Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Vipin Kumar on 27 July, 2013

                                     IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI:
                               SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.


                CC No. 61/2004 (Old No. )
                CC No. 5/2012 (New No.)
                ID No. 02401R0338322012


                CBI
                                 Versus
                Vipin Kumar,
                S/o. Shri Rameshwar,
                R/o D-II/253, Rohini Extension,
                Sector-20,
                New Delhi.                                                            .....Accused


                Case arising out of: FIR No. RC-DAI-2004-A-0008
                                                    More than 7 year old.


                Date of FIR                                          :                11.02.2004
                Date of Institution                                  :                23.12.2004
                Date of Final Arguments                              :                20.07.2013
                Date of Judgment                                     :                27.07.2013




                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page1 of 73
                 JUDGMENT:

1 On 11.02.2004, a complaint was lodged by one Ishwar Singh with CBI against S.I. Vipin Kumar of P.S. Timarpur alleging that the said S.I. Vipin had demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. Back-drop in this regard was that on 07.02.2004 Ishwar Singh alongwith his two friends viz. Gyanender and Shreepal was going in his Santro Car DL-8CG-7704 from Timarpur to Jagatpur when their Car was hit by a bus near Nehru Vihar Turning. An altercation reportedly took place at the spot. S.I. Vipin and other Police officials reached the spot and arrested Ishwar Singh. It was claimed that Ishwar Singh was granted bail on 08.02.2004. It was further alleged in the complaint that in the evening, S.I. Vipin sent two of his Constables and called Ishwar Singh to the Police Station who accordingly went to the P.S. but as S.I. Vipin was not found there, he returned back home. It was further claimed that on 10.02.2004 in the evening, two Police officials again visited his house and asked the complainant to meet S.I. Vipin in the Police Station and when the complainant so met him, S.I. Vipin allegedly demanded sum of Rs. 10,000/- for striking out names of friends of the complainant and for not seizing his Car. The complainant had claimed that as he did not want to pay any bribe, he was filing the complaint and wanted action against S.I. Vipin.

2 As per directions of the then S.P. , CBI, allegations in the complaint were reportedly verified and thereafter FIR was registered and further proceedings held, whereunder a trap CC No. 05/2012 Page2 of 73 party was formed, trap laid and accused Vipin Kumar arrested after he allegedly took the bribe amount from the complainant. Post-trap proceedings were also conducted and after completion of investigation, Charge Sheet was filed. The conversation between the complainant and S.I. Vipin had reportedly been recorded. 3 On basis of allegations against the accused, charge was framed against him on 14.07.2005 for having committed an offence punishable U/s. 7 of the PC Act and U/s. 13(2) r/w 13 (1)

(d) of the PC Act. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its allegations against the accused, Prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses whereafter statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and then the accused examined 10 witnesses in defence.

4 PW-1 Dr. Rajinder Singh proved his Report regarding voice identification as Ex.PW-1/A. He claimed that voice of Vipin Kumar in the questioned cassette was voice of the same person whose specimen voice was recorded in the specimen cassette.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed having carried out oral as well as spectographic examination of the recorded voices and having taken into consideration 23 parameters in oral examination and more than 5 parameters in Spectorgraphic examination. He further admitted having received the two cassette parcels in sealed condition alongwith photocopy of Transcription of the questioned cassette. The parcel was reportedly received in the Laboratory on 23.02.2004. He CC No. 05/2012 Page3 of 73 further admitted that the original cassette containing spot conversation was in CFSL on 19.04.2004.

5 PW-2 Shri C.L. Bansal was the Sr. Scientific Officer from CFSL who had examined the bottles containing washes and claimed that all the three bottles marked as 'RHW', 'LHW' & 'LSJPW' contained pink and light pink liquid which on chemical analysis gave positive test for presence of Phenolphthalein. He proved his Report as Ex.PW-2/A. During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness denied the suggestion that his report was against scientific facts. He also denied the suggestion that he himself had not conducted the tests. Witness further claimed that it was possible if the hands having Phenolphthalein powder come in contact with somebody's finger or cloth, the powder may get transferred to such finger or cloth. He further admitted that CFSL was under

administrative control of CBI. He denied the suggestion that he was concealing facts due to his duty compulsions.

6 PW-3 Shri Rajesh Khurana proved the sanction order dated 15.12.04 as Ex. PW-3/A. He claimed that at the relevant time he was the competent authority to remove the accused from his service. He further claimed having perused all the material documents i.e. FIR, statement of witnesses, chemical wash reports etc. before applying his mind and granting sanction.

During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, witness admitted that the word "FIR" was not mentioned in Ex. PW-3/A which was not addressed to any CC No. 05/2012 Page4 of 73 authority. He volunteered that the sanction order is always sent with a covering letter. He denied the suggestion that his order of sanction was verbatum reproduction of draft sanction order made available to him or was prepared mechanically and reflected non application of mind.

(The witness had been examined on 8.5.2006.

Subsequently, an application U/s 311 Cr. P.C. was moved by the accused seeking recalling of this witness and the same was allowed vide order dated 23.2.2013 passed by the court. Vide an earlier order dated 24.1.2013, a file produced by DW-6 ASI Narender was kept in a sealed cover and the same was opened during course of further cross examination of this witness conducted on 18.4.2013).

