Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Dalip Singh Judev Etc. Judgment Dt. ... on 4 April, 2016
1
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI02 (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT), DISTT.
NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 04/09
Unique Case I.D. No. 02404R1284582005
RC No. AC2 2003A0006/CBI/ACU II
CBI Vs. 1. Dalip Singh Judev
S/o Late Shri Vijay Bhushan Singh
R/o 17, Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Road
New Delhi. (Abated)
2. Natwar Rateria
S/o Shri Nand Kishore Rateria
R/o 841P, Sector14
Gurgaon (HR)
3. Bhupender Singh Patel @ Rahul
S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh
R/o 166, Dhikavada, Tehsil Sohagpur
Distt. Hoshangabad. (M.P)
4. Arvind Vijay Mohan
S/o Shri M. Vijaymohan
R/o T29/2, DLF, PhaseIII
Gurgaon (HR).
5. Amit Jogi
S/o Shri Ajit Jogi
R/o Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
CC No. 04/09 P1/91
2
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
6. Rajat Parsad
S/o Shri Raghunandan Parsad
R/o F3, 6, Jantar Mantar Road
New Delhi. ......Accused
Date of Institution : 12.12.2005
Date of conclusion
of final arguments : 03.03.2016
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2016
Judgment
This case was registered consequent to the results of preliminary
enquiry which was registered by the CBI on 18.11.2003.
In brief, the case of the prosecution (CBI) is that on 16.11.2003, the
Delhi Edition of the Indian Express carried a news story under the Headlines
"Caught on tape, Union Minister Taking Cash saying money is no less than God".
The newspaper had also reproduced VCD visuals purportedly showing Dalip
Singh Judev (A1), the then Union Minister of State for Environment & Forests,
receiving cash from a person in the presence of his Additional Private Secretary
(APS) Natwar Rateria (A2). The contents of the VCD were thereafter also
shown /reported in a crosssection of electronic & Print Media. It was reported
that on 5.11.2003, A1 had accepted illegal gratification of Rs. Nine lacs from one
Rahul, as a consideration for future favours with regards to certain mining projects
in the states of Chhattisgarh and Orissa.
CC No. 04/09 P2/91
3
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
During investigation, it was disclosed that the said Rahul was in fact
one Bhupender Singh Patel (A3). The VHS/VCD reportedly used by the Indian
Express and also by Sahara T.V. were seized. The meeting covered in the said
VCD had actually taken place on 5.11.2003 in room No. 822 of Hotel Taj Man
Singh, Man Singh Road, New Delhi (hereinafter be referred to as "room no. 822)
which was booked in the name of fictitious person Raman Jadoja. In the meeting,
illegal gratification of Rs. Nine lacs was received and accepted by A1 from A3 in
the presence of A2, as a motive or reward to render assistance in future with
regard to matters pertaining to purported mining projects in the States of
Chhatisgarh and Orissa.
During investigation, it was disclosed that during July 2003, Shri
Shekhar Singh has introduced A3 to A1 and A2 in connection with certain
purported work relating to an Australian Mining Company which was reportedly
pending in the Ministry of Environment & Forests. Thereafter A3 established a
friendly relationship with A1 and A2 and met them on a number of occasions.
That on 5.11.2003 at around 10 p.m. A1 and A2 proceeded to Hotel Taj Man
Singh and went to room No. 822, where A3 was already there along with one
Praveen Kumar Jain. This meeting lasted for over an hour and was secretly video
recorded by A3. During this meeting, A3 had handed over to A1 an amount of
Rs. Nine lacs in the presence of A2. After the meeting was over and while
leaving the hotel room, A1 carried the bag containing Rs. Nine lacs.
The VCD of the aforesaid meeting was obtained from Indian
CC No. 04/09 P3/91
4
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
Express, New Delhi and VHS video cassette of the said meeting was also
obtained from Sahara TV. Both the above mentioned VCD and VHS video
cassette were sent to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad for opinion and it has been opined :
(i) The contents in items 1 & 2 represent an incident continuously
recorded without any material editing/interruptions/breaks and represent true
depiction of an incident happened.
(ii) The masking effects, vertical streaking and horizontal streaking were
introduced in item No. 1 and 2 subsequently using the original recorded tape,
without materially altering the contents of the video.
(iii) The lip sync is matching in audio and video of items No. 1 and 2.
(iv) In the absence of admitted voices, voice comparison was not carried
out.
A1 and A2 has not agreed to provide their sample voice, therefore
the contents of their televisions interviews telecasted on NDTV and Aaj Tak were
used as their admitted voice/image. As per the FSL report, the voice of A1 and
A2 as recorded in the VCD and VHS cassette had matched with their voice as
recorded in the video cassettes covering their interviews.
Investigation has further disclosed that during/around July 2003,
accused Amit Jogi (A5) who is the son of Shri Ajit Jogi, the then Chief Minister of
Chattisgarh, hatched a criminal conspiracy with the the accused Rajat Parsad (A
6) and accused Arvind Vijay Mohan (A4) to secretly video record A1 in the act of
CC No. 04/09 P4/91
5
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
receiving of illegal gratification with the object to disgrace A1 just prior to
elections of Chattisgarh Assembly which were scheduled to be held towards the
end of 2003. The motive was to derive political mileage in favour of Shri Ajit Jogi.
A5 and the other conspirators had originally roped in one Manish Rachoya for
meeting A1.
In pursuance of that conspiracy, A6 had booked room No. 151 in
Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi (hereinafter be referred as room no. 151) under the
fictitious name of Manish Sarogi. Manish Rachoya checked into the room on
25.7.03. On 27.7.03, A5 brought Shekhar Singh to the hotel room No 151 and
introduced Manish Rachoya to him. A3 had requested Shekhar Singh to
introduce Manish Rachhoya to A1. However, Manish Rachoya decided to
dissociate himself from the plan of A5 and at this stage, A3 was roped into the
conspiracy. A4 was a close friend of A5 as both have studied together at St.
Stephen College, Delhi. A6 had substantial business interests in the State of
Chhatisgarh including M/s Akash Channel Pvt. Ltd., with which A5 was also
indirectly associated. A3 was earlier working with M/s Akash Channel having
been recruited by A6. A3 was introduced to A1 by Shri Shekhar Singh. A3
had met A1 and A2 on a number of occasions and gained their confidence.
Investigation has further disclosed that in pursuance of that
conspiracy, on 5.11.03, A3 along with Praveen Kumar checked into the room No.
822, which was booked under the fictitious name of Raman Jadoja. On the same
day, A3 had requested A1 and A2 to visit him in room No. 822. In the
CC No. 04/09 P5/91
6
CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016
CC No. 04/09
meanwhile, A4 had arranged for installation of hidden video recording
equipments in the sitting room of the room No. 822 with the object for secretly
video recording the meeting between A1, A2 and A3.. In the night of 5.11.03, A
1 and A2 reached in the hotel in their official vehicle and went to room No. 822.
There were discussions between A1, A2 and A3 relating to pending mining
projects in the States of Orissa and Chhattisgarh. A2 on behalf of A1 had
assured A3 of all the necessary assistance in getting the said pending issues
cleared. During the discussions, A3 handed over Rs. 9,00,000/ (nine lacs) to A
1.These currency notes were later on kept in a bag by A2 and thereafter it was carried by A1 while leaving the hotel. The video recording of this meeting was subsequently released to media after masking the A3, Praveen Jain to conceal their identity just prior to the Chattisgarh assembly elections as planned by the A
5. After investigation the charge sheet has been filed against A1 for the offence punishable U/s 7 of PC Act 1988 and against A2 for the offence punishable U/s 120B IPC read with Section 7 of PC Act 1988 and against A3, A 4, A5 and A6 for the offence punishable U/s 12 of PC Act read with Section 120 B IPC and substantive offences thereof.
2. Charge U/s 120B IPC read with Section 7 of P.C. Act has been framed against A1 and A2. Substantive charge U/s 7 of the P.C. Act has been framed against A1 . Charge U/s 120B IPC read with Section 12 of P.C. Act has been framed against A3, A4, A5 and A6 and substantive charge U/s 12 of P.C. CC No. 04/09 P6/91 7 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Act has been framed against A3. All the accused persons had pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
During the trial, A1 has expired and vide order dt. 30.10.2013 proceedings against A1 stands abated.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 59 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons have been recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the case of the prosecution. Four witnesses have been examined in defence by the accused persons.
PW1 Smt. Usha Utpal has deposed that in November 2003, she was working as DGM, Indian Express at C6, Qutub Institution Area, Delhi. She has received a sealed envelope containing compact disc (VCD) bearing No. D 3135FJ2111302 LH in the office. She had also done transcript of the said VCD. That transcript is Ex. PW1/1. The VCD was handed over to the CBI vide seizure memo dt. 19.11.2003 which is Ex. PW1/2. The newspaper Indian Express dt. 16.11.03 was also given to the CBI.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW1 has deposed that the sealed envelope was received at the reception counter and then it was handed over to her. Security guard had received it, so she do not know the mode of receipt. She do not recall the name of the security guard. It was in sometime in November 2003. She had thereafter handed over this sealed envelope to Mrs. Coomi Kapoor, the Editor. She had handed over two VCDs to the IO of the CBI.
CC No. 04/09 P7/91 8 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW2 Shri K.V.I. Narayan Rao, CEO NDTV has deposed that vide letter Ex. PW2/1 (D6), one VHS tape containing the interview of Dilip Singh Judev was handed over under his instruction to the CBI. He has identified that VHS tape as Ex. PW2/2.
PW3 Shri D.J.S. Bawa has deposed that vide document Ex. PW3/1 (D11), he has handed over the original log book to Insp. D.S. Dagar. The log book is Ex. PW3/2 (D12). In the log book, the entry at page No. 104 was made in the course of business and it bears the signatures of Shri A.K. Singh.
In cross examination, PW3 has deposed that he has never seen Shri A.K. Singh signing and writing.
PW4 Shri Hari Chandra has deposed that he was an independent witness to the search conducted at E207, East of Kailash, New Delhi. He has proved the search list bearing his signatures as Ex. PW4/1 (D26). The documents Ex. PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/5 (D27 to D30) bears his signatures.
PW5 Shri Ravinder Kumar has deposed that he was an independent witness to the search conducted at Flat No. 4, Aurangjeb Road, New Delhi. He has proved the search list bearing his signatures as Ex. PW5/1 (D24). The documents seized during the search are Ex. PW5/2 (D25).
PW6 Shri Sunil Kumar has deposed that he was the witness to the search conducted at Flat No. 3, Dhawandeep Building, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. During that search, discount card of Taj Inner Circle in the name of Rajat Parsad bearing No. 101010390536/B was recovered. The search list is CC No. 04/09 P8/91 9 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Ex. PW6/1 (D46). Discount card as Ex. P1.
In crossexamination, PW6 has deposed that the search was conducted by the CBI on 21.12.03. He was contacted two days before when the search was intimated. He was told to report at the CBI office in the morning on the day of search. All the documents were signed by him at one point itself. He has signed whatever was shown to him by the IO. The Taj Inner Circle card was recovered from the purse of Rajat Parsad. The search was conducted for about 3 to 4 hours. He has signed all the papers only at the place of search. Other than this case, he has been a search witness in one case of CBI.
PW7 U.C. Shrivastava, Insp. Income Tax has deposed that he was the witness to the search at Aakash Channel office, New Bus Stand, Raipur. Two CPU and some documents were recovered from the place of search . The documents are Ex. PW7/2 (D32) and two CPUs are Ex. P2 and P3.
PW8 Shri Prem Diwan has deposed that he is working with Blue Sehgal Brothers, G13, South Ext. PartI, New Delhi as Manager for the last approximately last 12 years. On the request of CBI, he has handed over the bill No. 2669 dt. 26.7.03 vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/1 he has proved the carbon copy of the cash memo 2669 as Ex. PW8/2. The entire payment was made in cash for the purchase of items as mentioned in the cash memo.
PW9 Shri S.D. Purohit has deposed that he is the Vice President of Navbharat Group for the last 8 years. He has provided the information regarding Bhupender Singh Patel @ Rahul. That information is Ex. PW9/1.
CC No. 04/09 P9/91 10 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW10 Shri Ravish Kumar has deposed that he is Journalist by profession since the year 1996 in NDTV. He has conducted an interview with Dilip Singh Judev. He has identified the accused Dalip Singh Judev and his voice in the CD as Ex. PW10/A. PW11 Shri Prabal Pratap Singh has deposed that from the year 2000 to 2005 he has been working with Aaj Tak as a Journalist. He has conducted an interview with Natwar Rateria when a Tehelka matter was exposed. He has identified the accused Natwar Rateria and his voice in the CD containing the interview of Natwar Rateria as Ex. PW11/A. PW12 C.D. Kataria has deposed that he has been appointed as a Notary Public by Chandigarh Administration for a period of five years. The copy of his appointment as Notary Public is Ex. PW12/1. The affidavits sworn by Bhupender Singh Patel and Arvind Vijay Mohan which were notarized by him on 23.12.2003 are marked as mark PW12/2 and PW12/3. The document mark PW12/2 signed by Bhupender Singh Patel at point A and A1 and mark PW12/3 was signed by Arvind Vijay Mohan at point B at B1 in his presence. Bhupender Singh Patel and Arvind Vijay Mohan signed his regsiter at Sl. No. 385 and 386 of page No. 40. The copy of the same is Ex. PW12/4.
PW13 Manwa has deposed that on 5.11.03 he was working as a driver with Dalip Singh Judev who was the State Minister for Environment and Forest, Government of India. He used to maintain log book of the car bearing registration No. DL3CM6907. The log book of 5.11.03 was recorded by him CC No. 04/09 P10/91 11 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 which is Ex. PW13/1. It was also signed by Shri A.K. Singh who was in the staff of Judev. They departed at about 9 or 9.30 p.m. that day along with Dalip Singh Judev and returned home of Judev around 2 a.m. Along with Judev, accused Natwar Rateria and one PSO of Judev were with him in that car. In the CD, which is played in the court, PW13 states that the accused Natwar Rateria is visible in the picture and he has identified his voice. Dalip Singh Judev is sitting by his side .
