama. I have also carefully gone through their submissions and the record of the case.
20 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that from the statements of the complainant, his brother and the independent public witnesses, remained associates in the proceedings conducted by the investigating agency, the CBI has proved its case against the accused persons that they criminally conspired to demand the bribe from the complainant and accepted the same from his brother Vipin. The prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt regarding the demand of bribe of Rs.2025,000/. The acceptance of AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 14 of 66 Rs.15,000/ by the accused persons has duly been proved on the record. He has further argued that being public servants, the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh have demanded and obtained the illegal gratification from the complainant and his brother Vipin for preparing favourable post mortem report of deceased Smt. Suman. The learned PP has submitted that the accused persons cannot be allowed to be acquitted as only these type of people increase the corruption in the society, who are not willing to work until bribe is paid to them.
21 On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that the prosecution could not establish the demand of bribe at the initial stage as well as at the crucial stage. The prosecution has failed to establish the acceptance and recovery of bribe money from accused Sudama, rather accused Sudama was not even aware that the amount received by him was bribe money. There are several contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which are material and the same are enough to acquit the accused persons. It has further been argued that there was no cause with the accused Sidharth and Joginder in demanding the bribe from the complainant as they were posted as attendant and sweeper in the mortuary and they had no role AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 15 of 66 to play in the preparation of postmortem report. It has also been argued that the CBI has not investigated the involvement of Dr. Vinay in the present case. The accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and made scapegoat.
22 From the arguments advanced by either side, following questions arises for determination :
(I) Whether the sanctions under Section 19 of the P.C. Act, obtained by the CBI for the prosecution of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, were defective or not?
(II) Whether there was any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons for the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount?
(III) Whether the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh are guilty for demanding and obtaining the bribe by abusing their official positions as public servants through coaccused Sudama?
(IV) Conclusion. QUESTION (I) 23 It is argued on behalf of the accused Sidharth Kumar
and Joginder Singh that the sanctions under Section 19 of the PC Act, AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 16 of 66 obtained in the present case, for the prosecution of these accused persons, were defective and invalid in law as the same have been given in mechanical manner. On the other hand, learned PP for the CBI has argued that the requisite sanctions under section 19 of the Act were obtained as per law for the prosecution of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, being public servants.
24 Section 19 of the Act deals with the sanction required for prosecuting the public servant. The said section reads as under:
"19.Previous sanction necessary for prosecution(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction
(a) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) In the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) In the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office."
25 Section 19 of the Act provides protection to an accused who happened to be public servant at the time of taking the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 17 of 66 cognizance by the court. The purpose of sanction under section 19 of the Act to have the approval of the competent authority to remove the accused from the office, is just because that at the time of taking the cognizance, he was a public servant.
26 In order to prove the sanctions granted for the prosecution of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined Dr. Veer Singh (PW5), the then Medical Superintendent of LBS Hospital. He has stated in his statement before the court that he was competent to remove the accused Sidharth, Mortuary Attendant and Joginder, SweepercumChowkidar, posted in LBS Hospital. He accorded the sanction vide sanction order Ex.PW5/A. He further stated that he accorded the sanction after going through the statements of witnesses, FIR and other documents relating to the case. The learned defence counsel has crossexamined the witness. But, during the entire cross examination, the defence has failed to put any dent on his testimony. The witness has denied the suggestion that he accorded the sanction Ex.PW5/A mechanically.
27 In the recent judgment of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled Ram Chander Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Reported in 2009 Cri. L.J. 4058), it was observed that the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 18 of 66 sanctioning authority himself proved the sanction order by appearing as witness who has categorically deposed that he granted the sanction after going through the papers produced before him. Once the sanctioning authority has been produced in the court, unless there is anything brought on record which may vitiate the sanction order, the sanction order has to be taken as proved. The Hon'ble Court placed its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled R. Sundrajan Versus State (Reported in 2006 (12) SCC 749). 28 In the present case, the CBI has produced the sanctioning authority, namely, Dr. Veer Singh (PW5) and he has duly proved the sanction order of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh as Ex.PW5/A for their prosecution. The perusal of sanction order shows that the sanctioning authority after carefully examining the material i.e. FIR, memos, statement of witnesses, CFSL report, transcription of audio cassettes and other documents and after applying his mind, granted the sanction for the prosecution of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh. The accused persons have not produced any material on the record to show that the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind while granting the sanction for their prosecution.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 19 of 66 29 Consequently, in view of the above mentioned discussion, it is held that the Sanctioning Authority Dr. Veer Singh (PW5) was competent to accord the sanction for the prosecution of the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh and it can not be said that sanction was accorded in mechanical manner. QUESTION (II) 30 The next question for consideration is whether there was any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons for demand of the bribe amount from the complainant (PW6) and its acceptance from his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9) through coaccused Sudama @ Bhagat. The essence of criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and an agreement of minds between two or more accused persons whereby they cooperate to accomplish an object. In the present case, it is alleged that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, criminally conspired to demand and accept the bribe amount from the complainant/his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9).