During course of his further cross examination witness denied having seen testimony of DW-6 ASI Narender Singh. He claimed that he could not say as to how many sanctions had been accorded by him on 15.12.2004. He further claimed that he could not say as to how many sanction orders had been signed by him in respect of accused Vipin Kumar in this case but claimed that normally only one sanction order is passed in a case, except for cases where there is a typographical or clerical error or a factual mistake whereunder fresh sanction order may be required to be signed. He claimed that he could not say if he had received a draft sanction order in this case alongwith a covering letter dated 13.10.2004. He claimed having received and seen letter dated 10.12.2004 (taken out from the sealed envelope). The same was Ex. PW-3/DA. It was claimed that the sanction accorded by him had CC No. 05/2012 Page5 of 73 been sent to SP, CBI alongwith forwarding letter dated 15.12.2004 (Ex. PW-3/DB). When the file was shown to the witness he claimed that the sanction order at Page No.21 & 23 of the file bore his signature at point Mark-X and was dated 15.12.2004. The order was Ex. PW-3/DC. He admitted that the said order had a reference to SP Shri S.C. Tiwari regarding seeking prosecution sanction against Vipin Kumar. When letter dated 20.12.04 (Mark DW-6/C) at page No.15 of the file was shown to him, he claimed that he did not remember having received this letter although it was addressed to him. He claimed that he did not remember if the sanction order sent by him to SP, CBI was ever returned back to him from the office of CBI for making necessary corrections to bring it in consonance with the forwarding letter dated 13.10.2004. He had further admitted that the sanction order on page No. 271-272 of the file (Ex. PW-3/DD) dated 15.12.2004 bore his signature. He further claimed that he did not recollect if on 20.12.2004 Inspector A.K. Pandey of CBI had approached him alongwith sanction order dated 15.12.2004 sent earlier by him (witness) to SP, CBI with request to modify the same as per instructions from CBI or if subsequently he modified the sanction order and signed it with the date 15.12.2004. He denied the suggestion that the sanction order Ex.PW-3/A on judicial file was merely signed by him or had been prepared without application of mind by simply following the instructions of CBI. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this regard. He further denied the suggestion that the sanction order Ex.PW-3/A was a forged document or that he had put the date 15.12.2004 despite CC No. 05/2012 Page6 of 73 having put his signature on the same on or after 20.12.2004. 7 PW-4 was the complainant Ishwar Singh who during course of his examination in chief narrated about the incidents of 7.2.2004 & 8.2.2004 in line with the allegations mentioned in his complaint. However, he claimed that when two constables came to him the second time, they informed him that Vipin Kumar would be available at Tikona Park and accordingly he went to Tikona Park but did not find the accused there. He claimed that after returning back home he discussed the matter with his friends who suggested to report the matter with CBI. He further claimed that he went to CBI office where he met the SP and disclosed about accused Vipin Kumar having demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- from him through constables. He claimed having prepared his complaint Ex. PW-4/A and having handed it over in CBI office. He claimed that he was taken to a room where 7-8 persons were sitting and he handed over GC Notes of Rs.10,000/- in shape of Rs.500/- & Rs.100/-. Some powder was claimed to have been applied on the said currency notes and he was introduced to two witnesses. He claimed that the powder treated currency notes were given back to him and he kept the same in his shirt pocket. He further claimed that he had been directed to give the same to accused Vipin Kumar on his demand. A small mike was also claimed to have been given to him which he kept in his shirt's pocket, but claimed that purpose of giving the mike was not explained to him. He stated that one of the witnesses was asked to remain with him and to see the bribe transaction and he was asked to give signal by scratching his head with both hands after CC No. 05/2012 Page7 of 73 completion of transaction. He claimed that thereafter the trap party proceeded towards Tikona Park, Timarpur and while he went in his car, witnesses alongwith CBI officials went in another car. He claimed that after reaching Timarpur Mor/Tikona Park, he met a constable whom he asked about SI Vipin and was informed that Vipin had gone for some work. Witness claimed that he waited for the accused who came after 30-45 minutes and started checking vehicles. He further claimed that the constable standing there asked him to give money to him assuring to hand over the same to accused Vipin. Witness claimed that he insisted that he would give bribe money to the accused only, but the constable insisted that the money be given to him and accordingly on his insistence, witness handed over bribe money to the constable.

After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI and during course of his cross examination witness admitted having correctly mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW-4/A that on 10.2.04 two policemen came to his house and asked him to meet SI Vipin in the PS and that he did meet SI Vipin in the PS who demanded Rs.10,000/- for striking out names of his friends and not to seize his vehicle. He further claimed that the accused had directed him to give Rs.10,000/- on the next day. He admitted that names of the witnesses were Nanak Chand and Kailash Chand. He did not remember if Serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down on the handing over memo. He admitted that in the CBI office a demonstration regarding effect of P Powder with sodium carbonate was shown. He did not remember if CC No. 05/2012 Page8 of 73 name ofthe witness who accompanied him was Kailash Chand. He also did not remember if specimen voices of both witnesses were recorded in a blank audio cassette. He denied the suggestion regarding card type mike being given to him and claimed that it was a pen type mike. He denied the suggestion that it was given to him with instruction to switch it on in order to record his conversation with accused Vipin. He identified his signatures on the handing over memo Ex. PW-4/B. He further admitted that it bore serial numbers of GC notes given by him to CBI officials. He admitted that after reaching near Tikona Park, CBI officials parked their vehicle in a nearby colony whereafter he and Kailash went to Tikona Park. He denied the suggestion that he alongwith Kailash went to Police Booth to meet accused Vipin Kumar and asked him on his Cell if he had come or that the accused replied "OK". He further denied the suggestion that after about 45 minutes accused came towards him while remaining police officials were busy in checking. He further denied that accused sat in his car alongwith the driver seat while he himself was sitting on driver seat and witness Kailash Chand was standing outside the car. He denied that he switched on the light inside the car or that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- from him. He denied the suggestion that he took out the tainted currency notes from his shirt pocket and gave the same to the accused who received money in his right hand, counted with both his hands and then kept money in inner side pocket of his leather jacket and then alighted from the car and went towards police booth. He volunteered that he had handed over bribe money to constable while accused CC No. 05/2012 Page9 of 73 was standing at a distance of about 20-25 steps. He admitted having given the pre-appointed signal but denied the suggestion that on receipt of signal, the trap team members came to accused at the police booth. He volunteered that after giving the signal he himself had fled away from the spot. He further denied the suggestion regarding Inspector Navneet having introduced himself and trap team members to accused or about having asked him if he had demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. He denied that accused kept mum or that thereafter Inspector Navneet and Inspector Ojha caught hold of Vipin Kumar from both his wrists. He further denied that CBI official took the accused in their bus where his hand washes were taken. He denied that in his presence witness Kailash recovered tainted amount of Rs.10,000/- from inner side pocket of leather jacket worn by the accused. He denied that the number of currency notes recovered were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo by Kailash Chand and Nanak Chand. He denied that wash of inner side pocket of jacket was also taken. He denied that any site plan was prepared in his presence. He further denied that CBI officials took the accused to PS Timar Pur where the SHO and ACP were present and the CBI officials disclosed entire facts to them. He volunteered that infact he was called to PS Timar Pur from his house and on reaching there he found the CBI officials, accused, SHO & ACP present there. He admitted his signature on the recovery memo. He claimed that as the numbers of currency notes mentioned in the Handing Over Memo and those shown to him (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-56), were the same, he CC No. 05/2012 Page10 of 73 could say that the same were the same GC notes which he paid as bribe. He claimed that he did not remember if the recorded conversation between him and he accused was played at the spot or that a copy of the recording was prepared before sealing the cassette at the spot. He further denied that the Recovery Memo Ex.PW-4/C was explained to him and other witnesses in Hindi language or that they had signed it thereafter. He claimed that he did not remember if on 19.04.2004, he was called to CBI Office when the cassette was played and after hearing it, he identified voice of accused Vipin Kumar or if Transcript was prepared after hearing the cassette. He identified his signature on the Transcript Ex.PW-4/D. He denied the suggestion that it had been prepared in his presence after playing the cassette. He specifically denied the suggestion regarding accused Vipin having demanded Rs.10,000/- from him on 10.02.2004 and regarding his having again demanded it and accepted it on 11.02.2004. He denied the suggestion that the bribe amount was recovered from inner side pocket of jacket worn by the accused. He denied the suggestion that no Constable had demanded bribe from him or that he had not given any bribe to any Constable for being paid to the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused or was deposing falsely. He denied that the recorded conversation was transferred from pen type recorder to a cassette in his presence. He claimed that he did not know if the conversation was recorded in the pen type recorder. He denied the suggestion that he had been threatened by the accused. He admitted having stated in Court earlier about his having told the CC No. 05/2012 Page11 of 73 S.P., CBI regarding accused having demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe through a Constable and regarding his demanding the money from him. He volunteered that no money was demanded by S.I. Vipin but had been demanded by two Constables who came to his house. He claimed that he could not tell names of those Constables. He further claimed that when he had told his problem to CBI staff, he was informed that complaint should be given against the person for whom bribe was being demanded and that a draft complaint in writing was given to him, which he copied as being Ex.PW-4/A. He admitted that after the accident he was put in lock - up by S.I. Vipin.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that he did not understand meaning of ACB written at point 'X' on Ex.PW-4/A. He further admitted that portion point D to D in the complaint was not in his handwriting. He claimed that it was not there when he submitted complaint Ex.PW-4/A in CBI Office. He claimed that he did not have any conversation with S.I. Vipin on 11.02.2004. He claimed that his specimen voice was not recorded. He stated that his search was not taken by CBI Officers before leaving the CBI Office. He claimed that he had Rs.2000/- - Rs.2500/- and a Mobile Phone and purse when they left the CBI Office. He claimed that the Santro Car DL-8CG-7704 was not owned by him. He claimed that he owned a WagonR and that he had left the CBI Office in his Wagon R Car. He admitted that before leaving CBI Office, CBI Officer had given a telephone call to accused Vipin Kumar asking him "Bhai Sahab I want to meet you, where will you meet me" from Mobile Phone of the CC No. 05/2012 Page12 of 73 witness. He did not remember if his signature had been obtained on blank papers in CBI Office. He admitted that there was a riot in the year 2003 and that some villagers had been arrested by the accused. He claimed that he did not remember if in meeting of the villagers, it had been decided to seek revenge on the accused. Witness admitted that the villagers had developed prejudice against S.I. Vipin. He further claimed that at the time of incident dated 11.02.2004, his Wagon R was facing towards the road on which Booth was situated. He claimed that they had left the CBI Office in 3