In cross examination by the accused persons, PW13 has deposed that he has heard Shri Judev speaking that money is the blessing of almighty. When he brought vehicle for transportation of Dalip Singh Judev and Natwar Rateria on inward Journey, PSO opened the gate of the vehicle and at that time he had not seen any bundle, bag or packet in their hands. He had not mentioned the name of the persons who were with him in the car in the logbook on 5.11.03. He was not present at the scene in respect of CD was played before him. He cannot say as to whether this CD was prepared on 5.11.03 or not. He cannot say whether the CD which has been played before him pertains to a room in Taj Maan Singh Hotel or not. He had gone to various hotels on various dates along with Shri Judev.
In reexamination on behalf of the CBI, PW13 has deposed that he had taken Shri Judev and Rateria at Hotel Taj Mahal on 5.11.03 and brought them back to their respective residences.
PW14 Shri Jaideep Narula has deposed that he is a Specialist in CC No. 04/09 P11/91 12 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Data analysis in the field of Software. He was associated with ORG Survey Company and Mr. Amit Roy of the said company. Mr. Amit Roy provides service for election to legislative assemblies of State. He informed him that he had conducted a survey for assembly election 2003 in Chhatisgarh for Congress party. He had asked him to conduct indepth analysis of data for his client. Shri Roy introduced him with Amit Jogi. He talked to Amit Jogi and had met him two times. Amit Jogi introduced him with a person known as Amit and told him that he will tell the result of his analysis to Amit. He finished data analysis job and informed Mr. Amit accordingly. He is not in a position to identify Amit with whom he was introduced by Amit Jogi.
In cross examination by Ld. PP, PW14 has deposed that he think that Mr. Amit Jogi introduced him with Arvind Vijay Mohan and he had inadvertently told his name as Amit. He is not in a position to identify Arvind Vijay Mohan. Ld. Prosecutor pointed out towards Arvind Vijay Mohan but the witness submits that he was not introduced to that person by Amit Jogi.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Rajat Parsad, PW14 has deposed that he conducted data analysis somewhere near Diwali of 2003.
PW15 Shri Rohit Choudhary has deposed that mobile No. 9811510877 was being used by him for about 23 months in the year 2003. Thereafter, the said mobile was being used by his elder brother Shri Surender Pal Singh. After sometime his brother gave SIM card of this mobile to Parvesh Kumar.
CC No. 04/09 P12/91 13 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW16 Shri Surender Pal has deposed that Parvesh Kumar is known to him since he was school as well as college mate. In July 2003, Parvesh Kumar came to his house along with Bhupender. Bhupinder was having a mobile phone over which roaming charges were to be paid. Parvesh Kumar has asked him as to whether he was having extra SIM Card. He may give to Bhupender. He gave SIM Card of mobile phone No. 9811510877 to Bhupinder. The photocopy of the election identity card bears the photo of Bhupinder Singh which is Ex. PW16/1.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel, PW16 has deposed that Bhupinder Singh was not known to him. He do not recollect as to whom he physically handed over that SIM Card. He had no personal knowledge as to whether the said SIM Card was being used by Bhupinder Singh or by someone else.
PW17 Shri Sanjay Sharma has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as Dy. Estate Manager at 6 Auranzeb Road, New Delhi. Flat No. A 4 at 6 Auranzeb Road is in the name of Prithvi Traders. In December 2003, the security guard was having an intercom list with him and in that list against flat No. A4 name of Amit Jogi was written. The said name was written by the security guard. He has never seen Amit Jogi visiting the said flat. On 21.12.2003, the said flat was searched by CBI.
PW18 Shri Raghunath Parsad has deposed that he was working as Administrative Officer in St. Stephen College, University of Delhi since 1973 till CC No. 04/09 P13/91 14 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 2007. He had provided the information vide letter Ex. PW18/1 to CBI about their students namely Amit Jogi, Manish Rachhoya, Arvind Vijay Mohan and Reginaid Jeremiah. The aforesaid students joined St. Stephen College in 1995. He has proved the admission forms of these students as Ex. PW18/2 to Ex. PW18/5.
PW19 Shri Rahul Pandey has deposed that he is a Journalist by profession. In the year 2003, he was doing survey on assembly elections. In the year 2003, there was an assembly election for Chhatisgarh. He got survey conducted for Congress Party. He remained primarily in contact with Amit Jogi He used to meet Amit Jogi personally as well as contact him on telephone. Ex. PW19/1 is the print copy of email sent by him to the accused Amit Jogi. In late November or December 2003, he read in newspaper about the episode of Dalip Singh Judev. Thereafter Amit Jogi talked to him on phone and enquired from him as to what would be possible impact of that episode on electorate.
In cross examination by the accused persons, PW19 has deposed that he conducted the survey around July and August 2003. He told Amit Jogi that as per my assessment unless the person who has done the sting operation comes out in open the same, the sting operation will not be of any benefit to the Congress. He broadly agreed with my assessment. They decided to try and find out who had carried out the sting operation.
PW20 Parvesh Kumar Chug has deposed that the accused Bhupender Singh Patel is known to him as he used to reside on ground floor portion of the premises, where he used to take tuitions in his school days. He CC No. 04/09 P14/91 15 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 met the accused Bhupender Singh Patel in July 2003. The accused Bhupender Singh Patel was in need of SIM Card and they went to the house of his friend Surender Singh Choudhary. He obtained a SIM Card from Shri Choudhary and kept it with him. When they were going to their house on a motorcycle, he lost that SIM. He do not recollect the mobile phone number pertaining to the said SIM Card.
PW21 Shri Deepak Kumar Tanwar has deposed that he is posted as Senior Scientific Officer, GradeI (Physics) at CFSL, New Delhi. He is working at CFSL for the last more than 18 years. He has examined the voices of thousand persons and gave opinion on them. He has also undergone one month training on the subject "Speaker Identification and Allied Area from University of Trier, Germany". His education qualification is Msc. (Physics), M.phil (Physics) and also done a certificate course in Forensic Science from the University of Delhi.
In this case their office received four sealed parcels vide letter dated 19.8.2004 for voice examination. The parcel marked 1 & 2 was opened and found that it contained one CD marked Q1 and one video cassette marked Q2. Q1 contains a video recording of duration 35 minutes 53 seconds approximately. The initial recording of duration 16 minutes approximately was found audible and the remaining portion of the record was not audible. As the transcript was not provided and same could not be examined. Q2 contains a video recording of duration 36 minutes approximately. The voice of a person was marked Q2(A), the voice of second person was marked Q2(B) and voice of third person was marked Q2(C).
CC No. 04/09 P15/91 16 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
The parcel marked 3 & 4 was found to contain two video cassettes marked A1 and A2. A1 was found to contain a video recording of duration of 2 minutes 30 seconds approximately. The admitted voice of Dilip Singh Judev in the video cassette marked A1 was marked as Ex.A1(a). A2 was found to contain a video recording of duration of 2 minutes 42 seconds approximately. The admitted voice of Natwar Rateria in the video cassette marked A2 was marked as Ex.A 2(a).
The parcel marked 5 and it contained normal video cassette marked Q3. Q3 was found to contain video recording of duration of 18 minutes approximately. The voice of a person was marked as Q3(A).
The parcel marked 6 was found to contain normal video cassette marked Q4. Q4 was found to contain video recording of duration of 47 minutes 16 seconds approximately. The voices could not be examined in this cassette as no audio was found.
On the basis of auditory examination of questioned voices marked Ex.Q2(C) in audio cassette Ex.Q2 and admitted voice sample of Dilip Singh Judev marked Ex.A1(a) in audio cassette marked Ex.A1 reveal that they are similar in respect of their linguistic and phonetic features. On the basis of examination, it was concluded that the voice samples marked Ex.Q2(C) and Ex.A1(a) are the voices of the same person i.e. Dilip Singh Judev.
On the basis of examination, it was concluded that the voice sample marked Ex.Q2(A), Ex.Q3(A) and Ex.A2(a) are the voices of the same person i.e. CC No. 04/09 P16/91 17 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Natwar Rateria. In continuation of the above said letter, an another letter no.94/3/6A/2003/ACUII dated 23.6.2004 along with one sealed parcel was received for voice examination at their office. In the parcel marked Ex.1 was opened and found to contain one normal size audio cassette marked Ex.1. The cassette contained sample voice recording of Bhupender Singh Patel. The specimen voice of Bhpender Singh Patel on side A was marked by him as Ex. 1(A) and on side B was marked Ex.1(B).
He has proved the VHS cassette mark Q2 as Ex.PW21/1. The VHS cassette mark A1 as Ex.PW21/4. Cassette mark A2 as Ex.PW21/7. The video cassette Q3 as Ex.PW21/12. Video cassette Q4 as Ex.PW21/17. The cassette Ex. 1 as Ex.PW21/21.
On the basis of examination of the voice recording Ex. Q2 (B) and specimen voice of Bhupender Singh Patel mark Ex. 1 (A) and Ex. 1 (B) recorded in cassette mark Ex. 1 reveal that they are similar in respect of their linguistic and phonetic features. On the basis of the examination it was concluded that the voice sample marked Q2 (B) and specimen voice of Bhupender Singh Patel are the voice of same person i.e. Bhupender Singh Patel. He has proved his reports as Ex. PW21/B and Ex. PW21/1.
PW22 Shri Kush Kapoor has deposed that he was working as a Duty Manager at Hotel Taj Mahal in the year 2003. He do not know in whose name room no. 822 was booked in November, 2003. Vide receipt dt. 04.11.2003 which is Ex. PW22/A an amount of Rs. 10,000/ was received from one Mr. CC No. 04/09 P17/91 18 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Raman Jadoja. The payment received vide handwritten receipts are shown in the computer generated details regarding interim bill concerning room no. 822. The said bill is in the name of Raman Jadoja wherein the date of arrival in the said room is shown as 05.11.2003 and the said bill shows the departure on 06.11.2003 at 16:57 hours. The said bill is Ex. PW22/C (D20).
PW23 Shri Surender Kumar Adhana has deposed that in the year 2004, he was working as Security Manager, Hotel Taj Palace, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. He had handed over one file containing documents pertaining to room no. 151, Hotel Taj Palace to the CBI. The room no. 151 was booked by one Mr. Rajat Prasad in the name of Mr. Manish Sarogi, as the same is apparent from the details mentioned in room bills at page 1 to 6, 117, 129 and other pages also. The entire file is Ex.PW23/B (D16). He has also proved the room key card of room no. 151 as Ex. PW23/C (D6). He has also proved Taj Inner Circle card in the name of Rajat Prasad bearing no. 101010390536/B as Ex. PW23/D. Vide this card, the customers are given special discounts.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Rajat Parsad, PW23 has deposed that CBI had asked them to provide certain documents which were communicated to the respective departments of the hotel and those documents were prepared by taking out the print out from the systems or file. The records of the hotel are neither under his control nor in his supervision. He do not remember the names and particulars of those staff members who had taken out the print outs on his directions. The room in the Taj Palace Hotel was not booked in his CC No. 04/09 P18/91 19 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 presence. He do not know how many times room no. 151 is booked in their hotel from May 2003 to January 2004. The hotel room key is an electronic key and is alloted a room number by computer. The customer is supposed to return the hotel key at the time of checking out but they do not do the same. The hotel room key got blocked automatically when the room is shown checked out and staff key is applied on the lock. He cannot say whether the bills provided by him to CBI pertains to room service or restaurant service. He can verify after going through the documents. It is not necessary for the customer to provide inner circle card, the system picks it up automatically if an individual is provided by inner circle card.
PW24 Shri Nsser Kabir has deposed that in the year 2003, he was with the HT Media Ltd. as Manager (Legal). Vide letter dt. 13.09.2004 which is Ex. PW24/A (D62), information regarding Bhupendra Singh Patel was provided.
PW25 Shri Manoj Hora has deposed that he is into business of Electronics since past 20 years. He was having a shop under the name and style of Sounds Terrific, S5, GKI, New Delhi. He know Arvind Vijaymohan as he was his customer. His staff used to go to the flat at Aurangzeb Road. He had also visited the flat no. 4, 6 Aurangzeb Road, Delhi once or twice that too the calibration of the system.
On the asking of Arvind Vijay Mohan, he also visited Hotel Taj at New Delhi. He asked him to install hidden video camera for the purpose of some business meeting. He visited room number 822 at Hotel Taj. He installed hidden CC No. 04/09 P19/91 20 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 video camera and VCR in room no. 822 in the month of November, 2003 before leaving for exhibition in Mumbai. There was a T.V. in that room and underneath the T.V. there was a cabinet and the camera was installed with the double side tape underneath the cabinet of the T.V. in a space between T.V. and cabinet. It was installed in a hidden manner so that nobody could see it. Thereafter, he left the place and within a span of day or two, he left for Mumbai to attend the exhibition. When he was in Bombay, he got a call from Arvind Vijay Mohan. Arvind Vijay Mohan asked him that he wanted to convert the business meeting, so recorded in the video tape. He told him that he do not provide this service and he is not in Delhi also. He provided the cable and accessories for installation of hidden camera. Video camera was battery plus adaptor operated. His mobile no. is 9810161889. He heard the incident on T.V. & News and thereafter he did not meet Arvind Vijay Mohan. Camera and VCR was not provided by him.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Arvind Vijay Mohan, PW25 has deposed that he do not sell video cameras. In his statement to CBI as well as statement before the Court, he had not mentioned the size of the video camera. No site plan was shown to him by CBI describing the place of installation of the camera. No photograph of the TV cabinet where the camera was installed, was shown to him by CBI. CBI had not taken him to Taj Hotel and no site plan was prepared in his presence or any photograph of the TV Cabinet was taken in his presence. When he saw the telecast of the sting operation what was recorded using of the hidden video camera, he did not make any complaint to any authority CC No. 04/09 P20/91 21 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 including CBI rather he was scared. The mini video camera is a simple devise which requires basic knowledge to operate. He do not deal with such cameras. In his statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC by the CBI, he had not explained to the CBI the make, model number, description, dimension of the video camera and the VCR as the instruments used i.e. video camera, etc. were of chinese make and hence, he could not tell about the model number only thing was that VCR was of Samsung brand / make. He had not got the video camera or the VCR recovered during investigation of the case. He had not shown Room No.822 to CBI during investigation, where the said video camera was installed.