31 In the complaint Ex.PW4/A, the complainant (PW6) has mentioned that on 7.6.03 he along with his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9) had gone to LBS Hospital Mortuary to receive the dead body AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 20 of 66 of Suman. The husband of deceased Suman, namely, Sanjay was already arrested by the police and her father in law was lying admitted in hospital. In the mortuary, accused Sidharth and Joginder Singh approached them and took the complainant (PW6) in a corner and disclosed their names as accused Sidharth and Jogender by claiming themselves to be postmortem attendant and Assistant. Both the accused demanded "kharcha panni" from the complainant (PW6) otherwise they threatened that anything could be written in the report. The accused persons demanded Rs.2025,000/ from the complainant (PW6) if he required a favourable report otherwise anything could be written in the report. The accused persons further threatened the complainant (PW6) that if he did not accede to their demand, then injury to the liver of the deceased and consumption of poison by her, would be written in the report. On the request of the complainant (PW6), the accused Jogender reduced the bribe amount to Rs 15,000/ as the same was to be distributed amongst Doctor Vinay and both of them. They also told to bring the money as soon as possible because the report was kept pending for this reason only. Thereafter, the complainant (PW6) lodged the complaint Ex.PW4/A with the CBI. AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 21 of 66 32 The complaint, Ex.PW4/A made by the complainant (PW6) before the CBI, has been made the basis for the registration of the FIR, Ex.PW11/A in the present case upon which the independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW10), TCR at Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station were called in the office of the CBI. There, the independent witnesses were told about the complaint, Ex.PW4/A of the complainant (PW6) about the bribe demanded by the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh. The statements of the aforesaid independent witnesses (PW8 and PW10) as well as of the complainant (PW6) and the investigating officers, Inspector S.C. Bhalla (PW4) and Inspector C.B. Ojha (PW12) have been recorded before the court.
33 The complainant (PW6), in his statement before the court has stated that on 7.6.2003, he along with his brother Vipin Kumar Singhal (PW9) had gone to LBS Hospital to receive the dead body of wife of his cousin Sanjay Kumar. When he was standing near the mortuary, the accused Joginder and Sidharth contacted him and told him that there was something wrong in the dead body. They further told him that if he (complainant) wanted to get the defects removed, then he must bribe them. He has categorically stated that AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 22 of 66 the accused used the words "kharcha paani". Thereafter, the accused persons told him to pay Rs.2025,000/. Thereafter, the complainant (PW6) discussed the matter with his brother (PW9) and then contacted the CBI on the next day and lodged the complaint Ex.PW4/A. The SP of CBI called Inspector S.C. Bhalla (PW4) for verifying the complaint. Insp. S.C. Bhalla (PW4) arranged a tape recorder for recording the conversation between the complainant and the accused persons. The independent witnesses (PW8 and PW10) were called in the CBI office on 8.6.2003 and in their presence the complainant (PW6) contacted the accused persons in the mortuary of LBS Hospital. The conversation was recorded in the tape recorder vide memo Ex.PW4/B and the same was transferred into cassette Ex.P3. The transcription Ex.PW7/H of the recorded conversation was prepared. The perusal of transcription Ex.PW7/H shows that on 8.6.2003, the complainant (PW6) had talks with accused Sidharth and Joginder Singh on telephone. When the complainant asked for some discount, the accused Joginder Singh had stated him to come and have talks. He further stated that there was difference in the talks on phone and personal meeting. When the complainant raised his objection regarding the money, then accused Joginder Singh stated AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 23 of 66 that they were not daily wagers or tout or fraud. When the complainant asked for a copy of the report, then accused Joginder stated that they had not prepared the report by that time and the same was to be prepared after 23 days. Accused Joginder further stated that they withheld the report for this reason alone and asked the complainant that no reply was received from their side (complainant side). The accused Joginder further told the complainant to meet him on the next day at 9 AM.
34 On 9.6.2003, the complainant along with his brother Vipin (PW9) again went to CBI office and handed over Rs.15,000/ consisting of 100 currency notes of Rs.100/ denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs.500/ denomination, Ex.P11 to Ex.P120 to the investigating officer. The numbers of those currency notes were noted down in Annexure A1 and A2, Ex.PW7/B to the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. The reaction of powder with the solution of sodium carbonate was demonstrated. The powder was applied on those currency notes and same was given to the complainant (PW6). Rohtash Kumar (PW10) remained as shadow witness. Tape recorder was given to him and the voices of independent witnesses and himself were recorded in it. The proceedings were recorded in the handing AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 24 of 66 over memo Ex.PW7/A at about 8.20 AM. The complainant along with his brother and shadow witness Rohtash Kumar (PW10) had gone to mortuary and met accused Sidharth Kumar. The accused told them that he had not called them. He further stated that accused Joginder was on leave on that day. They all came back to investigating officer and narrated the incident. Thereafter, they returned to CBI office. In CBI office, brother of the complainant, namely, Vipin (PW9) contacted the accused persons from his mobile phone no.32035046. Two calls were made by Vipin (PW9) to the accused persons on the telephone number installed at the mortuary. Pages 13 to 16 of the transcription Ex.PW7/H shows that when Vipin (PW9) contacted the accused Sidharth, then accused told him "dekho baraat lane ki jaroorat nahi hoti jab hamne yes kar li thi to aap yes mante". The accused further told him to come alone and meet him. Accused Sidharth further stated that he will call him after sometime. The complainant (PW6) further stated that after sometime, telephone call was received from the phone number of mortuary on the mobile no.32035046 of Vipin (PW9) and accused Sidharth called Vipin (PW9) in the hospital. Thereafter, the complainant (PW6) handed over the tainted currency notes to his brother Vipin (PW9). AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 25 of 66 Thereafter, they all had gone to LBS Hospital and in the hospital, Vipin went to the accused persons. On the directions of accused Sidharth and Joginder, Vipin (PW9) handed over the bribe money to accused Sudama. After receiving the bribe money, all the accused started running away and they were chased by CBI team members. Accused Sudama was caught hold near AC plant and he was brought before accused Sidharth and Joginder. Accused Sudama told that he received the bribe money on the direction of accused Sidharth and Joginder. The hand wash of the accused Sudama was taken in the solution which turned into pink colour. Accused Sidharth and Joginder disclosed that they directed accused Sudama to receive the money from Vipin (PW9) on their behalf. The bribe money was taken out from the pant pocket of accused Sudama wrapped in a handkerchief. The numbers of currency notes tallied by independent witness with the numbers mentioned in Ex.PW7/B. The handkerchief and the pant pocket of the accused Sudama were got washed in the solution which turned into