- 4 CBI vehicles, one big Bus and one CBI person was with him in his Wagon R. He claimed that the Police Constable had gone inside the Police Booth after taking money from him and at that time, S.I. Vipin was standing at some distance and was not in the Booth. He claimed that he again went to the Police Station at about 9.00 P.M. / 10.00 P.M. on receipt of a telephone call. He claimed having signed the Recovery Memo Ex.PW-4/D on direction of CBI Officers without going through contents thereof. He claimed that the contents were never read over to him. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

8 PW-5 Shreepal during course of his examination in chief stated about the incident of 7.2.2004 as was narrated by PW-4. He further claimed that after Ishwar Singh was released on bail, he (Ishwar Singh) informed him (witness) that two police constables had visited his house and told him that he was being called in PS Timar Pur by the accused. Witness claimed that he alongwith Gyanender told Ishwar Singh to go to the PS to know what CC No. 05/2012 Page13 of 73 the accused was saying. He claimed that when Ishwar Singh went there, the accused was not found and on the next day two police constables again visited his house. He claimed that the complainant Ishwar Singh again went to PS on 10.2.2004 and met the accused. He claimed that on his return, Ishwar informed Gyanender and himself that accused was asking for their names and addresses failing which Ishwar Singh would have to pay Rs.10,000/- and in case payment was not made, the accused would seize the car. Witness claimed that all three of them decided amongst themselves that no bribe would be paid to the accused. He claimed that on 11.2.2004 all three of them went to CGO Complex Office of CBI where they jointly gave a complaint written and signed by Ishwar Singh. He identified writing and signature of Ishwar Singh on the complaint Ex. PW-4/A. He further claimed that they had also carried Rs.10,000/- which infact had been handed over by them to Ishwar Singh for being given to CBI officer. He stated that CBI officer applied some chemical powders on the notes and before that had noted down the numbers of the currency notes on a paper. A demonstration regarding action of applying powder was also claimed to have been given. The tainted currency notes were claimed to have been handed over to Ishwar Singh who kept the same in his pocket for handing over the same to the accused. Two Government witnesses namely Kailash Chand and Nanak Chand were also reportedly present there. He claimed that the complainant was directed to hand over the currency notes to the accused when he meets him and give signal by scratching his head. Kailash Chand, it was claimed, was CC No. 05/2012 Page14 of 73 directed to see the transaction between complainant and the accused. He stated that the complainant was also given a pen type tape recorder to record the conversation. Witness identified signature of Ishwar Singh on the handing over memo. He claimed that then they all left for Tikona Park, Timarpur. It was claimed by the witness that he, Ishwar Singh, Gyanender and the two Government witnesses went to the spot in the said car of Gyanender while CBI officers went in their own vehicles i.e. a Gypsy and a bus. It was claimed that the trap team reached Tikona Park at about 6.00 PM and waited for the accused who came at about 7.00 PM on a motorcycle. He claimed that Ishwar Singh talked to the accused who told him to wait for sometime as he was checking vehicles. Witness claimed that at that time Kailash Chand was with the complainant while he and Gyanender were standing at some distance. He claimed that after about 45 minutes accused came to the Santro Car and sat in it. Ishwar Singh, it was claimed, was already sitting in the Santro car while Kailash Chand was standing outside. Lights of the car were claimed to be "On", but it was claimed that the conversation was not audible to them. Witness claimed that he saw the accused and complainant transacting something and movement of their hands were visible but he could not see if the tainted money was handed over to the accused by the complainant or not. He claimed that the hands were below the screen / glasses of the car and as such he did not see the transaction of money but had seen movements of their hands. It was claimed that after some time the accused got down from the car and then the complainant also got CC No. 05/2012 Page15 of 73 down and gave the pre-appointed signal and immediately CBI team rushed and apprehended the accused. It was claimed that the accused was then taken inside the CBI bus. He claimed that when the accused was apprehended, he had been challenged regarding his having taken bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant but the accused got perplexed and remained quite. He claimed that Ishwar Singh told CBI officers regarding the accused having kept the tainted money in the left pocket of his jacket whereupon the independent witness searched the same and took out the tainted money from left pocket of the jacket. He claimed that the recovered tainted currency notes remained in hands of Kailash Chand and hand washes of both hands of accused and inner lining of left pocket of jacket of accused were taken. All the washes were claimed to have been transferred into three separate bottles and sealed. Kailash Chand was reported to have compared the serial numbers of currency notes recovered from those noted in the handing over memo and the same reportedly matched. He claimed that people started gathering at the spot and hence CBI team took all inside PS Timarpur and on their direction he alongwith Gyanender left the spot in the Santro Car. He also identified signature of Ishwar Singh on the recovery memo Ex. PW-4/C. During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused witness claimed that his statement was not recorded by CBI officer after the trap. He claimed that he did not remember date of his visit to the CBI office and could not say if he had gone there on 21.4.2001 or 21.4.2004. He claimed that when CC No. 05/2012 Page16 of 73 they went to lodge the complaint, they had met C.K. Sharma and two other officers in CBI office. He further claimed having seen the pen type tape recorder which was handed over to the complainant. He claimed having told the CBI officer in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. that he and another person had given sum of Rs.10,000/- to Ishwar Singh who in turn handed over the same to the CBI officers. Witness was duly confronted with his statement Ex. PW-5/DA where it was not so recorded. A perusal of cross-examination of the witness reveals that he was duly confronted with his statement Ex.PW-5/DA practically in respect of each and every fact of the trap proceedings stated by him during course of his examination-in-chief which included the pre-trap proceedings, the trap i.e. the actual incident and also the post - trap proceedings. He however admitted that accused had prepared a Kalandra U/s. 107 / 151 Cr.P.C. against the complainant Ishwar Singh and had also detained him in the Lock-up during the night. He further claimed that Ishwar Singh was his childhood friend and a neighbour. He admitted that any visitor coming to house of Ishwar Singh would not be visible to him in case he himself was standing in his house. He admitted that his signature were not obtained on the Handing Over Memo. He further denied the suggestion that he had never visited CBI Office on 11.02.2004 or had not handed over money to the complainant and that no part of investigation was conducted in his presence. He claimed that strict instructions had been issued in presence of all by CBI Officers to Ishwar Singh in CBI Office as to when the voice recording instrument was to be switched 'ON' & 'OFF'. He denied the CC No. 05/2012 Page17 of 73 suggestion that on 11.02.2004, he had never accompanied Ishwar Singh to Tikona Park. He admitted that he had never seen Ishwar Singh handling the pen type voice recorder. He denied the suggestion that he had never gone to CBI Office. He specifically denied the suggestion that the Recorder handed over to Ishwar Singh by CBI Officers was a Credit Card type Chip and not a Pen Type Recorder. He further denied the suggestion that the Voice Recorder was not with Ishwar Singh but was with Constable Manoj Kasana of CBI who was recording the conversation in a normal size cassette. He denied the suggestion that he did not know anything about this case or that the documents reflected that he was never present at any point of time with Ishwar Singh on 11.02.2004 or was deposing falsely.