PW26 Shri Kamal Kishore has deposed that from the year 2002 till January, 2005, he was having a shop at 116A, First Floor, Ganpati Plaza. There was no shop bearing no. 16A at the first floor. So far as his memory is concerned, there was no person by the name of Manish Sarogi having business in Ganpati Plaza. There was no office/shop in Ganpati Plaza having business concern belonging to YTiger Mining, Minerals Overseas Corporation Ltd. and Mining India Pvt. Ltd.
PW27 Shri Vijay Aggarwal has deposed that he is working as an accountant in K.K. Complex. Ganpati Plaza at M.I. Road, Jaipur. The shop no. 116A, Ganpati Plaza presently is in the name of Murari Lal Soni and prior to him it was in the name of Smt. Poonam Gupta. There is no shop bearing no. 16A at First Floor, Ganpati Plaza. No person by the name of Manish Sarogi was having shop in Ganpati Plaza, Jaipur.
CC No. 04/09 P21/91 22 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW28 Shri Shekhar Singh has deposed that he is in Reliance ADA Group since 1996. Mr. Dalip Singh Judev was his family friend. He was knowing Natwar Rateria as he was his P.A. He used to meet Mr. Ajit Jogi in his official capacity during the period when he was the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh. He used to meet Amit Jogi and knew him as he was son of Mr. Ajit Jogi.
Mr. Manish Rachoya came to him through Amit Jogi for a job. Somewhere in the year 200102, he was holidaying in Ranthambore, Rajasthan and there he met Amit Jogi and Manish Rachoya and in this meeting Manish Rachoya was introduced to him by Amit Jogi. Thereafter, Manish Rachoya applied for a job on email to him to which he referred to the HR Department of his organization. In the year 20022003, Manish Rachoya met him in Hotel Taj Palace, Delhi. He again asked for the job. PW28 has denied the suggestion that Reliance Company was having one guest house at 6, Aurangzeb Road, Delhi. M/s Prithvi Traders Ltd. was also having a property there at 6, Aurangzeb Road, Delhi. He do not know the exact number of the flat of M/s Prithvi Traders Ltd. He entered into a lease agreement with M/s Prithvi Traders Ltd. on behalf of the company. He got the possession of the property in furtherance of the said lease agreement for the period of one year in the year 2003. He, on behalf of Reliance Company, cancelled the lease.
PW28 has proved his visiting card as Ex. PW28/A. On reaching Delhi by flight, he met Mr. Natwar Rateria in Dalip Singh Judev's office at Paryavaran Bhawan in some Government building in Delhi. It was a courtesy CC No. 04/09 P22/91 23 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 meeting and he had personal talks with Mr. Dalip Singh Judev. He do not remember when he met Mr. Rahul Sarogi.
PW 28 has been declared hostile by the prosecution and he was cross examined at length on behalf of the prosecution..
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel, PW28 has deposed that he had never met any person namely Rahul Sarogi @ Bhupender Singh Patel. He had never stated to CBI that he ever met Bhupender Singh Patel @ Rahul Sarogi. He had never discussed any mining project involving any company including Australian Mining Company with Manish Rachoya or Rahul Sarogi. He had never stated to CBI that he ever discussed any mining project involving any company including Australian Mining Company with Manish Rachoya or Rahul Sarogi. The only discussion he had with Manish Rachoya on phone or personally was regarding his job in Reliance Industries. He had never discussed any matter relating to any mining company including Australian Mining Company with either Sh. Dalip Singh Judev or Mr. Natwar Rateria. He had never stated to CBI that he had ever discussed with Sh. Judev or Sh. Rateria any matter relating to any mining company including Australian Mining Company. He had no personal knowledge about the fact that Amit Jogi has any interest in M/s Prithvi Traders.
PW29 Shri Sameer Gandhi has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Manager in Hotel Taj Maan Singh, No. 1 Maan Singh Road, Delhi. On 05.11.2003, he was called in room no. 822 of their hotel for a complaint CC No. 04/09 P23/91 24 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 regarding the television. It was late in the evening that he visited for the said call and there was no voice in the television which he tried to correct with the remote, but, could not be corrected. Hence, he offered the guest to call the technician. He was called by the CBI. He was shown some video and the documents i.e. voter card. He identified the person with whom he met in the said room in the said voter card and video. He had seen a photocopy of the election identity card. It is the same identity card which was shown to him in the CBI office. That identity card is Ex. PW16/1 (D41). Today, he is unable to identify as to whether the said person is present in the court or not. After seeing the photo on copy of identity card and seeing the accused persons, he is unable to tell as to whether the said person is present in the court or not. It is because it is an incident which happened quite a long time ago.
The room which is visible in the VHS cassette Ex. PW21/1 is room No. 822 of Hotel Taj Maan Singh, Delhi. He had gone into the said room as there was an order from the room regarding the complainant as to the Television. At the time, when he visited the said room there were total 4 people in the room and he had the conversation with one person which he has already identified in the Election Card Ex. PW16/1. He cannot identify the other three persons present in the room as he was not having conversation or engagement with them as matter is very old. The room No. 822 was booked by the same person with whom he talked the same regarding the television complaint and which he had identified in the elections ID card. So far as the name is concerned, he do not remember in CC No. 04/09 P24/91 25 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 whose name the said room was booked by the person when he identified in the Election I. Card.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW29 has deposed that his interaction with the guest was hardly for 12 minutes and he left the room by saying that he will sent a technical person to check the Television, to which guest denied. Enquiries were made from him by the CBI two times. The statement which is Ex. PW29/X was his correct statement to the best of his recollection at that time. In this statement, he had stated that the complaint regarding the Television was made by the person who was wearing Kurta Pajama. His interaction regarding the television complaint is with the person wearing Kurta Pajama. During the course of his presence in room of 12 minutes, he had interaction with the person identified by him on the Election ID card however, the complaint of the television was not working was said to him by the person wearing Kurta Pajama in the room. He had not seen himself as to who had booked the room. He cannot say whether more than one Election ICards were shown to him by CBI when he had identified the person. He was never asked by CBI to identify the man shown in the ICard physically in TIP. The television was of big size and was placed on a Television trolley which can be rotated to the extent of 180 degrees. The said trolley is placed on a Television chest. There is no space in between the surface of the television trolley and the base of the television. He has not seen any bag/object inside the television chest when he had tried to rectify the defect. Vol. he did not deliberately notice any object or bag within the Television CC No. 04/09 P25/91 26 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 chest as it was not his duty. It may be possible that there may be space to keep the VCR. It is correct that when he was inspecting the TV he had not noticed any VCR connected to the television.
PW30 Shri Rajender Prasad has deposed that he is doing the work of House Keeper at Hotel Taj Palace, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi. He used to do the room cleaning work in the room no. 151 in August, 2003. He was called by the CBI 23 times. He has seen a photocopy of the election identity card. It is the same identity card which was shown to him in the CBI office. It is of the same person with whom he met in the hotel room no. 151 and that identity card as Ex. PW16/1 (D41). He visited the aforesaid room for cleaning for about 1015 days as 1012 years have passed, hence, today he cannot identify the said person.
PW31 Shri Prakash Patra has deposed that he has joined Hindustan Times (HT Media Ltd.) at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi in the year 1996. No person by the name of Bhupender Singh Patel ever worked with him or under his supervision as a journalist when he was working in Hindustan Times Media Ltd. at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Delhi. The information provided by N.Nasir Kabir in the said letter Ex. PW24/A (D62) is correct.
PW32 Shri Manish Rachhoya has deposed that he has studied in St. Stephen's College, Delhi University from 1995 to 1998 in B.A. (Hons.) Economics. Arvind Vijay Mohan and Amit Jogi were in History Honours same batch i.e. 1995 1998. He and Amit Jogi were living in different Hostels. He had acquaintance with him like other college mates. He did his MBA from IIM Bangalore in the year CC No. 04/09 P26/91 27 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 19982000. After that, I got a job with M/s Arthur Andersen in Chennai. He met Shekhar Singh in Ranthambore in the year 2002 at the time of Diwali probably in the month of November. He along with Amit Jogi and Arvind Meena were in the National Park in Ranthambore, Rajasthan. Amit Jogi asked him and Arvind Meena to join him for a lunch with Mukesh Ambani and his family. There he met Mr. Ambani, his wife and Shekhar Singh.
In the year 2003, Amit Jogi asked him why did not he explore opportunity with Reliance Company and he has said that he was going to have a lunch with Shekhar Singh. It would be in the month of March or April. He asked him to join for a lunch and he joined him for a lunch. He went to a Chinese Restaurant in a five star hotel near Dhaula Kuan, where probably he gave physical copy of his CV to Shekhar Singh. However, he is definite that he had sent a copy of his CV by email later on.
In the year 2003 (Holi time), Amit Jogi has invited him to come and join him for 'Holi' in Raipur. He did not join. Amit Jogi told him that he had some business there in media namely 'Aakash Channel'. Amit Jogi has asked him to give advice on running it more professionally. In that context, Amit Jogi invited him to Raipur and that he went to Raipur. He saw the operations in Aakash Channel at Raipur office and he gave him a presentation to improve the professional environment.
Rajat and Rohit were two brothers who were introduced to him at a dinner in Delhi by Amit Jogi. Raj Awasthi and Bhupender Singh Patel were an CC No. 04/09 P27/91 28 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 acquaintance or friends with the same group i.e. friends of Amit Jogi. He met all of them at Raipur at some guest house where Amit Jogi arranged an accommodation for them at Raipur. He understand they all were working for Aakash Channel.
He came back to Delhi after April 2003 and he started a new job with HCL in June 2003. After that, he met Amit Jogi on Friday night at his Chhattisgarh Bhawan, Delhi. The time should be around July 2003. Amit Jogi said he needed a favour from him. Amit Jogi told him on a need to know basis, he will be staying as Manish Sarogi in a hotel and then his another acquaintance Rajat Prasad was also there. He, Amit Jogi and Rajat Prasad went into the car of Rajat Prasad which was driven by Rajat Prasad. They went to Hotel Taj and Rajat went inside and talked to the reception person. Rajat Prasad asked him to come along. They took the lift and went to a room.
At the time, when Amit Jogi asked him to stay in the hotel as Manish Sarogi, he told him that he had a business dealing for which he need his help as a professional management. It was a weekend. He do not remember whether it was Rajat Prasad or Amit Jogi, but, one of them said to him that on Saturday Arvind Vijay Mohan will come and on the same day Rajat Prasad gave him a SIM card saying that do not use personal phone and use this SIM card.
In the morning, Arvind Vijay Mohan came and said that they need to shop for professional clothes. Arvind Vijay Mohan took him in his car to Chhattisgarh Bhawan and he came back with some cash in some envelope. Then they went to shopping in South Ex Market, Delhi and bought two suits.
CC No. 04/09 P28/91 29 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
Arvind Vijay Mohan stayed with him for some time in the hotel. It was the Sunday morning, Rajat Prasad came to the hotel and he asked him if Amit Jogi had called and he said no, he has not received any phone call. Rajat Parsad also stayed for a few hours in the same room of the Hotel and after that in the Sunday night he was already tensed because he had to be back at work and he could not use his own phone and there was no call from Amit Jogi or anybody as to what he was suppose to do. Then, on Monday, he missed his office and in the morning he received a call from Amit Jogi's Personal Assistant namely Tejpal and Tejpal told him that Amit Jogi is coming to meet him. Then, Amit Jogi came into the hotel room with Shekhar Singh. Amit Jogi reintroduced him to Shekhar Singh and said that Manish is now doing some liasioning for a Calcutta business group and if Shekhar can help him. Then, Shekhar and Amit went to the terrace of the hotel room and the doors were closed, so, he could not hear. They spoke for about 10 15 minutes. They both came in and Shekhar said that he will help him in liasioning work and they both of them left. By this time, he realized that he is losing his work time. He checked out of the hotel and went to the Chhattisgarh Bhawan and he tried to meet Amit Jogi but he was not present there. He returned the clothes Arvind Vijay Mohan had purchased and picked his car and drove back to his house. Then, he got a call from Amit to go and recheck into the hotel and leave the keys with the reception of the Chhattisgarh Bhawan. He followed his instructions. He again checked into the Taj Hotel, Dhaula Kuan and left the hotel room keys with Chhattisgarh Bhawan reception. It was the end of July 2003 CC No. 04/09 P29/91 30 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Monday he checked out and on Tuesday he checkedin.
Amit Jogi has told to Shekhar Singh that the liasioning work for the Calcutta Business Group was for environment clearance from some department. During the period 2003, he was using mobile no. 9811166668. The copy of the print out of e mail sent to Shekar Singh is Ex.PW32/A. He got a call from Mr. Shekhar Singh on 16.11.2003. He do not want to speak to him, so, he switched his phone off and changed his mobile number. He got a new number which he had not given to anyone, but, he remember that Rajat Prasad called him on a couple of occasions in January, 2004 or late December, 2003 Rajat Prasad wanted to speak or meet him urgently, but, he refused to do either. He do not know how Rajat Parsad get him new number. He has proved the food bills of dt. 27th July and 26th July which he has signed during his stay in hotel Taj Palace. The food bills are Ex PW32/B1 to Ex. PW32/B5 (D16). He do not know as to who had booked the hotel room no. 151 in Hotel Taj Palace. In the documents at page 206, it is mentioned that it was booked by Rajat Prasad.
He checked out on 28.07.2003 at 3:00 p.m. from Hotel Taj Palace. He has also proved room service bills of dt. 27.7.03 as Ex. PW32/B6 to Ex.PW32/B11 (Colly) (D16).