pink colour. The complainant (PW6) identified his signatures on the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A, its annexures Ex.PW7/B, telephonic conversation memo Ex.PW7/D, another telephonic conversation memo Ex.PW7/E, transcription cum AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 26 of 66 voice identification memo Ex.PW7/G, recovery memo Ex.PW7/E and transcription Ex.PW7/H. 35 The independent witness Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW10) has also corroborated the statement of the complainant (PW6). Witness PW10 has stated that on 8.6.2003, he attended the CBI office along with Mohd. Khan (PW8). In CBI office, he met the complainant (PW6), his brother Vipin (PW9) and the investigating officer. The complaint Ex.PW4/A was shown to them. The call was made to one person at the hospital and during discussion there was talk of money to be paid. Witness stated that the conversation was recorded in a cassette and proceedings were recorded in memo Ex.PW4/B. 36 The independent witness (PW10) further stated that on the next day, he as well as Mohd. Khan (PW8) had gone to CBI office. One out of the two persons produced Rs.15,000/ and the numbers of currency notes were noted down in Ex.PW7/B. Powder was applied on the notes and the reaction of powder with the solution was demonstrated. The currency notes were then handed over to the complainant (PW6) and he was directed to give the money on specific demand. The witness (PW10) was directed to act as shadow witness. AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 27 of 66 They reached LBS Hospital and met the accused Sidharth who informed that coaccused Joginder was on leave on that day. Then, they returned to CBI office. In the CBI office, two calls were made by the complainant and thereafter a phone call was received in which the complainant was directed to come alone in the hospital. The trap team left for LBS Hospital. In the hospital, the complainant met the person with whom the talks on telephone were made. Witness further stated that the said person pointed towards a third person i.e., accused Sudama and signalled the complainant to hand over the money to that person i.e. accused Sudama. Thereafter, the CBI team apprehended the accused Sudama and then rest of the two accused persons. The tainted notes were recovered from the pant pocket of accused Sudama and numbers of the same tallied with Ex.PW7/B. The handkerchief wash, pant pocket wash and hand wash of the accused Sudama were taken which turned into pink. The witness identified his signatures on annexures Ex.PW7/B to the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A, memo Ex.PW7/C, telephonic conversation memos Ex.PW7/D & Ex.PW7/E, recovery memo Ex.PW7/F, transcription cum voice identification memo Ex.PW7/H, transcription Ex.PW7G and documents Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/F. He also identified his signature on the arrest memo AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 28 of 66 Ex.PW3/A of accused Sudama. The witness identified the currency notes Ex.P11 to Ex.P120. He also identified the pant Ex.P1 and handkerchief Ex.P2 of accused Sudama. Witness also identified his signatures on the cloth wrappers Ex.P7A to Ex.P10A and on the bottles Ex.P7 to Ex.P10 in which the washes of accused Sudama were taken.
37 The other independent witness Sh. Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) has also corroborated the statement made by the complainant (PW6) and the independent witness Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW10). Witness PW8 narrated the prosecution case in the same voice as stated by the complainant and independent witness Rohtash Kumar. This witness also identified his signatures on the currency notes Ex.P11 to Ex.P120 and the memos prepared in the CBI office as well as at the spot. Thus, the statement of independent witnesses Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Rohtash Kumar (PW10) are corroborative in nature to the version of the complainant (PW6). 38 The brother of the complainant, namely, Vipin Singhal (PW9) has also corroborated the statement of his brother i.e., the complainant (PW6). He has stated that on 7.6.2003, he along with his brother (PW6) had gone to LBS Hospital to receive the dead body AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 29 of 66 of Suman, wife of his cousin Sanjay, where accused Sidharth and Joginder met them and took his brother (PW6) to a corner. His brother came to him and told that both the accused demanded the bribe of Rs.20,000/ to Rs.25,000/ on account of removing the defects from the dead body of the deceased. Later on, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.15,000/. On 8.6.2003, he along with his brother (PW6) approached the CBI and made the written complaint Ex.PW4/A. He further stated that in CBI office, in the presence of independent witnesses (PW8 and PW10), a telephone call was made from his mobile phone no.32035046 to LBS Hospital. During the conversation, his brother (PW6) requested accused Sidharth that such money could not be arranged in a short time and he would come on the next day morning, to which accused Sidharth agreed. He further stated that on 9.6.2003, he along with his brother (PW6) reached CBI office and met the investigating officer Insp. C.B. Ojha (PW12). The independent witnesses (PW8 and PW10) also came in the CBI office. His brother i.e., the complainant (PW6) produced the money amounting to Rs.15,000/ consisting 100 GC notes of Rs.100/ denomination and 10 GC notes of Rs.500/ denomination. The demonstration of reaction of powder with the solution of Sodium AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 30 of 66 carbonate was given. His brother (PW6) was given powder treated GC notes and witness Rohtash (PW10) was directed to accompany him. They all went to LBS Hospital where some conversation had taken place and thereafter they returned to CBI office. In CBI office, he made telephone calls to accused Sidharth. At about 1.45/2.00 PM, when he made the telephone call to accused Sidharth, he said "Barat Leke Aane Ki Kya Baat Thi, Ek Baar Done Kar Diya Tha, To Kar Diya Tha". At about 2.30 PM, accused Sidharth called on his phone and told to come in the hospital. Then, the powder treated notes and recording equipment were handed over to him (PW9). At about 4.15 PM, they reached LBS Hospital. He went inside the mortuary and rest of the team members remained at safer distance, where he met the accused Sidharth and Joginder Singh. On the direction of accused, he handed over the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ to accused Sudama @ Bhagat. He further stated that accused Sudama kept the money in his right side pant pocket after wrapping the same in a handkerchief. Thereafter, the CBI team reached at the spot and apprehended firstly accused Sudama and then accused Sidharth and Joginder. The hands, handkerchief and pant pocket of accused Sudama were got washed in the colourless solution, which turned into pink colour. The witness AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 31 of 66 (PW9) identified his signatures on handing over memo Ex.PW7/A, its annexure Ex.PW7/B, memo Ex.PW7/C, telephonic conversation memos Ex.PW7/D & E, recovery memo Ex.PW7/F, voice identification memo Ex.PW7/H and transcription Ex.PW7/H. He also identified the recovered GC notes Ex.P11 to Ex.P120. 39 The statement of Vipin Singhal (PW9) is also corroborated by the transcription Ex.PW7/H. The transcription shows that accused Jogender told Vipin to accompany accused Bhagat. It also shows that the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ was given to accused Bhagat. Vipin also stated that "Kaam Ho Gaya Hai, Uske Paas JO Kya Naam Hai, Bhagat Naam Ka Ek Banda Hai, Bhagat Ne Liye Hai Rumal Mein Paise". Thus, the transcription Ex.PW7/H also establishes that there was transaction of bribe money. Vipin (PW9) handed over the bribe money to accused Sudama @ Bhagat on the specific direction of coaccused.