9 PW-6 ASI Vinesh Thappa proved on record copies of the Kalandara and relevant entries in that regard. He proved on record copy of application for supply of copies as had been moved by Inspector C.K. Sharma as Ex.PW-6/A and the certified copies of relevant Kalandra documents as Ex.PW-6/B-1, B-2 & B-3. He identified his signatures as well as initials of the Ld. SEM on the same.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that he could not recognize the person who might have appeared with the Kalandara before Ld. SEM as matter related to 2004. He denied the suggestion that he was concealing material facts.

                10                         PW-7         Shri     Dayanand            (Gyanender)           Sharma


                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page18 of 73

claimed having purchased Santro Car No. DL-8CG-7704 in auction. He claimed that thereafter on 07.02.2004, he alongwith Shreepal and Ishwar had gone to STA Ashok Vihar. Thereafter, he stated about the accident and arrest of Ishwar claiming that he himself ran away with the Car. He further claimed that on 08.02.2004, Ishwar told him that two Police Officials had come to enquire about him (witness) and that he had been called to the P.S. to meet S.I. Vipin. He claimed that he did not go to the Police Station. He claimed that Ishwar also informed him that his name had been written on a rough piece of paper and for getting it deleted and to avoid seizure of his Car, he (witness) would have to pay sum of Rs.10,000/-. Witness claimed that he refused to pay any money. He further stated that Ishwar went to CBI Office to lodge the complaint and after two days he came to know that he had got Police officials caught through CBI.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, witness admitted that after he had reached the Court, he had been given a File for reading his statement and that after some time, he was taken outside by the Naib Court. He further claimed that he was not threatened by any CBI official for toeing their line. He further stated that on 11.02.2004, he took his said vehicle for some work of the Bank where he was employed and had left his house on 11.02.2004 at about 9.00 A.M. or 10.00 A.M. and came back at about 8.00 P.M. / 9.00 P.M. He claimed that during that period, he was accompanied by three or four persons including Shreepal who used to work with him. He admitted that a lathi charge had earlier been ordered in Village Jagatpur by the Police but he did CC No. 05/2012 Page19 of 73 not know if accused was one of the officials who had ordered the lathi charge. He admitted that a decision had been taken by the Villagers to take revenge on S.I. Vipin.

11 PW-8 Shri Kailash Chand was one of the independent witnesses who allegedly was joined in the trap team. He claimed having reached CBI Office on 11.02.2004 alongwith Nanak Chand and having met Inspector Navneet. He then stated about the pre-trap demonstration conducted in CBI Office claiming that Nanak Chand had touched the currency notes. He stated that entire team left at about 5.00 P.M. but he did not remember if any writing work was done in the CBI Office. He identified his signature on the Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B. It was claimed that the trap team reached Tikona Chowk at about 6.00 P.M. and waited for about 1 to 1 ½ hours when accused Vipin Chand reached there. He claimed that accused Vipin Chand sat in vehicle of the complainant Ishwar Singh which Car was like Maruti but he did not remember the exact make. He claimed that he was made to stand near an Egg Seller near Car of Ishwar Singh. He further claimed that Ishwar Singh and himself had been informed by CBI officials that when money was paid to Vipin Chand, he (witness) would give a signal by taking his hand over his head. He claimed that after some time, accused came out of the Vehicle and went near Delhi Police Booth. It was claimed that thereafter Ishwar Singh also got down from the vehicle and gave the pre-determined signal. He further stated that after the accused had gone to the Police Booth, CBI Officers also went there and accused was made to raise his hands while he (witness) was CC No. 05/2012 Page20 of 73 directed to take out money from his person. Witness claimed that he accordingly took out money from pocket of jacket worn by the accused but he did not remember if it was from inside or outside pocket. He claimed that many people collected outside the Police Booth and accordingly accused was taken to the bigger CBI Vehicle nearby and his hand washes and jacket pocket wash were taken. Witness identified the case property except for the jacket (Ex.P-60) claiming that he could not exactly say if it was the same jacket or not. He specifically claimed that since he did not remember numbers of the currency notes, he could not be able to identify the same. He also identified his signatures on the documents. He claimed that a Digital Recorder had been given to Ishwar Singh to record his conversation with the accused and the said recorded conversation was then copied in a cassette. Witness identified his signatures on the cassette and the wrapper. He further claimed that he was again called to CBI Office on the next day when his voice and that of S.I. Vipin was recorded. He claimed that he could not say whether or not any document was prepared in that regard. However he identified his signatures on the documents in that regard. He also identified his signature on the Transcription Memo.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness admitted his signature on Ex.PW-4/B but claimed having done so after slightly reading the contents. When asked about the word 'Denomination' used in Ex.PW-4/E, witness claimed that it meant to separate or to finish. He claimed that the Site Plan Ex.PW-8/1 was not prepared by him but it bore his signature.