He met Amit Jogi apart from Chhattishgarh Bhawan at his flat A4, Aurangzeb Road, Delhi. I was in Jaipur and he saw on T.V. telecast of a sting operation and this was on 16.11.2003. He do not know the names of the people who were appearing in the telecast. When CBI came to search his house and took CC No. 04/09 P30/91 31 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 him for investigation in December, 2003, they played a tape before him to identify a voice. To his knowledge, at that point of time because it is more than ten years ago, the voice he identified was of Bhupender Singh Patel. VCD which is marked as Ex. Q1/A. The VCD is played in the court and after hearing entire playing in the VCD, PW32 has deposed that he do not know the two persons who are appearing in this CD. At 23:33 onwards, he can identify the voice of the person who is not being seen in the picture. This voice is of Bhupender Singh Patel. At 23:51 onwards, one of the voice is of Bhupender Singh Patel. One Video cassette marked as Ex. Q2 was played in the court. After seeing and carefully hearing the entire playing of the VCD, PW32 has deposed that the voice is of the same as appearing in the VCD played yesterday.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Amit Jogi, PW32 has deposed that he worked with Arthur Anderson till about May or June 2003. He joined HCLNoida immediately in May or June, 2003. He sent email after meeting Shekhar Singh and Amit Jogi at the behest of Amit Jogi to seek employment opportunity with Reliance. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the behest of CBI, since Amit Jogi failed to help him in getting him employment when he wanted to switch from Arthur Anderson Company.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel, PW32 has deposed that it would not be correct that he had met Bhupender Singh Patel only once. He was called by CBI to identify the voice of Bhupender Singh Patel. He do not remember that voice was not mixed with some other voice.
CC No. 04/09 P31/91 32 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
He has no training in voice identification. It is correct that he had not approached any authority to inform that Bhupender Singh Patel was involved in such incident. He do not know who Bhupender Singh Patel was. Again said, he mean to say that at that time he could not notice Bhupender Singh Patel's voice. Since it was an incident of Chhattishgarh, therefore, he did not put his mind to the voice of Bhupender Singh Patel. He focussed on identifying the voice of Bhupender Singh Patel only on being asked by CBI to do so.
The legal entity which he was employed was Arthur Anderson India Pvt. Ltd. So, he cannot say without verifying company house records that the said entity was not in operations in the year 2003.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Rajat Parsad, PW32 has deposed that Rajat Prasad had already resigned from Aakash Channel in March 2003 and as such he was never involved in the functioning of the channel since thereafter. Nobody asked him whether he wanted to stay or not. He was ordered by Amit Jogi stating that he is Manish Sarogi. He has denied the suggestion that he has never met the accused Rajat Prasad and that Rajat Prasad never took him to the hotel Taj Palace.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Arvind Vijay Mohan, PW32 has denied the suggestion that Arvind Vijay Mohan had not taken him to a shop in South Extension Market in Delhi and bought two suits. He has also denied the suggestion that Arvind Vijay Mohan had not paid for the clothes from the money he got from Amit Jogi's Personal Assistant.
CC No. 04/09 P32/91 33 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW33 Shri Satyabrata Roy Choudhary has deposed that from the year 1987 to November, 2004 he had worked with Taj Group Hotel. The hotel was Taj Palace, 2 S.P. Marg, New Delhi. In the year 20032004, he was Assistant Front Office Manager. He has seen regular hotel key pertaining to hotel Taj Palace pertaining to room no. 151, as written on the jacket of the key. (Volt. It could be coded for any other room also. Since the key is an electronic key, same can be reused for some other room also, but, it has to be registered and coded again.) The key and its jacket are Ex.PW23/C. PW34 Shri Jayant Kumar Bhowmik has deposed that his mother Smt. Ranu Bhowmik is the owner of H. No. D439, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. He used to look after this property as his mother was of old age. He had rented out ground floor D439, Nehru Vihar, Delhi to Bhupender Singh Patel in the year 2000. Bhupender Singh Patel stayed in the said rented house for about two to three years. He had gien the photocopy of election Icard as Ex.PW34/A and copy of Biodate of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel as Ex. PW34/A1 (D42). The receipt memo is Ex. PW34/A. Due to lapse of long time, he is unable to say if the voice is of Bhupender Singh Patel or not in the VHS tape which was played on TV in the court.
PW35 Shri Anup Kujur is the witness to the search conducted by the CBI at F03 Dhawan Deep Building 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi. One card of Taj Palace Hotel and one Taj Inner Circle Card was seized during the search and these are Ex. PW23/C and Ex. PW23/D. CC No. 04/09 P33/91 34 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 PW36 Shri R.K. Singh has deposed that he has been working as a Nodal Officer since May 1997 at Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vide letters dt. 29.03.2004 which is Ex. PW36/A (D38) and Ex. PW36/A1 (D49, he has provided the details of subscribers to the CBI in this case. He has proved print out of the call details of the mobile number 9810282646 as Ex. PW36/A2, of mobile no. 9810899963 as Ex. PW36/B (D55). Mobile number 9810010622 as Ex. PW36/C (D57), of mobile number 9810331702 as Ex.PW36/D. (D54), of mobile number 9810000027 as Ex.PW36/E (D51), of mobile number 9810117257 as Ex.PW36/F (D52), of mobile number 9810161889 as Ex.PW36/H (D56).
He has deposed that CBI had written a letter dt. 21.11.14 whereby request for furnishing the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the call details has been made. In reference to the said letter, he has provided the certificate issued U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act and the letter is Ex. PW36/G and certificate is Ex. PW36/G1. He has deposed that the customer application form pertaining to aforesaid mobile numbers regarding which he had submitted the certified call details, are not available now in the official record as the matter is very old. He has proved Cell ID Chart as Ex. PW36/J. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW36 has deposed that the call records are generated in a computer server. The print out of the call detail records supplied to CBI by him are from his computer. He do not remember the make, model number and specification of the computer which he was using at that time from which the said records were printed out. At the CC No. 04/09 P34/91 35 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 relevant point of time, the CDRs used to be available for a period of three years approx. He had not given the certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act regarding Ex. PW36/J because it was not automatically fed in computer. The computer which he had used to take print outs of the above mentioned CDRs is not operated by him at present. The CDRs are automatically stored in the server but the same are generated by them using their official computer as and when required. The certificate Ex. PW36/G1 pertains to working of a computer which he had used in 2003 to generate the above CDRs and the same is not currently in his possession.
PW37 Shri Gulshan Arora has deposed that he was working as Manager in Vodafone till 2009. He has joined Vodafone as Executive in the year 2000. Vide letter dt. 29.04.2004 which is Ex. PW37/A, he has provided the information regarding the call details of mobile number 9811166668 in the name of Manish Rachoya and 9811510877 in the name of Mr. Rohit Chaudhary to the CBI. He has proved the call details regarding mobile number 9811510877 as Ex PW 37/B and of mobile number 9811166668 as Ex. PW37/C and Ex. PW37/D (D
53), of mobile number 9811510877 as Ex. PW37/E. The application form for pre paid connection in respect to mobile No. 9811264724 is in the name of one Paramjeet Singh and its call details are Ex. PW37/Y (Colly) (D50).
PW38 Shri Nayan Seth has deposed that he was Resident Manager at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi from 16.07.1990 till 30.08.2007. As per document D21, the room no. 822 of Hotel Taj Man Hotel was booked in the name of some Mr. Raman Jadoja. The document is Ex. PW22/B. The information was provided CC No. 04/09 P35/91 36 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 from the data maintained in the server. Mr. Christopher Fernandes was security manager of that hotel. Vide letters Ex. PW38/A, the documents were handed over to the CBI which are Ex. PW38/A1 to A3 and Ex. PW22/A. In cross examination by the accused persons, PW38 has deposed that the bills handed over to CBI forming part of D20 and D21 are computer generated bills. However, he is not sure if manual record is maintained. The registration card (D18) is also generated using a computer system. He has denied the suggestion that the documents supplied to CBI by the hotel do not pertain to room no. 822.
PW39 Shri Praveen Kumar Jha has deposed that he has joined Ministry of Environment & Forest in the year 1996. He remained posted there in the year 2013. In the year 2003, Union Minister for State in the Ministry of Environment and Forest was Dalip Singh Judev. He do not know who is Natwar Rateria. He is not acquainted with Natwar Rateria. Therefore, he cannot identify him in the T.V.
In cross examination on behalf of Ld. PP, PW39 has deposed that Mr. Natwar Rateria was Assistant Principal/Private Secretary (APS) to Dalip Singh Judev. Mr. Natwar Rateria used to handle official work of Dalip Singh Judev during that period.
PW40 Shri Rohit Parsad has deposed that he is engaged in various businesses and having companies. M/s Aakash Channel is also one of his company. The business of this company was based in Chhattisgarh and it was in CC No. 04/09 P36/91 37 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 the business of operating cable channels. This company was incorporated, so far as he recall, in the year 2002. Initially, He and his brother Mr. Rajat Prasad were Directors. He resigned as Director in the end of 2002 and Mr. Raj Awasthi joined as a Director. Bhupender Singh Patel and Reginald Jeremiah were the employees of M/s Aakash Channel. Bhupender Singh Patel was based in Bhilai and Reginald Jeremiah was based in Raipur. Both of them were removed from the company around first quarter of the year 2003 for insubordination and dereliction of duty. The statement of account Bhupender Singh Patel is Ex. PW40/A (D32) . At serial no. 13 of Ex. PW40/B, the name of Bhupender Singh and the mobile number alloted to him is mentioned which is 9826124420. He had gone for a search conducted at Flat no. 4, 6 Aurangzeb Road, Delhi. Certain documents were seized. The search list is Ex.PW5/1. He know Mr. Amit Jogi as they are friends. Arvind Vijay Mohan was not the employee.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW40 has deposed that Rajat Prasad was not associated with day to day working of the company. He had stated to CBI in his statement that Bhupender Singh Patel was Incharge of the News Section of Bhilai office. Bhupender Singh Patel was looking after the overall management of Bhilai Zone of Aakash Channel, Revenue collection, allocation of duties to the journalists and collection of news etc..
PW41 Shri Jai Parkash, Additional S.P. has deposed that the investigation of the case was conducted by him for initial period in this case. He has proved the FIR dt. 19.12.03 as Ex. PW41/A. During the investigation, he has CC No. 04/09 P37/91 38 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 collected the Express Newspaper dt. 16.11.03 which is Ex. PW41/B (D3) containing the News regarding Videography of Bribe case in Dalip Singh Judev case. Vide receipt memo dt. 19.11.03 which is Ex. PW1/2 (D4), two VCDs were seized. He has proved the request letters for collection of VCD covering the interview as Ex. PW41/C and Ex. PW2/1, the receipt memo dt. 21.11.03 regarding the seizure of the log book as Ex. PW3/1. The file pertaining to Hotel Taj Palace of room No. 151 has been seized by him which is Ex. PW23/B (D16). He has proved the search list dt. 21.12.03 pertaining to search at the office premises of M/s Aakash Channel as Ex. PW41/E, the search list dt. 21.12.03 pertaining to search at the address of Flat No. 4, Ground Floor, 6 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi as Ex. PW5/1 and the document during the course of search as Ex. PW5/2 collectively. He has also proved the search list dt. 21.12.03 pertaining to search at E207, (Ground Floor), East of Kailash, New Delhi as Ex. PW4/1. The documents seized during the search are Ex. PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/5, Search list dt. 21.12.03 pertaining to search conducted at Aakash Channel, Pagaria Complex, New Bus Stand Pandri, Raipur Chhatisgarh as Ex. PW7/A and two CUP seized during the search as Ex. PW41/H, the seizure memo dt. 11.2.04 pertaining to the seizure of document from Manager of the Blues shop at G13, South Ex. New Delhi as Ex. PW8/1 and seized the cash memo which is Ex. PW8/2. He has also proved the seizure memo dt. 25.2.04 pertaining to the seizure of bills and vouchers pertaining to room No. 151 as Ex. PW23/A and the documents seized as Ex. PW23/B (D
16), receipt memo dt. 3.12.03 pertaining to the seizure of Election ICard in the CC No. 04/09 P38/91 39 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 name of Bhupender Singh Patel and his Biodata as Ex. PW34/A. The search list dt. 21.12.03 pertaining to the search conducted at the premises of Rajat Parsad at F3, Dhawan Deep Building, 6 Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi as Ex. PW6/1.
He has proved the letter dt. 1.6.04 addressed to Director CFSL, Delhi for recording the sample voice of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel as Ex. PW41/M. The affidavits the accused Arvind Vijay Mohan and Bhupender Singh Patel are Ex. PW41/N (D47) and Ex. PW41/N1 (D48). He has seized the register pertaining to domestic helpers/employees register, at 6 Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi which are marked as PW49/X (D33). He has received cassettes containing interviews of Dalip Singh Judev and of Natwar Rateria. The VCD containing bribe episode was also seized. The specimen voice of Shri Bhupender Singh Patel was also taken in his presence.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW41 has deposed that he do not remember whether he has seized the checkin records of room No. 151 of Hotel Taj Palace for the relevant date. The video camera etc. i.e. the instruments used for the said operation were not handed over to him by Manoj Hora or anybody else during investigation. He had not made any request to effect the recovery of these articles. He do not remember whether he had recorded/collected any evidence with regard to the specifications, make, model number of the above said articles. He had visited hotel Taj Man Singh during the investigation of the present case. He do not remember if there was any site plan, pointing out memo of the room prepared by him in this case during investigation.
CC No. 04/09 P39/91 40 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
He do not remember to have taken the photographs/diagram of the place where the camera was allegedly planted. He has not investigated regarding the location of the camera used in this case or the manner in which it was placed.
On perusal of Ex.PW41/N he can say that the same was received in the CBI office in December 2003. He did not check the DAK register to ascertain who has handed over the said affidavits. He did not get matched the signatures of the deponent with that of accused Arvind Vijay Mohan. He do not remember whether he had prepared any seizure memo to take this affidavit on record. He has denied the suggestion that he fabricated the said affidavit and has placed the same on record.