40 The above said conversation recorded at the spot as reflected in transcription Ex.PW7/H shows that the accused Sudama @ Bhagat was also actively involved in the conspiracy of taking bribe from Vipin. The arguments advanced by the learned defence counsel that accused Sudama was not aware that the amount handed over to AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 32 of 66 him was "bribe amount" and he was also not acquainted with the other coaccused. The arguments advanced is not acceptable because of the fact that the accused Sudama @ Bhagat was posted in the same mortuary as attendant for airconditioning plant. His presence on the day of incident at the spot has been duly confirmed by his contractor Ajit Chawla (PW3) who stated that accused Sudama was on duty on 9.6.2003. It has been established that all the accused persons were posted in the mortuary and were present together on the day of incident and that accused Sudama accepted bribe on the specific direction of his coaccused. The cumulative effect of all these circumstances clearly go to prove that accused Sudama was actively involved in the conspiracy of taking bribe on behalf of his co accused.
41 In the present case, a trap was laid by the CBI.
Accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh met Vipin Singhal (PW9) in the hospital where after some conversation, on the direction of accused Joginder Singh, the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ was handed over by Vipin (PW9) to accused Sudama which was recovered from his possession. The contents of the complaint Ex.PW4/A have been corroborated by the statement of the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 33 of 66 complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin (PW9). Further, the statement of complainant (PW6) has been corroborated by the statements of independent public witnesses Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Rohtash Kumar (PW10). The prosecution has successfully established on the record that the accused persons had criminally conspired to demand and obtain the bribe of Rs.15,000/ from the complainant (PW6)/his brother Vipin (PW9) for giving favourable post mortem report.
42 The above mentioned facts and circumstances shows that the accused persons were having a common object to demand and accept the bribe from the complainant (PW6) and his brother (PW9). The common object was to take the money for preparing favourable post mortem report. From the above mentioned evidence, the prosecution has successfully proved on the record that accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh hatched a criminal conspiracy to demand Rs.2025,000/ from the complainant (PW6) with a view to give favourable post mortem report. The bribe amount was later on reduced to Rs.15,000/ and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, the bribe amount was directed to be handed over to accused Sudama, which was recovered from his possession.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 34 of 66 43 Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the accused persons namely Sidharth and Joginder Singh criminally conspired for the demand of Rs.2025,000/ from the complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin (PW9) and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, obtained the bribe of Rs.15,000/ through accused Sudama on 9.6.2003 from Vipin Singhal (PW9). Therefore, it is held that the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.
QUESTION (III) 44 Before dealing with the facts of the case, it is necessary to refer Section 7, 8 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which reads as under : "7.Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 35 of 66 disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
"8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant. Whoever accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or regard or inducing, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant whether named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government or any State Government or the Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 36 of 66
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, (a)..................................
(b)..................................
(c)....................................
(d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."
45 As per Section 7 of P.C. Act, 1988, it is necessary that at the time commission of offence, the accused should be a public servant and being public servant, he accepted/obtained from any person for himself or any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act for showing or forbearing to show, in exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person or for any rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 37 of 66 46 Section 8 of the PC Act provides that whosoever accepts any illegal gratification for himself or on behalf of any public servant for showing favour or disfavour in the official function, shall be punished with imprisonment and fine.
47 Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988, provides that it must be proved that the accused should be a public servant and he used some corrupt or illegal means or abused his position as public servant or that he should have thereby obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. 48 Now, we come to the facts of the present case. In this case, a complaint Ex.PW4/A made by the complainant (PW6), was received in the office of the CBI. The complaint was marked to Insp. S.C. Bhalla (PW4) for verification. After verification, the Insp. S.C. Bhalla (PW4) found the case fit for registration of FIR and accordingly FIR Ex.PW12/A was registered. After the registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was assigned to Insp. C.B. Ojha (PW12). The investigating officer organized a trap team consisting of the complainant (PW6), his brother Vipin (PW9) two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW10) and the officials of the CBI.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 38 of 66 49 Our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled Ram Chander Versus State (Reported in 2009 Cri. L.J. 4058) has framed the guidelines in trap cases, as under :
(i) To succeed in such a case, the prosecution is obliged to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money;
(ii) The demand can be proved by the testimony of complainant as well from the complaint made by him, if proved in accordance with law;
(iii) However, if the complainant is unable to appear for whatever reason such as his death, the demand can be also proved by way of circumstantial evidence;
(iv) A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e., the money tendered as bribe money is recovered from the possession of the accused, which presumption of course is rebuttable;
(v) However, if the explanation given by the accused about the recovery of such money is false, it may be taken as an adverse circumstance against the accused;
(vi) If the accused gives some defence, that can be scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability while the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 39 of 66
(vii) However, if the explanation given is false, it may be used adversely against the accused and may strengthen the presumption under section 20 of the Act. 50 The complaint, Ex.PW4/A made by the complainant (PW6) before the CBI, has been made the basis for the registration of the FIR, Ex.PW12/A in the present case upon which the independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Sh. Rohtash Kumar (PW10), TCRs from Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, were called in the office of the CBI. The independent witnesses were told about the complaint, Ex.PW4/A of the complainant about the demand of bribe by the accused Sidharth and Joginder. The statements of the aforesaid independent witnesses (PW8 & PW10) as well as of the complainant (PW6), his brother Vipin (PW9) and the investigating officer, Inspector C.B. Ojha (PW12) have been recorded before the court.