CC No. 05/2012 Page21 of 73 He could not tell name of the person who had prepared it. Specifically claimed that there was no Zypsy of CBI at the spot and CBI Officers had only brought one Bus while the Car belonged to the complainant. He claimed that besides himself and the complainant. One CBI Inspector and one more person were there in his Car. He claimed that there were small shops near the spot and that the main road was a busy road frequented by Buses. He claimed that it was he who took out money from person of the accused. He specifically claimed that he had earlier been a witness in 10 to 12 cases and for this reason he had been familiar with Inspector Navneet. He said that the seal Ex.P-63 had been handed over to him at the time of incident and had never been demanded back from him. He did not remember as to on which conveyance Vipin Kumar had reached the spot. He claimed that he did not know meaning of the words "LHW" "RHW" or "LSJPW". He could neither affirm nor deny the suggestion that the bag carried from CBI Office contained Rs.10,000/-, some powder & wash of hand of Nanak. He did not remember name of the CBI Officer who took hand wash of the accused. He could not say who was the 'unknown person' whose voice was figuring in the cassette. He denied the suggestion that accused was not wearing any Jacket or that it was found hanging in the Police Booth. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

12 PW-9 Shri Nanak Chand was yet another independent witness examined by the Prosecution in this case. He stated about his visit to CBI Office alongwith Shri Kailash Chand but claimed that they were not told about the objective of their visit to CC No. 05/2012 Page22 of 73 CBI Office. He claimed that CBI staff alongwith himself & Kailash sat in the Bus and went to Timarpur where some staff members kept sitting in the Bus while some got down. He claimed that after about 15 minutes, persons sitting inside the Bus were called out and asked to go to the Police Station where he was made to sit in the room of SHO where some proceedings were going on. He claimed that some documents were being prepared there and his signature obtained thereupon. He claimed that no other proceedings took place and he went home.

After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI and during course of his such cross-examination, he admitted that on 11.02.2004, he received a written order from his Administrative Section to go to CBI and on going there, he met Inspector Navneet. He claimed that he did not know that the said Ishwar Singh who was introduced to him by Navneet had given a complaint in writing to the effect that S.I. Vipin had demanded Rs.10,000/- from him as bribe. He denied that any such complaint was shown to him. He further claimed that he did not know if the said complainant had produced a sum of Rs.10,000/- comprising of currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- & Rs. 100/- before Inspector Navneet but admitted that some type of powder was applied on the said currency notes. He denied the suggestion that he was directed to touch the said currency notes. Witness admitted having been directed to wash fingers of his hand in a colourless solution in a glass after he had touched the currency notes smeared with powder whereupon the solution turned pink in CC No. 05/2012 Page23 of 73 colour. He also admitted that number of currency notes produced by the complainant were recorded in the Computer. He admitted that the pink colour water was thrown away and his hands washed with soap. He did not remember if the said sum of Rs.10,000/- was kept in pocket of shirt of Ishwar Singh with direction to hand over the same to S.I. Vipin on his specific demand. He also claimed ignorance regarding some recording instrument being given by CBI Officers to Ishwar Singh. He admitted that the proceedings in the CBI Office finished at 4.30 P.M. and a Computer print out was taken in respect of the proceedings conducted. Witness admitted having read the contents thereof and having signed it after accepting truthfulness of the same. He identified his signature at point Mark 'C' on the Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B. He admitted that he himself and other CBI Officials had left the CBI Office at 4.30 P.M. in a Bus while Ishwar Singh and Kailash left in Santro Car of Ishwar Singh. He admitted that after reaching the spot, they all kept sitting in the Bus while complainant and Kailash got down from the Car and proceeded towards the Police Check Post. He claimed that when he got down from the Bus and went near the Car, he saw S.I. Vipin being held by two CBI Officers by his wrist. He claimed that he did not know if a sum of Rs.10,000/- had been taken out by Kailash Chand from pocket of Jacket of the accused. He further claimed that hand wash of accused were not taken in his presence. He admitted that the numbers of the currency notes were compared with those mentioned in the Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B and the same tallied. He further stated that he did not know that the Recorder which had been CC No. 05/2012 Page24 of 73 given to the complainant Ishwar Singh was played in the Bus and voices appearing therein recorded in a separate cassette. Witness identified his signature on the case property and the documents. He further admitted that on 12.02.2004, he again attended CBI Office. He claimed that he did not remember if wash of the pocket of jacket (Ex.P-60) was taken by CBI Officers or if it turned pink. He also did not remember if the said Jacket was worn by the accused S.I. Vipin on the date of incident. Witness admitted having narrated all the facts relating to the incident dated 11.02.2004 when his statement was recorded by the I.O.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused witness admitted that the accused was in Police uniform at the time of his apprehension. He further admitted that pocket of the jacket was not washed in his presence. He could not tell make of the Car in which complainant came to the spot. He admitted that no powder was applied on currency notes in the CBI Office and that he did not know about contents of the Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B. He claimed having signed it on asking of CBI Officers. Same was his reply regarding Recovery Memo Ex.PW-4/C and other documents. He claimed that his signatures on some of the papers were obtained in the Police Station while the same were obtained on some other papers in CBI Office.

After seeking permission from the Court, the witness was re-examined by ld. PP and during course thereof, he admitted that powder had been applied on the currency notes and it was due to some misunderstanding that he had earlier claimed that CC No. 05/2012 Page25 of 73 print out of proceedings had been taken out in his presence. He affirmed that he had not read the contents of Ex.PW-4/B before signing the same.

13 PW-10 Inspector Bir Singh was posted as SHO P.S. Timar Pur during the relevant time. He stated about posting of accused Vipin Kumar in the P.S. at the relevant time and claimed that on 07.02.2004 at about 7.00 P.M. Vipin had telephonically informed him that in front of Indra Basti one Ishwar Singh Driver of a Santro Car was quarreling with a Bus Driver. Witness claimed that he asked Vipin to make the said person understand failing which initiate proceedings against him U/s. 107, 151 Cr.P.C. He claimed that Vipin did accordingly and filed a Kalandra. Witness identified his signature on the Kalandra Ex.PW-6/B-1. He also claimed having provided copy of Kalandra to the I.O. vide Memo Ex.PW-10/1. He further claimed that on 11.02.2004, while he was patrolling in the area, at about 9.00 P.M., he was intimated that accused Vipin had been caught by CBI Officers for demanding and accepting Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Witness accordingly reached P.S. Timarpur where he was informed about the incident by S.I. Navneet. He claimed that accused Vipin was also present there but kept mum. Various documents were claimed to have prepared in the P.S. and witness identified his signatures thereupon. He claimed that during that time Shri Rajan Bhagat, ACP also reached the Police Station. Personal Motorcycle of the accused, Official Pistol and Cartridges were reportedly handed over to the witness.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel CC No. 05/2012 Page26 of 73 for the accused, witness claimed that accused Vipin had informed him that the other two persons accompanying Ishwar Singh had run away with the Santro Car. Witness admitted that carbon copy of Recovery Memo (Ex.PW-4/C) was handed over to the accused. He further admitted that some of the words mentioned in the Memo Ex.PW-4/C were not so mentioned in the carbon copy Ex.PW-4/DA which was given to the accused. There were some other differences pointed out in the two documents. He specifically claimed that prior to the date of incident there was no complaint of corruption received against the accused nor had he heard of any such thing from anyone. He denied the suggestion that recovery mentioned in Memo Ex.PW-4/C was not recorded in his presence and claimed that it was prepared in his presence in the P.S. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely out of fear of CBI.