The money involved in this case was not recovered by him. The money used in this case were currency notes vol. it was based on the investigation carried out in this case. It is correct that he did not record any statement of any witness or collected any documents concerning the details of currency notes involved in the case. He do not remember whether he had investigated about the veracity of the facts stated on Ex.PW41/N. No test identification parade of accused persons was got conducted by him in this case during my tenure as a IO. He had called Bhupender Singh Patel for 34 times for the investigation. They could not find out the whereabouts of the money received in this case by the public servant.
PW42 Shri Tanmaya Behera, S.P. has deposed that the part investigation of this case was conducted by him and he has filed the charge sheet.
CC No. 04/09 P40/91 41 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
He has proved The letter dt. 29.12.04 which is Ex. PW42/A (D60) pertaining to the refusal to give sample voice by accused Natwar Rateria. He has received the letter dt. 13.9.04 which is Ex. PW24/A (D62) on the letterhead of HT Media Ltd. Delhi pertaining to the the information regarding the accused Bhupender Singh Patel. Vide receipt memo dt. 21.11.03 which is Ex. PW42/C (D63), cassettes pertaining to recording of Dalip Singh Judev matter was received from Sudhir Chaudhary, Sahara India TV Network. The call details collected in this case were analyzed by him and he prepared several charts indicating communication among the accused persons that chart is Ex. PW42/J. During the course of investigation, notice were issued to the accused persons for giving the original recording and recording instruments. However, the same was not submitted to the CBI during the course of investigation. The investigation in this case is based upon VHS/VCDs received from media. The certified copies of the petitions filed by the accused Bhupender Singh Patel, Arvind Vijay Mohan and Praveen Jain in the Hon'ble High Court are Ex.PW42/M. In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW42 has deposed that he has not sent all the statements of witnesses to the court till date which were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. They have not brought on record any material which would shed light about the fact as to how many days the said tapes remained in possession of Indian Express before it was published. He has not verified whether Manish Rachoya was working with ArthurAnderson during 2003. If he had come to know that he was lying in his statement, he would not have CC No. 04/09 P41/91 42 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 made him a witness. CBI has not produced any material to show that Bhupender Singh Patel was connected with any mining company Indian or Foreign. It is correct that during investigation, they had not found any evidence of Bhupender Singh Patel having contacted Dalip Singh Judev or Natwar Rateria during the period between making of the tape and its publishing. There is no direct evidence on record produced by CBI to show that Bhupender Singh Patel was in any way connected with Congress party. It was found that there was nothing on record to show that Amit Jogi had any interest in Akash Channel, however, there are witnesses whose statements would show that Amit Jogi was connected to Akash Channel. It is his considered conclusion that the sting operation was conducted to discredit Dalip Singh Judev in public so that Amit Jogi shall take advantage of it in forthcoming Assembly Elections for the Congress Party. He came to this conclusion because during investigation, it was found that no favour or work was sought to be got done from Dalip Singh Judev by Bhupender Singh Patel. He had not called for the financial and assets statements of Dalip Singh Judev and Natwar Rateria despite their being public servants. However, discreet verification of assets and transactions had been done but as nothing surfaced regarding the receipt of nine lacs under reference hence it was not perused further. He has investigated who dropped the VCD/VHS at Indian Express as well as Sahara TV. They could not tell about the identity of the person who delivered the same as it was informed that someone left the said VCD/VHS at the reception counter at Indian Express as well as Sahara Tv. It is correct that investigation could not CC No. 04/09 P42/91 43 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 reveal the first person who received the said VCD/VHS at Indian Express and Sahara TV. It is correct that investigation could not reveal the first person who received the said VCD/VHS at Indian Express and Sahara T.V. He investigated the work allotted to Dalip Singh Judev by the Cabinet Minister. He do not remember the details but this much he remember that he has some role to play in the matters of mining projects. He had not gone to the spot at room No. 822 at Hotel Taj Maan Singh and room no. 151 at Hotel Taj Palace. He had not prepared any site plan. Vol. my previous IOs had made visits to the said room No. 822 and room no. 151 at the hotels. He had not seized the instruments through which the VCD/VHS has been recorded in the hotel. Vol. the recording instruments under reference as reported by Bhupender Singh Patel has been destroyed. He had investigated the manner of destruction of the recording instruments/original tapes but investigation could not reveal anything. He has not recovered/seized the amount of Rs. Nine Lacs cash involved in this case. I had not seized/recovered the bag however, efforts in this regard had been made. There is no demand of any money by Mr. Natwar Rateria in the video. The video pertaining to incident dt. 5.11.03 shows that finally the money which was received by Dalip Singh Judev was carried by Mr. Natwar Rateria. It is correct that in the video Mr. Natwar Rateria is seen and heard refusing to accept the money. It is correct that in the video, no currency notes is visible or seen Vol. in video, it is seen and heard that money is being handed over by Bhupender Singh Patel to Dalip Singh Judev. It is correct that I has not placed any document on record to support the fact that CC No. 04/09 P43/91 44 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Manoj Hora and Arvind Vijay Mohan ever visited Hotel Taj Man Singh. It is correct that he had not collected any certificate U/s 65B of The Indian Evidence Act in support of the corresponding electronic evidence like call details record, hotel bills, VCD/VHS etc. It is correct that he has not placed any material on record to show that Arvind Vijay Mohan had any relation with any mining project vol. the accused used "mining project" as a pretext to induce Dalip Singh Judev for receiving the bribe. Investigation had not revealed that there was any file pending before Dalip Singh Judev for any environment clearance pertaining to this case nor for any Australian Company. He has not got any transcript made of the VHS tape or VCD pertaining to this case received by him. He has not placed with the charge sheet any material to show the share holding pattern of Aakash Channel Pvt. Ltd.
PW43 Shri Rajeev Kumar Gupta has deposed that he was the auditor of M/s Aakash Channel. He was called for a search at 6, Aurangzeb road, New Delhi. He was asked to give the keys of the said flat at 6, Aurangzeb road. He informed the CBI Officials that Mr. Rohit Parsad was having the keys and he was called and thereafter search was conducted. He has proved search list Ex. PW5/1 (D24).
In cross examination by Ld. PP, PW43 has denied the suggestion that he has stated in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the CBI that in his presence Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Estate Manager and the security guard had mentioned to the CBI that Amit Jogi was the person who used to stay/frequently visit flat A4.
CC No. 04/09 P44/91 45 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW44 Dr. T.S.N. Murthy has deposed that in the year 2003 he was working as Joint Director in AP Forensic Science Laboratory in which he has joined in the year 1974 as a scientific Officer and worked in different capacity before becoming joint Director in AP FSL. He has examined and supervised more than 12,000 cases in his tenure in AP FSL in various sections including Physics, Ballistics, documents etc. In the present case, he received three sealed covers and one sealed parcel on 1.12.2003. He has examined the video recordings in Q 1, Q2, A1 and A2 and has given his opinion which is Ex. PW44/A. PW45 Shri Sudhir Chaudhary has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working with Sahara India T.V. as Bureau Chief. He has handed over two VHS cassettes to CBI, vide receipt Dt. 21.11.03 which is Ex. PW42/C (D63) he has identified VHS cassette mark Q2 which was received at the reception in the office of Sahara India TV and the same was secured at that point of time.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW45 has deposed that the said cassette was dropped by some unknown person at the reception at the office of Sahara India TV. It is correct that he has supplied two cassettes to the CBI. He do not know whether copies of the said cassettes were prepared at Sahara India before handing them over to CBI.
PW46 Shri J.N. Prasad is the witness to the search conducted at Akash Channel at Raipur. He has proved the search list as Ex. PW7/1 (D31). He has also proved the documents seized during the search.
PW47 Shri Praveen Jain has deposed that he came to know about CC No. 04/09 P45/91 46 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Dalip Singh Judev episode through newspapers and news channels. He do not know much about it. He had never met Dalip Singh Judev. He know Bhupender Singh Patel as they were school friends. Presently, he doing a job of salesman in Nasik at Dainik Divya Marathi. He has also worked with Akash Channel in Bhilai as a Sales Executive. He joined Akash Channel in the year 200304. He joined Akash Channel through Bhupender Singh Patel. Again said, He had given interview through Bhupender Singh Patel. He had not come to Delhi. He had not gone to any hotel including Taj Hotel. He had not gone to any room no. 151 of Taj Hotel, Delhi. He had not gone to Taj Man Singh Hotel in room no. 822 In cross examination by Ld. PP, PW47 has denied the suggestion that he along with Bhupender Singh Patel came to Delhi for the first time by Jet Airways and that he travelled through air vide air tickets Ex. PW4/3 (D28) vol. it may be any other person travelling by the name of Praveen Jain. He has denied the suggestion that from the Delhi airport, he directly went to Taj Palace Hotel or that he had stayed there in room no. 151. He has denied the suggestion that Bhupender Singh Patel stayed in the said room no. 151 and he kept his belongings in the said room. He has denied the suggestion that he again in the month of November 2003 came to Delhi or that he had stayed in room no. 822 in Taj Man Singh Hotel. He has denied the suggestion that there Natwar Rateria and Dalip Singh Judev came in the night time and they stayed there for about 45 minutes. He has also denied the suggestion that during the conversation amongst Bhupender Singh Patel, Natwar Rateria and Dalip Singh Judev, he was serving CC No. 04/09 P46/91 47 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 them water and drinks at the asking of Bhupender Singh Patel. He has denied the suggestion that he was asked by Bhupender Singh Patel to take out the money from a bag and he wrapped the same into the paper and given the same. He do now know Arvind Vijay Mohan. He has denied the suggestion that the incident in Dilip Singh Judev case has been taken place in his presence in Hotel room No.
822. The person appearing in the VHS cassette Ex. PW21/1 is not him. He was not present in the hotel room which is shown in the VHS cassette. He had not gone to the Hon'ble High Court for quashing of the FIR. The copy of the petition for quashing of FIR which is Ex. PW47/A bears his signature. He has denied the suggestion that his face in the VHS cassette has been masked to avoid his identify by Bhupender Singh Patel by editing. He has denied the suggestion that incident of giving and taking money had occurred in his presence.
In crossexamination on behalf of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel PW47 has deposed that he has signed Ex. PW47/A at the directions of the counsel as he was called by the CBI again and again to avoid this harassment. He has not gone through the contents of the petition.
PW48 Shri R.N. Dhanjal has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as Assistant in department of Bio Technology Ministry of Science & Technology. He visited the CBI Office once. In his presence, voice of one person was recorded. He has identified his signature on the cassette Ex.1 as Ex. PW21/21 containing the sample voice.
PW49 Shri Brijesh Singh has deposed that he was posted as CC No. 04/09 P47/91 48 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Supervisor in ARC Security Agency from 2001 to 2004. He had left the services six months prior to the date of raid of the CBI at 6 Aurangzeb road. In 6, Aurangzeb road, A4 flat was allotted to Shri Amit Jogi. Shri Sanjeev Sharma was the Security Manger at 6 Aurangzeb road. He do not remember the exact date Shri Sanjeev Sharma gave him one list of flat owners affixed in the security office. In that list, there was one change as to the A4 as previously it was shown in the name of Amit Jogi and in that list it was shown in the name of Prithvi Traders. The register marked PW49/X (D33) relating to domestic helpers 6 Aurangzeb road, New Delhi was maintained by concerned guard at Gate No. 2.
PW50 Shri Paramjett Singh has deposed that he knew Bhupinder Singh Patel as he was his classmate during school days. He had talked with Bhupinder Singh Patel after Dilip Singh Judev's episode was aired. He asked him what is this all and he told him that he is little bit disturbed and he will tell him later on when he will meet him. He do not remember whether Bhupinder Singh Patel called him from mobile No. 981150877 on 11.06.2003.
PW51 Shri A.D. Tiwari has deposed that he is working as Sr. Scientific Officer GradeI at CFSL Delhi since 2009. In the present case, he had recorded the sample voice of Bhupender Singh Patel in the year 2004. He had observed formalities i.e. room was made noise free by closing doors and windows and by switching off mobile phone and fans. Bhupender Singh Patel was voluntarily agreed to record his voice sample. In the beginning of recording, the introductory voice of two witnesses were recorded, thereafter the voice sample of CC No. 04/09 P48/91 49 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Bhupender Singh Patel was recorded. The recording of sample voice in the cassette and cassette was seized. He has identified the cassette Ex. 1 containing the sample voice of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel as Ex. PW21/21.
PW52 Shri Raj Kumar Kataria has deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted as Section Officer in the personal staff of Shri Dalip Singh Judev the then Minister of State for Environment and Forest. Mr. Natwar Rateria was A.P.S. to Mr. Dalip Singh Judev. He can identify the image and voice of Shri Dalip Singh Judev and Natwar Rateria as he had worked with them. He has identified the image and voice of Dalip Singh Judev in his office in the cassette containing his interview as Ex. PW2/2. He has also identified the image and voice of Natwar Rateria in the cassette containing the interview of Natwar Rateria. He has also identified the image and voice of Dalip Singh Judev and Natwar Rateria in the VHS Cassette mark Q2 and the VCD mark Q1 containing the bribe episode.
PW53 Shri Raj Avasthi has deposed that somewhere in the year 2002, he was one of the Director of M/s Aakash Channel at Raipur. Rohit Parsad was also one of the CoDirector in the said company. Bhupender Singh Patel and Rezinarld Jermamiah were the employees of the said company. Bupender Singh Patel used to look after revenue collection as well as News at Bhilai Branch, Aakash Channel. Bhupender Singh Patel was in their company till June 2003. Thereafter because of his misbehavior he was removed from the employment of M/s Aakash Channel. Bhupender Singh Patel was given certain facilities like mobile, house, vehicle etc. He had taken back all facilities including mobile from CC No. 04/09 P49/91 50 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 Bhupender Singh Patel on 9.6.2003.