51 In the complaint Ex.PW4/A, it is specifically mentioned that the accused Sidharth and Joginder met the complainant (PW6) in LBS Hospital on 7.6.2003 where they told that the complainant had to pay the bribe of Rs.2025,000/ in order to get AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 40 of 66 favourable postmortem report of Smt. Suman. On the request of the complainant, the both the accused reduced the bribe amount to Rs.15,000/. During examination in the court, the complainant (PW6) has stated that the demand of bribe was verified by Insp. S.C. Bhalla (PW4) on 8.6.2003. On the said date, a telephone call was made to accused Joginder and Sidharth who made the demand of bribe. After the completion of pretrap proceedings in the CBI office, a trap team was formed. On 9.6.2003, he along with his brother Vipin (PW9) and independent witnesses Rohtash Kumar (PW10) contacted accused Sidharth and Joginder in LBS Hospital mortuary, but no transaction of money had taken place at that time. They all returned to CBI office where his brother Vipin (PW9) contacted the accused persons on telephone. A call was received on the phone of Vipin and he was directed to come alone in the hospital. Thereafter, Vipin (PW9) had gone to LBS Hospital, where the tainted bribe money was handed over to accused Sudama @ Bhagat on the specific directions of co accused. Accused Sudama @ Bhagat after receiving the bribe money, kept the same in his pant pocket after wrapping the same in a handkerchief. The witness was crossexamined at length, but no dent to his testimony has been put by the defence.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 41 of 66 52 The prosecution has also examined the independent witnesses, Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8), Rohtash Kumar (PW10), brother of the complainant namely Vipin Singhal (PW9) and the investigating officer Inspector C.B. Ojha (PW12) of the case who corroborated the statement of the complainant (PW6). The independent public witnesses (PW8 & PW10) have admitted the pre trap proceedings conducted in CBI office. They also admitted the laying of trap and the transaction of bribe amount. They also admitted the recovery of bribe amount. It is also admitted fact from their statements that the numbers of recovered tainted notes were tallied with the annexure Ex.PW7/B to the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. It is also admitted fact that from their statements that the hands, handkerchief and pant pocket of the accused Sudama were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into pink colour upon reaction. Both these witnesses admitted their signatures on the memos and the documents prepared at the spot by the investigating officer (PW12). Sh. Vipin Singhal (PW10) has also corroborated the statement of his brother (PW6). 53 The complainant (PW6), his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9), independent public witnesses Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8), AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 42 of 66 Rohtash Kumar (PW10) and the investigating officer Inspector C.B. Ojha (PW12) have stated in one voice that after the registration of the case FIR, Ex.PW12/A, the pretrap proceedings were conducted in the office of the CBI thereby demonstrating the procedure to be adopted by the CBI at the time of conducting the raid against the accused persons. The raid was conducted and accused Sudama was caught red handed after the acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ from Vipin Singhal (PW9) on behalf of coaccused persons. It has come on the record in the statement of the Vipin Singhal (PW9) that he contacted the accused Sidharth and Jogender in the hospital and on their specific direction, he handed over the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ to accused Sudama @ Bhagat. The bribe money was kept by accused Sudama @ Bhagat in his pant pocket after wrapping the same in handkerchief. Thereafter the accused persons were apprehended and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pant pocket of accused Sudama @ Bhagat wrapped in handkerchief. The numbers of powder treated currency notes were tallied with the annexure Ex.PW7/B to the handing over memo Ex.PW7/A. The hands, handkerchief and pant of the accused Sudama @ Bhagat were washed in the colouless solution of sodium carbonate, which turned AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 43 of 66 into pink colour. The solutions were seized and sealed. Tape recorder instrument was given to the CBI officials and cassettes were prepared from the recorder and then sealed. The currency notes Ex.P11 to Ex.P120 have been identified by the witnesses as the same notes which were recovered from the accused Sudama @ Bhagat. The cassettes containing the conversation between the complainant (PW6)/his brother Vipin (PW9) and the accused persons recorded at the spot, was played in the Court. The complainant (PW6) as well as independent witness identified their voices as well as of accused persons in the cassettes.
54 It is matter of record that the conversation taken place between Vipin Singhal (PW9) and the accused persons on the spot, was recorded in the digital recorder. The conversation was transcribed vide transcription Ex.PW7/H. The transcription shows that initially there was specific demand of bribe by accused Sidharth and Joginder and before the apprehension of accused persons at the spot, the bribe money was handed over to accused Sudama @ Bhagat on the specific direction of coaccused.
55 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar (PW2), expert of CFSL conducted the examination of the specimen voices of accused AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 44 of 66 persons with their voices recorded during the conversation with the complainant Brijesh Singhal (PW6)/Vipin Singhal (PW9). Vide his report Ex.PW2/A, the expert of the CFSL (PW2) has opined that the specimen voices of the accused persons tallied with their voices recorded during conversation with the complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9). Though, the witness was put up for crossexamination, but no dent to his testimony has been put by the defence.