14 PW-11 Inspector N.V.N. Krishnan was the trap laying officer who during course of his examination in chief duly proved the FIR Ex. PW-11/1 and deposed about the prosecution case as had been alleged against the accused. He claimed that a credit card type transmitter had been given to the complainant to record the conversation between him and the accused. He further stated that the complainant and shadow witness Kailash Chand had reached the spot in complainant's vehicle. He duly identified his signatures on the documents prepared.

During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused he claimed that he had been associated with ACB, CBI since 2000 but was unable to recollect the exact number of CC No. 05/2012 Page27 of 73 cases handled by him in the said branch. He claimed that he did not remember exactly about each and every document of case pertaining to the complainant which had been seized by him from PS Timarpur. He denied the suggestion that the complaint Ex. PW-4/A was drafted by him. He further claimed that no "kaccha paper" as mentioned in the complaint had been seized by him. He further claimed that the Kalandra Ex. PW-6/B1 was cross checked in order to confirm that it pertained to details mentioned in the complaint Ex PW-4/A. He admitted that no document regarding bad reputation of accused had been seized by him. He denied the suggestion of having made a groundless allegation against the accused regarding his being corrupt. Witness admitted his signature on carbon copy of search cum seizure memo of office almirah of the accused as being Ex. PW-11/DA. He admitted that vide the said document Rs.3,000/- were taken into possession as the same were found during office search of the accused. He claimed having deposited the same alongwith seizure memo in the malkhana and denied any suggestion to the contrary. He denied the suggestion of having misappropriated the said amount of Rs.3,000/- or having subsequently deposited the said amount in the Mallkhana on 01.04.2004 in connivance with MHC(M) or having falsified the records in this regard. He further denied the suggestion that complaint was dictated by him to the complainant. He claimed that as he had not trapped any Police Constable, he was not aware if any trap is ever laid for a Constable. He could not say if any other CBI Officer had ever raided for trapping a Constable. He denied the suggestion that he had suggested the CC No. 05/2012 Page28 of 73 complainant to involve S.I. Vipin as CBI generally did not conduct raid for a person of the rank of Constable. When the complaint Ex.PW-4/A was shown to the witness, he denied the suggestion that portion D to D thereupon was made by him subsequent to receipt of complaint in the Office. He further claimed having raided the accused at Tikona Park on basis of information. He admitted that the said information was not given in writing in the complaint but denied the suggestion that there was no such information. He did not remember the exact time when complainant came to CBI Office on 11.02.2004. He could not even tell approximate time in that regard or as to for how long he had stayed in CBI Office. He did not even remember at what time the Panch witnesses had reached CBI Office. He claimed having left the CBI Office for raid at about 5.00 P.M. and having reached the spot around 6.30 P.M. He further claimed that for successful raid, Officers upto rank of Inspector are occasionally given honorarium in the form of commendation or cash reward. He further claimed that he remembered the case by heart and denied the suggestion of having taken Prosecution file outside the Court room to refresh his memory. He claimed that the trap proceedings were completed by 11.30 P.M. and thereafter, they all returned back to CBI Office at about 1.00 A.M. or 1.30 A.M. He could not say if the Case Property had been deposited at 12.30 A.M. or 6.00 A.M. after returning to the Office. He denied the suggestion that in order to advance his career, he had framed the accused in the present false case. He claimed that he could not comment on the rewards received by him so far. He further denied the suggestion of having CC No. 05/2012 Page29 of 73 recommended names of Officers who were not even members of the trap team for purpose of award in this case. He could not tell about the incriminating articles recovered during house search of the accused. When the Site Plan Ex.PW-8/1 was shown to the witness, he claimed that he could not say as to who had prepared the same, but claimed that it did not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that it was prepared by him. He could not tell his position and that of other trap team members at the spot. He further claimed that the recording chip had been taken back from the complainant and after going through the Recovery Memo admitted that it was not so mentioned there. He claimed that the cassette of spot conversation was sealed by him at the spot itself i.e. in P.S. Timarpur. He denied the suggestion of having doctored with the sealing of the recorded conversation. He further admitted that part of the proceedings like collection of hand wash and recovery of bribe were conducted at the spot of occurrence while other proceedings were conducted in P.S. Timarpur. He denied the suggestion of having obtained signature of SHO on the Recovery Memo in order to give an impression that he was a witness to proceedings at Tikona Park. He could not say if it was 6.00 P.M. or 6.30 P.M. when the trap team reached P.S. Timarpur. It was claimed that the complainant had reached the place of occurrence alongwith Kailash Chand in his own Car. Accused was claimed to have reached the spot about one hour after the trap team reached there. He further claimed that he did not recollect the Car number. Although, he claimed that there was illumination in the Car, he was unable to tell source of the same. He CC No. 05/2012 Page30 of 73 claimed that he did not make any effort to know source of light. He further stated that after reaching the spot, the accused did not leave the place of occurrence and only roamed about in vicinity of the place of occurrence. He again claimed that the accused did go behind a Motorcycle but returned within 5 to 10 minutes. He admitted that there were some Constables alongwith accused on checking duty at the Check Post but he could not confirm their names. He denied the suggestion that the Panch witnesses were not joined in the proceedings in CBI Office on 12.02.2004 and denied the suggestion that proceedings dated 12.02.2004 were carried out by him of his own and signatures of witnesses were subsequently obtained thereupon. He further admitted that no one else had accompanied the complainant when he came to CBI Office on 11.02.2004. He further denied the suggestion that no pre decided signal was given by the complainant after transaction or that he apprehended the accused of his own. Witness admitted that the Jacket from which recovery was shown to have been made, was never sealed. He denied the suggestion that it was not sealed to manipulate signatures of Panch witnesses on pocket of the Jacket. He specifically claimed that he did not enter the Police Booth near place of occurrence. He was duly confronted with Recovery Memo Ex.PW-4/C where it was so recorded at page No. 7 point A to A. (He subsequently admitted that he did enter the Police Check Post). He did not remember if Police Staff used the said Check Post for having their meals and hanging their Civil clothes. He denied the suggestion that he had entered the Check Post, taken out a Jacket from CC No. 05/2012 Page31 of 73 amongst the clothes hanging in the Check Post and then planted the same upon the accused. He denied the suggestion of having made additions in Ex.PW-4/C to make it more incriminating. While referring to the Memo Ex.PW-4/C, witness claimed that the same had been prepared in the Police Station in a hostile atmosphere with much disturbances and without proper concentration. He claimed that after preparation of the Memo when the document was re-read, the discrepancies were rectified and perhaps carbon paper could not have been placed at appropriate place at that time. He admitted that some of the corrections have been made after signatures were obtained on the document. He denied the suggestion that proceedings were not correctly recorded in the Memo Ex.PW-4/C. He denied the suggestion that witness Shri Kailash had been with him in about 10 to 12 raids and was friendly to him. He further denied the suggestion that there was any protest from some public persons regarding wrong framing of accused in this case. He claimed that he was the Senior most Officer at the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that his investigation was prejudicial towards the accused. He did not deny that seal of parcel of the cassette was broken for preparation of transcription and copy of cassette for investigation purpose. He could not say if the case properties had been deposited in the Mallkhana after proceedings were conducted on 12.02.2004 or prior to the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that the Site Plan was vague without signature of maker and complainant and without any short notes and without mention of any distance. He claimed that he did not remember if he had mentioned CC No. 05/2012 Page32 of 73 colour of Jacket or its description in any of the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that there was nothing to connect the accused with the Jacket. He claimed that he did not remember number of seal and could not say anything about Mark 71/2003 on his seal. He denied the suggestion of having misused the seal unauthorizedly. He admitted that in the Memo Ex.PW-4/C, his signatures were appearing above his name on the Memo while in carbon copy Ex.PW-4/DA his signatures were appearing under name of the complainant. He volunteered that it was due to displacement of carbon paper. He further denied the suggestion that he had not handed over seal to PW Shri Kailash on 11.02.2004 or had held it back with ulterior motive and had misused it for tampering with the case property. He denied the suggestion that no demonstration was carried out in CBI Office. He further denied the suggestion that no demand or acceptance had been proved in the cassette. He further denied suggestion that there was no recorded conversation as the complainant and the accused had never met. He did not remember ass to who took hand wash of the accused or where the Bus was parked. He could neither affirm nor deny the suggestion that it was he who took hand wash of the accused. He denied the suggestion that signatures of witnesses on Handing Over Memo, Recovery Memo and Arrest cum Personal Search Memo were obtained without disclosing the contents thereof to the witnesses and without any such proceed having been carried out. He claimed that recovery of currency notes have been made from the accused inside the CBI Bus. Witness admitted that no permission from Court was taken for CC No. 05/2012 Page33 of 73 preparing duplicate cassette by breaking open the seal on 12.02.2004. He denied the suggestion that it was he who had applied Phenolphthalein Powder on the currency notes and that thereafter he did not wash his hands. He further denied the suggestion that Constables present at the spot with accused were not made witness as they were not supporting the false trap against the accused. He further denied the suggestion that the complaint had been drafted by him and was only copied by the complainant. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