In cross examination on behalf of Ld. PP, PW53 has deposed that he do not remember whether mobile Nos. 9826124401, 9826124402 and 9826124420 were allotted by Aakash Channel in the name of his wife, Rohit Parsad and Bhupender Singh Patel respectively. He has denied the suggestion that mobile number was used by Bhupender Singh Patel even after leaving M/s Aakash Channel. He has denied the suggestion that Amit Jogi was also having in interest in M/s Aakash Channel. The said mobile number might be surrendered on 8.12.03 after the Dalip Singh Judev episode.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused Bhupender Singh Patel, PW53 has deposed that it is correct that Bhupender Singh Patel was employed with Aakash Channel after an interview conducted by him. It is correct that Bhupender Singh Patel was hired by Aakash Channel because of his having a professional diploma in Journalism. It is correct that Bhupender Singh Patel was heading the Bhilai Zone of Aakash Channel and he was working there in a Journalist capacity and was discharging editorial duties as well. Aakash channel was a News Channel. It is correct that main cause of insubordination was that Bhupender Singh Patel wanted to conduct sting operation on politicians of BJP and Congress which was against the policy of our channel.
PW54 Insp. M.M. Deshpande has deposed that he has conducted the search in this case in the year 2003 on the basis of the search warrant and he has proved search memo dt. 21.12.03 as Ex. PW7/A (D31). He has identified CC No. 04/09 P50/91 51 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 two CPU seized during the search as Ex. PW41/H and Ex. PW41/H1.
PW55 Shri D.P. Yadav has deposed that he was called in the CBI for the purposes of taking sample voice of Bhupender Singh . Bhupender Singh Patel had agreed to come sample voice voluntarily and without pressure. He has identified the cassette Ex1 containing his introductory voice and the sample voice of the Bhupender Singh Patel as Ex. PW21/21.
PW56 Shri Israr Babu, Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. has proved the call details as Ex. PW37/G. PW57 Shri L.K. Trivedi has deposed that in the year 2004, he was posted as a Divisional Engineer (Commercial) in the office of GMTD, BSNL, Raipur. He had provided the information regarding the telephone connection in the CM House etc. to the CBI. He has proved the letter dt. 24.12.04 (D59) and call details pertaining to the period 1.7.2003 to 30.11.2003 as Ex. PW42/G. PW58 Shri Rajat Sethi has deposed that in the year 2003, he was working as Duty Manager at Hotel Taj Maan Singh Delhi. Mr. Christopher Fernandes was the Chief Security Manager at the Hotel Taj Maan Singh. An enquiry was conducted regarding room No. 822. The guest who was staying in the hotel room No. 822 has not given his identity proof. He cannot identify the person who had stayed in the hotel room No. 822 as the matter is old. The statement has been recorded at the time of enquiry conducted by Mr. Christopher Fernandes which is Ex. PW58/A. PW59 Shri Dilip Mutalik has deposed that he was posted at Indore CC No. 04/09 P51/91 52 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 working with Idea Cellular Pvt. Ltd. as a Nodal Officer from 2004 to 2008. In the year 2005, he had provided call detail of mobile No. 9826124420 along with documents/bills to the CBI which is Ex. PW42/F. The mobile number was in the name of Aakash Channel Pvt. Ltd.
DW1 Shri Rajesh Yadav has deposed that he was working as Manager, Hotel Taj Palace, No. 2 Sardar Patel Marg, Diplomatic Enclave, Chanayakapuri, New Delhi. As per record of room No. 151, Hotel Taj Palace, Mr. Sarogi checkedin the said room on 25.7.03 and it was direct booking. As per record, Mr. Sarogi extended his stay on 26.7.13 and then on 27.7.03 and finally checkedout on 28.7.03. The copies of the said record are Ex. DW1/A (Coll.) As per record, Mr. Sarogi checkedin in the room No. 151, Hotel Taj Palace on 19.8.03 and checkedout from the said room on 28.8.03 and the copies of the said record is Ex. DW1/B (Colly).
In cross examination by Ld. PP, DW1 has deposed that he got the print out of the record which he has brought from the computer system. He has not brought any certificate U/s 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. The booking of a room in their Hotel can be done by any person on behalf of any other person. He cannot say whether the said room No. 151 was got booked by one Rajat Parsad. Vol. it is a direct booking as per record.
DW2 Shri K. Unnikrishnan has deposed that he is Office Superintendent at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, New Delhi. As per record, Bhupender Singh Patel was awarded PG Diploma in Journalism in the year 2000. The CC No. 04/09 P52/91 53 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 photocopy of the relevant record is Ex. DW2/A. He has produced a original hard copy record and he cannot say whether this information is stored in the computer or not.
DW3 Shri Tej Pal Singh has deposed that in the year July 2003, he was posted in CM Office at Chhatisgarh Bhawan Delhi as a PA to CM office (the then CM Mr. Ajit Jogi). He has not worked for Amit Jogi. he do not know any of the friend of Mr. Amit Jogi and he has never had any interaction with them. He do not know any person by the name of Arvind Vijay Mohan or Manish Rachhoiya since he has not known Arvind Vijay Mohan so, there is no question of his giving money ever to him. He was posted at Chhatisgarh Bhawan New Delhi from December 2000 to December 2003. He has never did any cash transaction on behalf of Ajit Jogi or Amit Jogi.
DW4 Shri Akhil Asthana has deposed that he was working with Taj Palace Hotel, Chanayakapuri as IT Manager for the last 15 years. The hotel received a letter dt. 16.10.15 from the counsel of accused Rajat Parsad for furnishing the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to computer records produced by Shri Rajesh Yadav. Today he has brought the certificate U/s 65 B which is Ex. DW4/A bearing his signatures.
In cross examination by Ld. PP, DW4 has denied the suggestion that he is not a authorized person to issue certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is correct that he has not produced any authority letter from the Hotel Taj Palace.
CC No. 04/09 P53/91 54 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
4. Ld. PP for the CBI has argued that from the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. is not required for the prosecution of A2 as his alleged act of conspiring with A1 to take the bribe cannot be said to be done under the discharge of his official duties. The oral and documentary evidence including the tape recordings are reliable and has proved the role of all the accused persons in the alleged conspiracy. Therefore, the accused persons be convicted for the offences with which they have been charged.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has argued that there is no reliable evidence on record to link the accused persons in the alleged offences. The material witness of the prosecution has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The VHS/VCD containing the alleged incident are not reliable documents as it has been tempered with. The call detail records are inadmissible in evidence for want of certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act. A2 is also liable to be acquitted as no previous sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. has been obtained for the prosecution of A2.
I have perused the file and the judgments relied upon by Ld. PP and on behalf of the accused persons.
5. The case of the prosecution is that during/around July 2003, A5 who is the son of Ajit Jogi, the then Chief Minister of Chhatisgarh entered into a conspiracy with A4, A6 and later A3 to secretly video record A1 the then Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests, in the act of receiving illegal CC No. 04/09 P54/91 55 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 gratification. The object of the conspiracy was to disgrace A1 just prior to the election of Chhatisgarh assembly which was scheduled to be held towards the end of 2003 and to drive the political mileage in favour of Ajit Jogi.
It is further the case of the prosecution that A4 and A5 were close friends. Both were studying together at St. Stephen College, Delhi. A6 had substantive business interest in the State of Chhatisgarh including M/s Akash Channel with which A5 was also indirectly associated. A3 was earlier working with Akash Channel Raipur, Bilai having been recruited by A6.
The law relating to conspiracy and to abetment by conspiracy can be summed up as laid down by the various judgments which are as follows: It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 as follows: 49 Thus said we may now turn our attention to Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That section reads as under: "12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11 Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment,........"
50. Undoubtedly for a person to be guilty thereunder it is not necessary that the offence mentioned therein should have been committed pursuant to the abetment. Since CC No. 04/09 P55/91 56 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 "abetment" has not been defined under the Prevention of Corruption Act we may profitably refer to its exhaustive definition in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishori Lal Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 10 SCC 797 as follows:
6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (I) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing: or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107.
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India 1993 (3) SCC 609: ".....It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every CC No. 04/09 P56/91 57 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements: (1) agreement; (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects."
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 6 Scale 469 as under: "Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit CC No. 04/09 P57/91 58 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."
It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State (NCT) of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 as follows: 99 "A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. The circumstances before, during and after the occurrence can be proved to decide about the complicity of the accused."
100 "Lord Bridge in R.V. Anderson aptly said that the evidence from which a jury may infer a criminal conspiracy is almost invariably to be found in the conduct of the parties. In Daniel Youth Vs. R the Privy Council warned that in a joint trial care must be taken to separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against others. "
In Nalini case Wadhwa, J. ponted out at P. 517 of SCC, the need to guard against prejudice being caused to the accused on account of joint trial with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed that: (SCC P. 517 para 583):
"There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the CC No. 04/09 P58/91 59 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy.
101 "One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. "
6. PW18 has deposed that A4 and A5 has joined St. Stephen College in 1995.
PW32 has deposed that he has studied in St. Stephen's College, Delhi University from 1995 to 1998 in B.A. (Hons.) Economics. A4 and A5 were in History Honour's of the same batch. He and A5 were living in different Hostels. He had acquaintance with him like other college mates. A5 has told him that he had some business in media namely 'Aakash Channel and had asked him to give advice on running it more professionally. In that context, A5 CC No. 04/09 P59/91 60 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 has invited him to Raipur and that he went to Raipur. He saw the operations in Aakash Channel at Raipur office and he gave him a presentation to improve the professional environment. Rajat and Rohit were two brothers who were introduced to him at a dinner in Delhi by A5. Raj Awasthi and A3 were an acquaintance or friends with the same group i.e. friends of A5. He met all of them at Raipur at some guest house where A5 arranged an accommodation for them at Raipur. He understand they all were working for Aakash Channel. A6 and Rohit were two brothers who were introduced to him at a dinner in Delhi by Amit Jogi. Raj Awasthi and Bhupender Singh Patel were an acquaintance or friends with the same group. He met all of them at Raipur at some guest. He understand they all were working for Aakash Channel.
PW40 has deposed that M/s Aakash Channel is also one of his company. The company was incorporated in the year 2002. Initially, He and his brother A6 were Directors. A6 resigned as Director in the end of 2002. A3 was the employees of M/s Aakash Channel and he was removed from the company around first quarter of the year 2003. He knew A5 as they are friends.
PW42 who is the investigating officer of the case has deposed that there was nothing on record to show that A5 has any interest in Akash Channel. However, they are witnesses whose statements would show that A5 was connected to Akash Channel.
PW53 has deposed that somewhere in the year 2002, he was one of the Director of M/s Aakash Channel at Raipur. A3 was one of the employee of CC No. 04/09 P60/91 61 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 the said company. In 2003, because of misbehavior of A3 he was removed from the employment.
From the evidence of PW40, PW42, it is evident that A5 and A6 has no business interest in M/s Akash Channel during/around July 2003. The evidence of PW32 that A5 and A6 were working for M/s Akash Channel is without any documentary evidence as it is simply on his knowledge/understanding and which can not take the place of proof.
The evidence of PW32 shows that A4 and A5 and PW32 are known to each other as they have studied in the St. Stephen College, Delhi during the period 19951998.
7. PW14 has deposed that he is a Specialist in Data analysis in ORG Survey Company. Mr. Amit Roy of the said company had asked him to conduct indepth analysis of data for A5 for the assembly election 2003 in Chhatisgarh for Congress Party He has talked to A5 and had also met him two times. He has conducted data analysis somewhere near Diwali of 2003.
PW19 has deposed that in the year 2003, he has conducted survey on assembly elections for Chhatisgarh for the Congress Party. He remained primarily in contact with A5. In late November or December 2003, he read in newspaper about the episode of Dalip Singh Judev. Thereafter, A5 talked to him on phone and enquired from him as to what would be possible impact of that episode on electorate. He has told A5 that as per his assessment unless the person who has done the sting operation comes out in open, the sting operation CC No. 04/09 P61/91 62 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 will not be of any benefit to the Congress. A5 broadly agreed with his assessment. They decided to try and find out who had carried out the sting operation.
From the testimonies of PW14 and PW19, the only evidence which has come on record is that A5 has got conducted the Survey for the assembly election for the Congress Party during the year 2003.
8. PW28 and PW32 the material witnesses of the prosecution to prove the alleged conspiracy.
Perusal of the testimony of PW28 shows that in the year 200102 he has met A5 and Manish Rachoya (PW32) in Ranthambore. Manish Rachoya was introduced to him by A5 for a job and thereafter, Manish Rachoya applied for a job. In the year 20022003, Manish Rachoya met him in Hotel Taj Palace, Delhi and he again asked for the job.
PW28 has been declared hostile by the CBI. PW28 has been cross examined by the CBI at length but he has not supported the case of the CBI. He has denied the suggestion that Manish acquired mining interest in Australian Mining Company and in order to pursue the said project Manish Rachoya has sought his assistance in getting him introduced to A1. He has denied the suggestion that he has introduced Manish or Rahul Sarogi with A2 regarding the aforesaid project. He has also denied the suggestion that he had talked to A2 regarding the pursuing of mining project as stated by Manish while he was in the flight and A2 has asked him to come to his office in Delhi at Paryavaran Bhawan CC No. 04/09 P62/91 63 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 to discuss the said matter. He has denied the suggestion that when he reached Delhi, Manish told him on telephone that he will not be able to come to meet and instead Mr. Rahul Sarogi who was his partner who is more conversant with the project will come and meet him to further go to meet Dalip Singh Judev. He has denied the suggestion that he met Rahul Sarogi in the lobby of Hotel Taj Palace and thereafter he immediately took him to Paryavaran Bhawan, Ministry of Environment and Forest Office to meet A2. He has denied the suggestion that he mentioned regarding the mining project of Rahul Sarogi to A1 in the said meeting and A1 further asked him to discuss about it with A2.
In cross examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW32 has deposed that he has never met any person named Rahul Sarogi @ Bhupender Singh Patel (A3). He has never discussed any mining project involving any company including Australian mining company with Manish Rachhoya or Rahul Sarogi. The only discussion he had with Manish Rachhoya on phone or personally was regarding the job in Reliance Industry. He had never discussed any mining project including Australian mining company with either A1 or A2.