56 The other aspect of the matter is that the right hand wash RHW Ex.P7, left hand wash LHW Ex.P8, handkerchief wash HKW Ex.P9 and right side pant pocket wash RPPW Ex.P10 of the accused Sudama @ Bhagat were taken by the CBI in the solution of Sodium carbonate, which turned pink. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Sudama @ Bhagat accepted the bribe money with both his hands from Vipin Singhal (PW9) and kept the same in his right side pant pocket after wrapping the same in handkerchief. The hand washes marked RHW Ex.P7 & LHW Ex.P8, handkerchief wash HKW Ex.P9 and pant pocket wash marked RPPW Ex.P10 of the accused Sudama @ Bhagat were sent to laboratory for examination. The said washes were examined in the laboratory by the expert Dr. AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 45 of 66 C.L. Bansal (PW1). The expert (PW1) vide his report Ex.PW1/A has opined that the exhibits RHW, LHW, HKW and RPPW gave positive tests for the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. Thus, it has been established on the record that hands, handkerchief and pant pocket of the accused Sudama @ Bhagat were stained with phenolphthalein powder when the washes of the same were taken by the investigating officer in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate. It establishes that the accused Sudama @ Bhagat accepted the bribe amount.
57 It is argued by the learned defence counsel that in the present case, there is nothing on the record which could prove the demand of bribe at the initial stage. It is further argued that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations of initial demand of bribe before laying the trap. In support of the arguments, the judgments case in case titled Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra (Reported in 1980 SCC (Cri) 121), Ram Chander Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Reported in 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880), R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (Reported in 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 716), Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra (Reported in 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 661) and Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (Reported AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 46 of 66 in 2010 (2) Crimes 351 SC) have been referred.
58 In the case titled Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was held that there is no mention of any demand by the appellant for payment of the money or the direction by the appellant to the complainant to pay the money to the second accused. In the case titled Ram Chander Vs. State (supra), it was held that the prosecution has to prove the demand by accused twice, firstly before the trap and secondly at the time of trap. In the case titled Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra), it was held that to constitute an offence u/s 161 of IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of money. In the case titled R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (supra), the Hon'ble High Court acquitted the appellant while observing that there was no material to show that the appellant demanded the money towards bribe for doing any official favour. In the case titled Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), it was held that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
59 It has further been argued by the learned defence counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of bribe at the crucial stage of transaction of money. In support of the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 47 of 66 contention raised, the learned defence counsel has referred to the judgments in case titled R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (supra), Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (Reported in 1975 SCC (Cr.) 491).
60 In the case titled Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it had not been proved that the appellant had demanded any bribe from the complainant. Similar observations have been made by Hon'ble Courts in case titled R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (supra) and Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra).
61 From the evidence led, it is apparent that there was initial demand of bribe by the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh. In the complaint Ex.PW4/A, it is mentioned that on 7.6.2003, when the complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9) had gone to the mortuary of LBS Hospital to receive the dead body of Smt. Suman wife of their cousin Sanjay, then accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh met them and demanded the bribe of Rs.2025,000/ for preparing the favourable postmortem report. The complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin Singhal (PW9) during their examinations in the Court have also specifically stated that on AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 48 of 66 7.6.2003, accused Sidharth and Joginder met them in the hospital and demanded the bribe of Rs.2025,000/. It is matter of record that after lodging the complaint Ex.PW4/A with the CBI, the same was entrusted to Insp. S.C. Bhalla (PW4) who made verification of the complaint. He arranged to made telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused persons. During the conversation, the demand of bribe was made by the accused Sidharth and Joginder, which is apparent from the transcription Ex.PW7/H. The contents of the complaint Ex.PW4/A and the statement of the complainant (PW6) made by him before the court have duly been corroborated by the statement of brother of the complainant, namely, Vipin Singhal (PW9). In this way, it has been established on the record that on 7.6.2003, accused Sidharth and Joginder raised the initial demand of bribe of Rs.2025,000/ lacs from the complainant (PW6), which was later on reduced to Rs.15,000/. The telephonic conversation recorded on 8.6.2003 in CBI office as reflected in transcription Ex.PW7/H also establishes that accused Sidharth and Joginder demanded the bribe from the complainant (PW6). Therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the judgments referred by the learned defence counsel in case titled AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 49 of 66 Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), Ram Chander Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (supra), Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra). The judgments referred do not render any help to the accused persons in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.
62 It is further the case of the prosecution that on 9.6.2003, the accused Sidharth and Joginder demanded the bribe from the Vipin Singhal (PW9) at the spot i.e. mortuary of LBS Hospital which was recorded in the tape recorder. The transcription Ex.PW7/H shows that Vipin told to accused persons that he had arranged only that much amount (Rs.15,000/). Accused Joginder further told Vipin (PW9) to accompany accused Bhagat. Vipin Singhal (PW9) also stated during his examination in the court that on 9.6.2003, when he contacted accused Sidharth and Joginder, then they demanded the bribe and he handed over the tainted currency notes to accused Sudama on their direction. Statement of Vipin Singhal (PW9) has been corroborated from the transcription Ex.PW7/H and the statements of complainant (PW6) and independent witnesses (PW8 & PW10). Thus, it is well established on the record that the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 50 of 66 accused Sidharth and Joginder demanded the bribe at the crucial stage i.e., at the spot on 9.6.2003. Therefore, the judgments referred to by the accused in case titled R.V. Subba Rao Vs. State (supra), Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana (supra) and Sita Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan (supra) do not render any help to them as the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 63 The next point of argument advanced by the learned defence counsel is that accused Sidharth was posted as Mortuary attendant and accused Joginder was posted as Sweeper cum Chowkidar. Both these accused had no role to play in the preparation of post mortem report. It is further argued that there was no cause with the accused persons to demand the bribe from the complainant etc. It is further argued that the postmortem report of deceased Suman was already prepared on 7.6.2003 which has been proved by DW1 vide Ex.DW1/A. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments titled Raghbir Singh Vs. State (Reported in 58 (1995) DLT 672 Delhi) and Ram Avtar Vs. State (Reported in 1994 (1) CCC 105 Delhi).