PW-12 Inspector Rajnish Parmar produced and proved DD-20A dated 11.02.2004 P.S. Timapur as Ex.PW-12/1. He claimed that the said entry was made by the CBI team. 15 PW-13 Constable Narender proved entries of Mallkhana Register from CBI, ACB as Ex.PW-13/1. 16 PW-14 Inspector A.K. Pandey was I.O. of the case who had filed the Charge Sheet. He claimed that investigation was transferred to him on 15.07.2004 and thereafter he re-examined witnesses, obtained Sanction Order and filed the Charge Sheet in Court.

During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, he admitted that he had conducted house search of the accused. He claimed that nothing incriminating related to his case was found during house search. He claimed that he did not make any enquiry from the Expert, I.O. or TLO in respect of 4 page Transcript as mentioned in the CFSL Report. He claimed that the Site Plan was prepared by TLO. Although, he claimed having re-examined the CC No. 05/2012 Page34 of 73 complainant, he admitted that he had not recorded statement of the complainant. He admitted having re-examined SHO Bir Singh. He denied the suggestion that he had recorded statements just to help his Predecessor.

17 PW-15 Inspector C.K. Sharma was one of the members of the trap team and was also part IO of the case in so far as investigation was marked to him on 23.2.2004. During course of his examination in chief he deposed about facts and circumstances of the case in line with the prosecution story. He also identified his signatures on the documents and the case property.

During course of cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, he claimed that his statement had not been recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. despite his having never refused to make a statement. He could neither admit nor deny the suggestion that the TLO had not recorded statement of any member of the trap team. He claimed ignorance regarding any rule or guideline of CBI manual under which investigation ought to be transferred from TLO to some other officer immediately after the raid proceedings were over. He claimed that only case property deposited into or taken out from the malkhana was required to be entered in the malkhana register and that other articles like the trap bag, phenolphthalein powder etc. which are merely kept in the malkhana need not be mentioned in the register every time the same are taken out or returned back. He denied the suggestion that no demonstration proceedings had been conducted in CBI office. He specifically denied the suggestion that at about 7.45 PM accused had never gone near car of the complainant CC No. 05/2012 Page35 of 73 at Tikona Park, Timarpur or never sat in his car. He further denied the suggestion that no money was handed over by complainant to the accused as there was no demand made. He claimed that he was not aware as to who had prepared transcription of spot conversation between complainant and the accused, which transcription was sent to CFSL. He admitted that the transcript (D-14 - Ex. PW-4/D) was dated 19.4.2004. He further admitted that this transcription had never been sent to CFSL and he could not say as to which transcript had been sent by the TLO to CFSL alongwith the cassette. He claimed that he did not make any inquiry from TLO in this regard. He denied the suggestion that on account of lure of reward, CBI team had falsely implicated the accused in this case. He further denied the suggestion that accused had reached Tikona Park at 6.00 PM and not at 7.00 PM. He claimed that accused sat in car of the complainant at about 7.46 PM and remained there for about 4-5 minutes. He further claimed that he did not remember and had not seen the accused going anywhere after reaching the spot at 7.00 PM till he sat in the car at 7.46 PM. He claimed that he had never seen the accused talking on his mobile phone while in car. He further claimed that he had not seen the accused and a constable having chased another motorcycle rider at 7.40 PM. He could not say if the complainant was owner of Santro Car DL-8CG-7704 and claimed that he did not make any inquiry about its owner. He denied the suggestion that the complainant had not reached the spot in the Santro Car. He denied the suggestion that the washes had been tampered with. He further stated that the site plan had been CC No. 05/2012 Page36 of 73 prepared by SI G.K. Pradhan. He claimed that he could not say whether or not he had read the recovery memo before signing it. He claimed that he had correctly recorded statement of Kailash U/s 161 Cr. PC. On 19.4.2004 to the effect that copy of cassette was prepared at the spot. He claimed that he never asked the TLO as to why seal of the cassette pulanda was broken open on 12.2.2004 to prepare a copy while copy of cassette had already been prepared at the spot. He claimed that he did not conduct any investigation regarding allegation of the complainant about two constables who came to his house prior to the raid. He claimed that it was on 22.4.2004 that Gyanender handed over to him copy of RC of the Santro Car. He claimed that he did not make any further inquiry from Gyanender in that regard. He could not say as to who had obtained sanction order in this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being a partisan witness.