PW32 has deposed that he has met with PW28 in the month of March or April 2003 regarding the job and had come physical copy of his CV to PW28 and sent the copy of the same by email later on. Around July 2003, he had met A5 at his Chhatisgarh Bharwan Delhi. A5 has said he needed a favour from him and A5 told him that he will be staying as Manish Sarogi in the hotel and A6 was also there. They went to Hotel Taj and A6 went inside and asked the CC No. 04/09 P63/91 64 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 reception person. A6 gave him a SIM card saying, do not use personal phone and use this SIM card.
In the morning, A4 came and took him in his car to Chhattisgarh Bhawan and he came back with some cash in some envelope. Then they went to shopping in South Ext. Market, Delhi and bought two suits.
It was the Sunday morning, A6 came to the hotel and asked him if A5 had called and he said no, he has not received any phone call. A6 stayed for a few hours in the same room of the Hotel . On Monday in the morning, he received a call from personal assistant of Amit Jogi namely Tejpal and Tejpal told him that A5 is coming to meet him. Then, A5 came into the hotel room with Shekhar Singh (PW28). A5 reintroduced him to Shekhar Singh and said that Manish is now doing some liasioning for a Calcutta business group and if Shekhar can help him. A5 has told to Shekhar Singh that the liasioning work was for the Calcutta Business Group was for environment clearance from some department.
Nothing has come in the evidence of PW28 that A5 wrongly informed PW28 that PW32 was working for a Calcutta based mining company which has some work pending with Ministry of Environment and Forests and A5 has further requested PW28 to introduce PW32 to A1.
Nothing has been come in the evidence of PW32 that he has sought the assistance of PW28 for mining work for his mining company and also that PW32 has informed PW28 on phone that since the work for which A1 was required to be contacted was technical in nature, his partner A3 would be CC No. 04/09 P64/91 65 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 discussing the matter in future.
The testimony of PW32 is not supported by the testimony of PW28. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW28 and PW32 and which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful that A5 has introduced PW32 to PW28 to provide assistance for his mining work and for that purpose A5 has requested PW28 to introduce PW32 with A1.
9. One of the circumstance alleged by the prosecution to prove the alleged conspiracy amongst the accused persons is that in pursuance of the conspiracy A6 has booked the room No. 151 in Hotel Taj Palace, New Delhi in the name of Manish Sarogi w.e.f. 25.7.03 to 28.7.03 and from 29.7.03 to 10.8.03.
PW23 has deposed that as per the file Ex. PW23/E, the room No. 151 was booked by one Rajat Parsad in the name of Mr. Manish Sarogi. The Taj inner circle card Ex. PW23/D is in the name of Mr. Rajat Parsad and by this card the customer are given special discount. He has also proved the room key card of room No. 151 as Ex. PW23/C and Taj inner circle card in the name of Rajat Parsad as Ex. PW23/D. In crossexamination, PW23 has deposed that the room was not booked in his presence. It is not necessary for the customer to provide inner circle card the system picks it up automatically if an individual is proved by inner circle card.
DW1 has deposed that as per record, one Mr. Sarogi checked in the room No. 151 on 25.7.03 and it was direct booking. Mr. Sarogi extended his stay CC No. 04/09 P65/91 66 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 on 26.7.13 and then on 27.7.03 and finally checkedout on 28.7.03. As per record, Mr. Sarogi checkedin in the room No. 151, on 19.8.03 and checkedout from the said room on 28.8.03. He has proved the relevant record as Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. DW4 has proved the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW4/A with regard to computer records Ex. DW1/A and Ex. DW1/B. The invoices No. 218273/1 dt. 28.7.03, 220107/1 dt. 10.8.03 (which is part of file Ex. PW23/E) of room No. 151 is in the name of Manish Sarogi and these shows that the room was booked by one Rajat Parsad..
PW32 who has stayed in the room No. 151 has deposed that he do not know as to who had booked the room No. 151 PW23 has also deposed that room No. 151 was not booked in his presence.
The aforesaid invoices also does not bear the signatures of A4 in the column of guest signature.
Keeping in view the testimony of PW23 as to the inner circle card, if these rooms were booked by A6 then the system of the hotel should have picked up the inner circle card number of A6. There is no direct and conclusive evidence on record to prove that the room No. 151 in fact was booked by A6.
10. The key Ex. PW23/C is alleged to be recovered from the residence of A4 and was seized vide seizure memo as Ex. PW4/1.
PW33 has also proved the key of the room No. 151 and its jacket CC No. 04/09 P66/91 67 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 as Ex. PW23/C. In crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW33 has deposed that the key does not bear the room No. 151. Such key do not bear the room numbers. The room is normally coded in the electronic strip which is part of the key. It is correct that by looking at this key, he cannot say if this is the key to room No. 151.
From the evidence of PW23 and PW33, it is evident that the key Ex. PW23/C has been identified only on account of its jacket as it is written as 151 on the jacket. There is no other evidence to show the alleged key is of room No. 151 as PW33 has specifically deposed that by looking at this key, he cannot say if this is the key of room No. 151.
The other incriminating documents which are alleged to be seized from the residence of A4 are the air tickets of Praveen Jain, A3 dt. 10.8.03 and of A5 dt. 13.8.03. These tickets along with other documents seized during the search are brought on record is Ex. PW4/2 to Ex. PW4/5.
These air tickets has not been proved according to law as no concerned official has been examined to prove the issuance of these tickets and the boarding pass and also to prove that in fact A3, A5 and Praveen Jain has travelled in the concerned airlines on the respective dates as mentioned in the tickets.
Accordingly, from the recovery of alleged air tickets and key, no admissible evidence has been come on record to connect the A4 with the CC No. 04/09 P67/91 68 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 alleged conspiracy.
11. To link A4 with the alleged conspiracy, it is also the case of the prosecution that A4 got purchased the clothes for PW32.
PW32 has deposed that in the morning, A4 came and said that they need to shop for professional clothes. A4 took him in his car to Chhattisgarh Bhawan and he came back with some cash in some envelope and then they went to shopping in South Ex Market, Delhi and bought two suits. A4 stayed with him for some time in the hotel. The clothes were purchased by A4 and the payment was made by A4. A4 got the money from the Personal Assistant of A5.
PW8 has proved the cash memo No. 2669 dt. 27.7.03 as Ex. PW8/A regarding the purchase of these clothes. Ex. PW8/2 shows only the payment in cash, but does not show the name of the person who has made the payment.
DW3 who was was posted at Chhatisgarh Bhawan, New Delhi from December 2000 to December 2003 as P.A. to Chief Minister Office has deposed that he do not know A4 and so there is no question of his giving money ever to him.
Keeping in view these evidence on record, it is not proved beyond doubt that the clothes which has been allegedly purchased for PW32 were in fact purchased by A4.
12 The other material circumstance which has been alleged by the CC No. 04/09 P68/91 69 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
prosecution to connect A4 with the alleged conspiracy is that A4 had arranged for installation of hidden video recording equipments in the sitting room No. 822 through one Mr. Manoj Hora (PW25), the dealer in electronic products. This arrangement was for secretly video recording the meeting between A3 with A1 and A2.
The prosecution has examined Manoj Hora as PW25. PW25 has deposed that on the asking of A4, he visited room number 822 at Hotel Taj and installed hidden video camera and VCR in room no. 822. There was a T.V. in that room and underneath the T.V. there was a cabinet and the camera was installed with the double side tape underneath the cabinet of the T.V. in a space between T.V. and cabinet. He had not got video camera or the VCR recovered during investigation. He had not shown the room No. 822 to CBI during investigation where the said video camera was installed.
PW29 is alleged to have visited the the room No. 822 on 5.11.03 has deposed that the television was of big size and was placed on a Television trolley which can be rotated to the extent of 180 degrees. The said trolley is placed on a Television chest. There is no space in between the surface of the television trolley and the base of the television. He has not seen any bag/object inside the television chest when he had tried to rectify the defect. Vol. he did not deliberately notice any object or bag within the Television chest as it was not his duty. It may be possible that there may be space to keep the VCR.
The evidence of PW29 creates a doubt on the fact that if there is CC No. 04/09 P69/91 70 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 any space in between the T.V and the cabinet as deposed by PW25 and any recordings equipments were installed in that space.
PW25 is unable to specify in his testimony about the make, model, description, dimension of the video camera.
Moreover, no efforts has been made by the investigating agency as evident from the testimonies of PW41 and PW42, to prepare site plan and to take photographs to prove the exact installation and position of the recordings equipments in the room No. 822.
The absence of material evidence i.e. recordings equipments, site plan and photographs of the spot where the recordings equipments were installed, creates a doubt in the testimony of PW25 that he has installed recordings equipments at the instance of A4.
13. The prosecution has also relied upon the call detail records of the accused persons to link them with the alleged conspiracy.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kundan Singh Vs. The State in Criminal Appeal No. 711/14 decided on 24.11.15 as follows: 39 Controversy has arisen whether a certificate under subsection (4) to Section 65B must be issued simultaneously with the production of the computer output or a certificate under Section 65B can be issued and tendered when the computer output itself is tendered to be admitted as evidence in the court or CC No. 04/09 P70/91 71 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 as in the present case by the official when he was recalled to give evidence. In Anwar P.V. (S) versus P.K. Basheer and Others, the Supreme Court has held as under: "15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence, Electronic records being more susceptible to tempering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whose trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice."
40 The expression used in the said paragraph is when the electronic record is "produced in evidence". Earlier portion of the same sentence emphasises the importance of certificate under Section 65 B and the ration mandates that the said certificate must accompany the electronic record when the same is "produced in evidence." To us, the aforesaid CC No. 04/09 P71/91 72 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 paragraph does not postulate or propound a ratio that the computer output when reproduced as a paper print out or on optical or magnetic media must be simultaneously certified by an authorised person under subsection (4) to Section 65B. This is not so stated in Section 65 B or subsection (4) thereof. Of course, it is necessary that the person giving the certificate under subsection (4) to Section 65B should be in a position to certify and state that the electronic record meets the stipulations and conditions mentioned in subsection (2), identify the electronic record, describe the manner in which "computer output" was produced and also give particulars of the device involved in production of the electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was prepared by the computer.
41 Paragraph 21 quoted above records and notices that in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu alias Afzal Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 a responsible officer had certified the document at the time of production itself and the signatures in the certificate were also identified and, therefore, there was compliance of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act, In these CC No. 04/09 P72/91 73 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 circumstances, we do not accept the legal ratio in Ankur Chawla versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (Crl. M.C. No. 2455/12 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 8308 and 8318/14 and Crl. Rev. P. 385/2012 decided on 20th November, 2014 by the Delhi High Court) wherein it has been held that the certificate under Section 65 B must be issued when the computer output was formally filed in the court and certificate under Section 65 B cannot be produced when the evidence in form of electronic record is tendered in the court as evidence to be marked as an exhibit. The said certificate can be produced when the electronic record is to be admitted and taken on record, i.e. when the prosecution, defence or a party to the civil litigation wants the electronic record to be marked as an exhibit and read in evidence.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473 as follows: 14 "Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non CC No. 04/09 P73/91 74 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under subsection (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2)."
22 The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record: the same is wholly governed by Section 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case 2 does not lay down the correct position. It requires to be overruled and we CC No. 04/09 P74/91 75 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible."
PW37 has brought on record the call details records (CDRs) of mobile No. 9811166668, 9811510877 as Ex. PW37/B to Ex.PW37/E. PW59 has brought on record CDR of mobile No. 9826124420 as Ex. PW42/F. These CDRs has not been accompanied by any certificate U/s 65 B of the Evidence Act. In view of the abovesaid judgments, these CDRs are inadmissible in evidence.
PW36 has brought on record the call details record of mobile No. 9810282646 as Ex. PW36/A2, of mobile no. 9810899963 as Ex. PW36/B, of Mobile number 9810010622 as Ex. PW36/C, of mobile number 9810331702 as Ex.PW36/D, of mobile number 9810000027 as Ex.PW36/E, of mobile number 9810117257 as Ex.PW36/F, of mobile number 9810161889 as Ex.PW36/H. PW36 has also deposed that in response of letter dt. 21.11.14 of the CBI which is Ex. PW36/G, he has provided the certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act which is Ex. PW36/G1.
CC No. 04/09 P75/91 76 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
Admittedly, the certificate U/s 65 of Evidence Act which is Ex. PW36/G1 relating to the CDRs has not been issued simultaneously with the production of these CDRs, but has been issued and tendered when the CDRs tendered into evidence.
In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kundan Singh, it is necessary that the person giving the certificate should be in a position to identify the electronic records, describe the manner in which the computer print out was produced and also give particulars of the device involved in the production of electronic record for the purpose of showing that the electric record was prepared by the computer. However, in the certificate Ex. PW36/G1 which was given by PW36, no particulars of the device involved in the production of the electronic record has been given. Accordingly, Ex. PW36/G1 is a defective certificate and which makes these CDRs inadmissible in evidence. 14 It is further the case of the prosecution that after decision of the Manish Rachhoya not to be associated further with the matter, A3 was roped into the conspiracy to play the role which was to be played by Manish Rachhoiya.
In pursuance of that conspiracy, A3 has stayed in the room No. 151 and has met A1 and A2 on a number of occasions and gained their confidence. A3 has been introduced to A1 by Shekhar Singh. Subsequently on 5.11.03, A3 along with one Praveen Kumar Jain had checked into room No. 822 which was booked under the fictitious name to Raman Jadoja. On 5.11.03 CC No. 04/09 P76/91 77 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 in the night, A1 and A2 went to room No. 822 and have discussions with A3. A1 received illegal gratification of Rs. Nine lacs from A3 in the presence of A2. A2 has actively conspired in the matter of receipt of illegal gratification by A1. The video recording of this meeting was subsequently released to media after masking the faces of A3 and Praveen Jain just prior to the Chhatisgarh assembly election as planned by A5.