64 In the case titled Raghbir Singh Vs. State (supra), it was held that the prosecution failed to prove its case in view of the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 51 of 66 statements made by the witnesses that appellant had no role in the issuance of call letter as he was employed as Peon and his job was only to take dak. In another judgment titled Ram Avtar Vs. State (supra) the appellant was acquitted while observing that the appellant was not in a position to supply any useful information to the complainant as he was at no point of time entrusted with investigation file.
65 The circumstances brought on the record by the prosecution shows that accused Joginder and Sidharth demanded the bribe from the complainant on 7.6.2003 for preparing the favourable report. It has come on the record that deceased Suman committed suicide and her husband Sanjay was arrested by the police. The complainant (PW6) and his brother Vipin (PW9) accompanied the dead body of Suman for the reason that their cousin Sanjay was arrested by the police. Since the husband of the deceased had already been arrested and they also apprehended some action against the in laws of the deceased by the police and that was the reason of their acceding to the demand of bribe by the accused persons. The complainant etc. being innocent might not be aware of the procedure AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 52 of 66 adopted in the mortuary as to when the postmortem on the dead body was to be conducted. The accused Sidharth and Joginder being employed in the mortuary were having sufficient cause with them to take the undue advantage of helplessness of the complainant and that was the reason for demanding the bribe. It may be true that accused Sidharth and Joginder were posted as Mortuary attendant and sweeper cum chowkidar in the mortuary of LBS Hospital, but it does not in any way prevent them from demanding the bribe. The position of a public servant has nothing to do in facilitating a person for getting the work done. The demand of bribe at the initial stage and on the crucial stage, has duly been established by the prosecution. It is correct that the bribe money was not recovered from the possession of accused Sidharth and Joginder, but their role cannot be shortened because of nonrecovery of bribe from their possession. The prosecution has brought sufficient material on record to establish that the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, with a view to take pecuniary advantage, demanded bribe from the complainant to give favourable postmortem report and obtained the same through their coaccused Sudama. So, the arguments advanced are not acceptable and I am of the considered opinion that the facts of the present case are AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 53 of 66 distinguishable to the facts mentioned in the judgments titled Raghbir Singh Vs. State (supra) and Ram Avtar Vs. State (supra). 66 It has been argued by the learned defence counsel that the acceptance and recovery of bribe money from accused Sudama is doubtful as there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses. The argument advanced is not sustainable in view of the fact that the bribe money of Rs.15,000/ was accepted by the accused Sudama @ Bhagat and recovery of the same was effected from his possession. Witness Vipin Singhal (PW9) has specifically stated that on the directions of accused Sidharth accompanied by accused Joginder, he handed over the powder treated notes of RS.15,000/ to the accused Sudama @ Bhagat. He further stated that after the apprehension of accused Sudama, the tainted bribe money was recovered from his right side pant pocket wrapped in a handkerchief. The complainant (PW6) has also stated that his brother Vipin (PW9) had gone to the accused Sidharth and Joginder and on their directions, handed over the bribe money to accused Sudama. He further stated that accused Sudama was caught hold by CBI officials and bribe money wrapped in a handkerchief was taken out from his pant pocket. The acceptance of bribe money and its recovery from the accused AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 54 of 66 Sudama has also been established from the statements of independent witnesses Mohd. Aslam Khan (PW8) and Rohtash Kumar (PW10). The investigating officer Insp. C.B. Ojha (PW12) has also stated that the bribe money was recovered from the possession of accused Sudama. All the above witnesses have stated in one voice that the bribe money was accepted by accused Sudama and its recovery was effected from his possession. Thus, it can safely be said that the prosecution has successfully established the acceptance and recovery of bribe money from accused Sudama @ Bhagat beyond any reasonable doubt.
67 The next point of argument advanced by learned defence counsel is that the CBI has not done any investigation with regard to involvement of Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh in the present case. It is true that the name of Dr. Vinay figured in the conversation taken place between the accused persons and the complainant, but it is also a matter of record that no conversation between the complainant and Dr. Vinay has ever taken place. The accused persons have not demonstrated on the record that any demand for bribe was ever made by Dr. Vinay from the complainant etc. The possibility of demanding bribe by accused Sidharth and Joginder in the name of Dr. Vinay AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 55 of 66 cannot be ruled out in view of the fact that they wanted to earn easy money. Neither the prosecution nor the accused persons have brought anything on the record which point out towards involvement of Dr. Vinay in the present case.
68 The next point of argument advanced by learned defence counsel is that apart from other contradictions, there are serious contradictions in the statements of witnesses with regard to time of meeting of complainant with the accused persons, visiting CBI office on 7.6.2003, presence of punch witnesses, time of telephonic conversation, production of bribe amount to the investigating officer, leaving CBI office, reaching LBS Hospital. After going through the contradictions referred by the learned defence counsel, I am of the considered opinion that the discrepancies referred to are of minor in nature and this Court is not going to discard the statements of the prosecution witnesses on the basis of those minor contradictions in their statements. Moreover, minor contradictions here and there in the testimony of the witnesses are natural to occur due to passage of time and it rather rules out tutoring. It is not expected from a witness to give parrot like version. My observation is strengthened by the law laid down in case titled Krishna Mochi & AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 56 of 66 Ors. Versus State of Bihar etc. (Reported in 2002 AIR (SC) 1965) in which it was held that due to lapse of time minor discrepancies are bound to happen. It was also held that the court should not make an attempt to jump over the material discrepancies. So, there is no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel. 69 In view of the fact that the defence taken by the accused persons has been found to be false, an adverse inference is drawn against them and it strengthens the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act. It leads to the statutory presumption under Section 20 of PC Act, that where it is proved that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification for himself or anybody else from any person, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of PC Act. The accused persons have miserably failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. 70 Since, the prosecution has successfully established all the guidelines as laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled, Ram Chander Versus State (supra), therefore, it is held that on 9.6.2003, the accused persons, Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, being public servants while working in the capacity of AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 57 of 66 Mortuary Attendance and SweepercumChowkidar respectively in the mortuary of LBS Hospital, demanded and obtained illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/ through their coaccused Sudama @ Bhagat, other than their legal remuneration as a motive for giving favourable post mortem report of deceased Suman. Consequently, accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh are hereby held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 7 of PC Act. Since, it has been established that accused Sudama @ Bhagat accepted the illegal gratification i.e., bribe money of Rs.15,000/ for and on behalf of accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh (public servants), the accused Sudama is hereby held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act.
71 It has also been alleged against the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh that they being public servants committed the criminal misconduct by illegal means and obtained the pecuniary advantage. The criminal misconduct has been dealt in Section 13 of the Act which reads as under : "13.Criminal misconduct by a public servant. (1)A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(a)xxxxxxxxxx
(b)xxxxxxxxxx AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 58 of 66
(c)xxxxxxxxxx
(d)if he,
(i)by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other persona any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii)by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii)while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest."
72 As discussed above, the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh have been found guilty for demanding and obtaining the bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ through their coaccused Sudama @ Bhagat, definitely which was to cause the pecuniary advantage for themselves by using the illegal means. So, it is held that the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh, being public servants abused their official positions by corrupt or illegal means and obtained the pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.15,000/ from Vipin Singhal (PW9), brother of the complainant (PW6) as defined in Section 13(1)
(d) of the Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh are hereby AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 59 of 66 held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
CONCLUSION 73 As discussed above in detail while dealing with Question No.II and III, it has been held that the prosecution has successfully established the hatching of criminal conspiracy by all the accused persons and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the bribe money was demanded and obtained by the accused persons from the complainant/his brother Vipin Singhal for giving favourable post mortem report. The CBI has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI has also successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sidharth Kumar and Joginder Singh for the commission of substantive offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution has also successfully proved its case against the accused Sudama @ Bhagat for the commission of substantive offence punishable under Section 8 AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 60 of 66 of P.C. Act. The accused persons, namely, Sidharth Kumar, Joginder Singh and Sudama @ Bhagat are hereby convicted accordingly for the said offences.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 27.8.2010 District Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 61 of 66
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE
(EAST) cum SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI), KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
AC No.03/2004
Unique Case ID No.02402R0055282004
FIR No.RCDAI 2003A0032
Under Sec.120B IPC r/w Sec. 7/8 and 13(2)
r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of PC Act.
CBI Versus Sidharth Kumar etc.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for
convicts Sidharth Kumar and Jogender Singh as well as Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Ld. Counsel for convict Sudama on the point of sentence. The learned PP for the CBI has also advanced his arguments. 2 The learned counsel for convict Sidharth Kumar has submitted that the convict is aged about 32 years. He is having two daughters aged about 11 and 9 years. The convict is having old aged father and unmarried sister who are dependent upon him. He is sole bread earner of the family. The convict is under suspension and there AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 62 of 66 is no previous involvement of the convict in any other case. On behalf of convict Jogender Singh, it has been submitted that he is married person of 47 years of age, having two sons aged about 16 and 17 years and both are students. He is having widow mother aged about 70 years to look after. The entire family is dependent upon the convict. Ld. Counsel for convict Sudama has submitted that convict is aged about 60 years, having four children. There is no previous involvement of the convict in any other case. It has been prayed that lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the convicts. 3 The learned PP for the CBI has submitted that all the convicts criminally conspired with each other and to fulfill their goal, they demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant etc. The convicts Sidharth Kumar and Jogender Singh being public servants, by misusing their official positions, demanded and obtained the illegal gratification through convict Sudama. The acts committed by the convicts have potential to infect the entire society. He has further submitted that the convicts may be awarded the maximum punishment prescribed under the law.
4 In the present case, the convicts were caught red handed and bribe amount of Rs.15,000/ was recovered from the AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 63 of 66 possession of convict Sudama @ Bhagat. The convicts have been held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/8 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The convicts Sidharth Kumar and Jogender Singh have also been held guilty for the commission of substantive offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The convict Sudama @ Bhagat has also been held guilty for committing the substantive offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act.
5 It is a fact that the corruption is rampant in the public offices. Corruption is a social evil and to curb this menace, it is the need of hour that the public servants who are found to be guilty for taking corruption, shall be dealt with strictly and no leniency should be shown to them. In my view, the punishment should be deterrent, not only to deter the convicts but also other public servants who are engaged in similar activities.
6 Considering the circumstances under which the offence was committed, all the convicts, namely, Sidharth Kumar, Jogender Singh and Sudama @ Bhagat are awarded sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ respectively for AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 64 of 66 the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7/8 and 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The convicts Sidharth Kumar and Jogender Singh are also awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ respectively for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The convicts Sidharth Kumar and Jogender Singh are also awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ respectively for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Convict Sudama @ Bhagat is awarded sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 7 All the sentences of the convicts shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 428 Cr.PC.
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 65 of 66 8 Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convicts.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 13.09.2010 District Judge (East)
Special Judge (CBI)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
AC No.03/2004 CBI Vs. Sidharth Kumar etc. Page 66 of 66