15. PW22 has deposed that he do not know in whose name room No. 822 was booked in November 2003. Vide receipt dt. 04.11.2003 which is Ex. PW22/A an amount of Rs. 10,000/ was received from one Mr. Raman Jadoja. The bill of the room which is Ex. PW22/C (D20) is in the name of Raman Jadoja, wherein the date of arrival in the said room is shown as 05.11.2003 and the departure on 06.11.2003.
PW38 has deposed that as per document Ex. PW22/B (D21), the room no. 822 was booked in the name of Mr. Raman Jadoja.
PW58 has deposed that an enquiry was conducted regarding room No. 822. The guest who was staying in the hotel room No. 822 has not given his identity proof. He cannot identify the person who had stayed in the hotel room No. 822 as the matter is old.
PW29 has deposed that on 05.11.2003, he was called in room no. 822 for a complaint regarding the television. It was late in the evening that he visited for the said call. He was called by the CBI. He identified the person with whom he met in the said room in the voter card and video. The voter identity card CC No. 04/09 P77/91 78 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 is Ex. PW16/1. After seeing the photo on the copy of voter identity card and seeing the accused persons, PW29 was unable to tell as to whether the said person is present in the court or not. The room which is visible in the VHS cassette Ex. PW21/1 is room No. 822. At the time, when he visited the said room there were 4 people in the room and he had the conversation with one person which he has identified in the Election Card. The room No. 822 was booked by the same person with whom he talked.
In cross examination, PW29 has deposed that he had not seen himself as to who had booked the room. He cannot say whether more than one Election ICards were shown to him by CBI when he had identified the person. He was never asked by CBI to identify the man shown in the ICard physically in Test Identification Parade.
From the evidence of PW22, PW38, it is evident that on 5.11.03 room No. 822 was booked in the name of Raman Jadoja. PW29 has also deposed that he has not seen himself as to who had book the room. From the testimony of these witnesses, no evidence has been come on record that room No. 822 was booked by A3 on 5.11.03 in the name of Raman Jadoja.
PW29 has not identified A3 in the court. The identification of the accused in the court is the substantive evidence . The procedure adopted by the CBI in getting A3 identified through photo of election ID card and without mixing with other photographs is not the correct procedure as it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 938 as follows:.
CC No. 04/09 P78/91 79 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 28 "The next question is whether Ethyl Wong's
identification of laxmipat and Balchand, whose photographs were shown to her at the Air Terminal at Bombay should be accepted. Reference in this connection has been made to English cases in which it has been laid down that the showing of a large number of photographs to a witness and asking him to pick out that of the suspect is a proper procedure but showing a photograph and asking the witness whether it is of the offender is improper. We need not refer to these cases because we entirely agree with the proposition. There can be no doubt that if the intention is to rely on the identification of the suspect by a witness, his ability to identify should be tested without showing him the suspect or his photograph, or furnishing him the data for identification. Showing a photograph prior to the identification makes the identification worthless. "
16. PW13 has proved the entires of dt. 5.11.2003 in the log book of vehicle as Ex. PW13/1. This Ex. PW13/1 shows various places visited by A1 and it does not specify the exact time when the Hotel Taj Man Singh was visited. The testimony of PW13 only shows that A1 and A2 visited the said Hotel but it does not prove that A1 and A2 had visited the room No. 822.
CC No. 04/09 P79/91 80 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
17. To prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon the recordings of the alleged incident of taking illegal gratification by A1 from A3 in the presence of A2 in the VHS video cassette Ex. PW21/1 (Q2) obtained from Sahara TV and VCD (Q1) obtained from Indian Express.
PW44 has examined the videos of Q1 and Q2 and has opined his report Ex. PW44/A which is as follows:
(i) The contents in items 1 & 2 represent an incident continuously recorded without any material editing/interruptions/breaks and represent true depiction of an incident happened.
(ii) The masking effects, vertical streaking and horizontal streaking were introduced in item No. 1 and 2 subsequently using the original recorded tape, without materially altering the contents of the video.
(iii) The lip sync is matching in audio and video of items No. 1 and 2.
(iv) In the absence of admitted voices, voice comparison was not carried out.
In crossexamination, PW44 has deposed that according to him the original tape meaning video recording taken before subjecting the video masking effects without materially altering the contents of the video. The original recorded tape has not been sent for examination.
PW21 has examined voice recordings of A1, A2 and A3 in Q2 with specimen voice of A3 (Ex.1), of A1 in the video cassette (Ex. A1) containing the interview of A1, recorded by NDTV of A2 in the video cassette CC No. 04/09 P80/91 81 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 (Ex. A2) containing the interview of A2 recorded by Aaj Tak.
In the report Ex. PW21/1 and Ex. PW21/B, PW21 has opined that questioned voices in Q2 matches with the specimen voice of A3 and voices of A1 and A2 in Ex. A1 and Ex. A2.
In the report Ex. PW21/B, it has been mentioned that as the audio recording of first 16 minutes approximately is audible and the remaining portion of the recording is not audible in Q1 and further the transcription of first sixteen minutes audible recording has not been supplied, therefore, the voices of A1, A 2 and A3 could not be examined in Q1.
18. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143 as under:
30. In our opinion, the evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not, wholly unreliable. Accurate voice identification is much more difficult than visual identification. It is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tempering, doctoring and editing that the reality can be completely replaced by fiction. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely on the evidence of voice identification. This Court, in a number of judgments emphasised the importance of the precautions, which are necessary to be taken in placing any CC No. 04/09 P81/91 82 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 reliance on the evidence of voice identification. In the case of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari Vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Megra and Ors. Manu/SC/0277/1975 : (1976) 2 SCC 17, this Court made following observations:
We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the taperecords of speeches were "documents", as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions:
(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.
(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record.
(c) The subjectmatter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.
In the case of Ram Singh and Ors. Vs. C ol. Ram Singh Manu/SC/0176/1985: 1985 (Supp) SCC 611, again this Court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility of tape recorded statements, as follows: (1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the CC No. 04/09 P82/91 83 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 maker of the record or by others who recognize his voice. In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker. (2) The accuracy of the taperecorded statement has to be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence - direct or circumstantial.
(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a taperecorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
(4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of Evidence Act.
(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe or official custody.
(6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.
Before relying upon Q1 and Q2, these recordings has to be passed through the conditions which are necessary for admissibility of tape recordings as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment.
CC No. 04/09 P83/91 84 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 (a) In this case, the original recorded tape and recording instruments
has not been recovered. The CBI has seized the VCD (Q1) and VHS (Q2) from the media having the masking effects. There is no opinion as to the voice identification in Q1.
(b) There is no specific evidence on record to prove as to on what date and by whom the VCD/VHS has been received in the office of Sahara TV and Indian Express and there is also no evidence to prove from whom these recordings has been received by the Indian Express and Sahara TV.
(c) PW21 has admitted in his crossexamination that he had not given any opinion as to the editing /tempering of the questioned voice as he has to give opinion only as to the voice matching, so he cannot say as to the editing/tempering. The report Ex. PW21/B also shows that no opinion has been given by the expert on the query No. 8 which is as follows: "Do the voices in Q1 and Q2 and Q3 are normal/original voices or are doubed or substituted voices?"
From the evidence of PW21 and his report, it can be said that there is no definite opinion to the effect that the said questioned voice recordings were not tempered.
(d) After seeing/viewing the VHS, (Q2) it can be said that the voices recorded at a number of places are not very clear and voices were distorted by the other voices in the room.
In view of all these infirmities, the possibility of tempering with the CC No. 04/09 P84/91 85 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 voices recordings in Q1 and Q2 cannot be ruled out. So in view of the aforesaid judgment, these recordings are not reliable as the authenticity of these recordings has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. As per the case of the prosecution, Praveen Jain is the eye witness to the alleged incident of payment of Rs. Nine lacs as gratification by A3 to A1 in the presence of A2 in the room No. 822.
Praveen Jain has been examined as PW47, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. PW47 has been crossexamined on behalf of the prosecution, but no such material has been come on record which would support the case of the prosecution that gratification of Rs. Nine lacs was given by A3 to A1 in the presence of A2 in room No. 822.
PW41 has deposed that the money involved in this case was not recovered by him. The money used in this case were currency notes vol. it was based on the investigation carried out in this case. He had not recorded the statement of any witness or collected any documents concerning the details of currency notes involved in this case.
PW42 has also deposed that he has not recovered/seized the amount of money of Rs. Nine lacs involved in this case. He has not seized/recovered bag, however efforts in this regard had been made. In the video, no currency notes are visible or seen. Vol. In video it is seen and heard that money is being handed over by A3 to A1.
CC No. 04/09 P85/91 86 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW29 has deposed that the room as seen in the video of VHS cassette Ex. PW21/21 is room No. 822, but PW29 is not the witness to the alleged incident.
There is no direct or substantive evidence on record to prove the incident as alleged in the tape recordings in VHS and VCD. The said recordings can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation, but in the present case as discussed above, the authenticity of these recordings are also doubtful.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahabir Parsad Verma Vs. Dr. Surender Kaur (1982) 2 SCC 258 as follows: "Taperecorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the taperecorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, there was no evidence of any such conversation between the tenant and the husband of the landlady; and in the absence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation could be no proper evidence."
20. The prosecution has relied upon the alleged affidavits of A3 and A4 which are marked PW12/2 and marked PW12/3 (Ex. PW41/N and Ex.
CC No. 04/09 P86/91 87 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09
PW41/N1) to link the A3 and A4 in the alleged conspiracy.
PW41 has deposed that Ex. PW41/N has been received in the CBI Office in December 2003. He had not checked the Dak register to ascertain who had handed over the said affidavits.
PW12 has notarized the said affidavits. In the evidence of PW12 nothing has been come on record that it is the A3 and A4 who has signed the affidavits and A3, A4 has also not been got identified by the prosecution from PW12 in his evidence. There is no other evidence on record to prove that these affidavits in fact bears the signatures of A3 and A4. Accordingly, these affidavits have no evidential value to prove the role of A3 and A4 in the alleged conspiracy.
21. PW42 has brought on record the certified copy of the petitions filed by A3 and A4 and Praveen Jain in the Hon'ble High Court as Ex. PW42/M. It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Chand P. Hinduja Vs. State 2005 (82) DRJ 494 as follows:
46. The fallacy of the argument is plain enough. The word 'evidence' is by itself much wider than evidence as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Unless a document is one of which either judicial notice can be taken or to which a statutory presumption of veracity and authenticity is attached, a document which is not a public document has to be proved in accordance with the methods indicated in the Evidence Act itself. I cannot do CC No. 04/09 P87/91 88 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 better than cite a judgment of Justice S.P. Barucha of the Bombay High Court, as he then was, and reported in Om Parkash Berlia and anr. V. Union of India and others, AIR 1983 Bom. 1. This judgment has neither been modified nor overruled at any time. It lays down the following propositions:
(a) the contents of document may be proved by the evidence of a person who saw it being executed or was himself the executant,
(b) the contents of a document is different from the truth of what the document states:
(c) the truth of its contents can be proved by one who has personal knowledge of the matter recorded
(d) if the document is in the handwriting of some one, the handwriting itself must be proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act.
(e) A public document can be proved by a certified copy.
(f) In such a case production of the original or accounting for non production of the original is not essential but all other requirements must be complied with.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in AIR 1964 Pat 45 as follows:
24. What are public documents are stated in Section 74 of the Evidence Act: Documents forming the acts or records of CC No. 04/09 P88/91 89 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country have been described as public documents. I cannot see how a plaint filed by a private person in Court to Institute a case against some others can come within the descriptions of the documents given in that subsection. Subsection (2) of Section 74 can in no way include a plaint. The plaint is neither an act nor the record of an act of any public officer. There can be no strength in the contention that when the plaint is presented and the Court makes an order admitting or registering it, the plaint becomes an act or the record of an act of a public officer presiding over the Court at the most, it will become a part of the record maintained by the Court in that case after the plaint is admitted and registered, but that itself will not make it a public document. If it were, then anything filed in a case in a court of law either petitions or pleadings, private communications or documents which a party would file in a case would become public documents for the simple reason that they are on the record of a case in Court.
Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, petition Ex. PW42/M is not a public document. Ex. PW42/M has to be proved according to law. Ex. PW42/M has been brought on record in the evidence of PW42 who is the CC No. 04/09 P89/91 90 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 investigating officer of the case. Ex. PW42/M has not been proved according to law as laid down in clause (a) (c) and (d) of the aforesaid judgment in Om Parkash Berlia and so it cannot be read into the evidence.
22. It is the case of the prosecution that A2 had conspired with A1 to do the illegal act of receiving of gratification of Rs. Nine lacs from A3.
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266 as follows: "It appears to us to be clear that some offences cannot by their very nature be regarded as having been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty. For instance, acceptance of a bribe, an offence punishable under s. 161 of IPC, is one of them and the offence of cheating or abetment thereof is another... where a public servant commits the offence of cheating or abets another so to cheat, the offence committed by him is not one while he is acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, as such offences have no necessary connection between them and the performance of the duties of a public servant, the official status furnishing only the occasion or opportunity for the commission of the offences the Act of cheating or abetment thereof has no reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty. The act must bear such relation to the duty that the public CC No. 04/09 P90/91 91 CBI Vs. Dalip Singh Judev etc. Judgment dt. 04.04.2016 CC No. 04/09 servant could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in the course of the performance of his duty".
Keeping in view these observations, previous sanction U/s 197 Cr.P.C. for the prosecution of A2 is not required as the alleged act cannot be regarded as having been committed by A2 in the discharge of his official duties.
23. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged circumstances against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused persons could be drawn. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Natwar Rateria (A2), Bhupender Singh Patel (A3), Arvind Vijay Mohan (A4), Amit Jogi (A5) and Rajat Parsad A6) are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Their bail bond cancelled. Sureties are discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Rajneesh Kumar Gupta) today i.e. on 04.04.2016 Special Judge CBI02 (PC Act) (North West) , Rohini Courts, Delhi.
CC No. 04/09 P91/91