18 No other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution and hence, after prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C. without Oath. Accused denied all the allegations of prosecution. He claimed that he had been forcibly taken inside the CBI bus and that he had neither demanded nor accepted any money from the complainant and no money was recovered on his person. He claimed that documents were tampered with and that he had been falsely implicated in this case by Gujjars of Village Jagatpur to settle score with him. Accused chose to lead defence evidence and infact, as already stated, examined ten witnesses in defence.

                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page37 of 73
                 19                         DW-1 Shri R.K. Singh analysed the call details

already Mark P-15/X which appeared to be in respect of telephone No. 9810098013 of Bharti Airtel which was earlier Bharti Cellular Ltd. He claimed that the last column with title "Cell" depicted location of the Cell User and only the first three digits were to be taken into consideration. The Location Chart mentioning Site name and Site address was Mark D-1/X. He claimed that as per CDR the said Cell Number had received a call at 17:58:46 on 11.02.2004 of duration of 30 seconds and at that time, the telephone was at Mukherjee Nagar and had further received incoming calls at 18:06:32 and 18:40:33 at the same location. He claimed that thereafter it received one SMS at 19:34:51 when it was at Raket Road with Tower at Alipur Road, Civil Line. The number was again claimed to have received two incoming calls at 19:40:26 and 19:45:27 while under Tower at Parmanand Nagar and subsequent three calls at 19:48:39 (incoming) 19:50:58 (outgoing) and 19:51:47 (incoming) while being at Mukherjee Nagar. Durations of the said three calls were claimed to be of 97 seconds, 23 seconds & 288 seconds respectively. He further claimed that in the year 2004, distance between two Towers was approximately 2 ½ to 3 Kms. and the covering range of the Towers at that time varied between 2 Kms. to 3 Kms.

After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross-examined by ld. Counsel for the accused and during course of such cross-examination, he claimed that Mark P-15/X was in STML format. He claimed that it appeared to be unaltered and genuine.

CC No. 05/2012 Page38 of 73 During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that he did not know the full-form of STML. He claimed that no change can be made in call details which are in STML Format but admitted that any page of these documents can be typed on any Computer and print out taken and that changes can be made while so typing on the Computer. He further claimed that without checking the records, he could not say as to in whose name the number '9810098013' was registered or as to who was its actual User.

20 DW-2 Shri D.P. Gautam proved on record a Site Plan prepared by him as being Ex.DW-2/A. He identified his signature on the same. He further claimed that distance between points A & B as shown in the Site Plan was 105 feet while between points A & C was 48 feet and between A & E (Egg Rehri) was 40 feet.

During course of cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, he claimed that the points A, B,C & E and other markings on the Site Plan Ex.DW-2/A had been pointed to him by the accused and that he could not say anything about the actual positions at the time of incident. He admitted that there might have been some changes at the spot between 2004 to 2009.

Ld. Counsel for accused sought permission to re- examine the witness and during course of his re-examination, he claimed that the accused had brought to him photocopy of a Site Plan claiming to have been prepared by CBI and had shown it to him for identifying the places at the spot. He claimed that the spot was CC No. 05/2012 Page39 of 73 found in accordance with the photocopy of Site Plan produced.

During further cross-examination by ld. PP, witness admitted that he did not know the exact points depicted in the CBI Site Plan. He claimed that it was the accused who pointed out the spots to him claiming the same to be as per photocopy of CBI Site Plan.

21 DW-3 Shri Satender Tripathi claimed that in 2004, he was working as Correspondent with Hindi Newspaper 'Hindustan'. When copy of Newspaper (Hindustan) dated 12.02.2004 was shown to the witness, he claimed that he was the Correspondent in respect of the news published at point 'A' on page No. 5 of the Newspaper and that copy had been given by him to S.I. Vipin in his Office.

During course of cross-examination by ld. PP witness claimed having worked with 'Hindustan' from 1997 till 2008. He claimed that without seeing the records, he could not tell details of his reporting. He admitted that the report (A) did not bear his name and was not his exclusive story. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to help the accused.

22 DW-4 Shri Ravish Kumar claimed that in the year 2003 in the month of February, a Tractor Trolley carrying sand had been stopped by S.I. Khattri in their area and a quarrel started between Driver and S.I. Khattri. He claimed that Choudhary Surender Singh of the Village happened to reach there when quarrel shifted to be between S.I. Khattri and Choudhary Surender Singh, and S.I. Khatrri caught hold of Collar of Surender Singh. He claimed that when other Villagers intervened, S.I. Khattri called for more CC No. 05/2012 Page40 of 73 Police force and a riot like situated arose. He claimed that S.I. Vipin (accused) was appointed I.O. of the case and he arrested some Villagers including Choudhary Surender and also used to harass the Villagers. Witness claimed that a Village Panchayat was then held and it was decided there that S.I. Vipin had to be taught a lesson. He further stated that after some time, S.I. Vipin arrested one Ishwar whereupon meeting of Villagers was held and it was decided to implicate S.I. Vipin in some matter as he was targeting the Gujar Community. He claimed that Gyanender and Shreepal present there contributed money in that regard. He claimed that after two or three days he came to know that S.I. Vipin had consequently been got implicated in some case.

During cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness claimed that he was a student of LLB in 2003 and belonged to Gujar Community. He denied the suggestion that he was in litigation with Ishwar, Gyanender or Shreepal or had any grudge against them. He admitted that he was neither made an accused nor was he harassed by S.I. Vipin. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in favour of S.I. Vipin as the accused had let him and his family off in that case. He admitted that the facts stated by him during his deposition had never been disclosed by him earlier. He claimed that despite being an educated person, he did not deem it proper to retaliate or report the decision to falsely implicate a Police Officer. He claimed that he had not communicated this fact in writing to any Authority and did not deem it proper to inform CBI about false implication of the accused.

                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page41 of 73
                 23                         DW-5 Shri Rakesh Bhardwaj                          claimed that on

11.02.2004, he alongwith his wife had gone to Mother Diary Booth near Bus Stop near Tikona Park, Timarpur for purchasing Vegetables. He claimed that while his wife was purchasing Vegetables, he himself came out for smoking and stood by side of the road. He claimed that there was a Police picket across the road from where he was standing and 2 - 3 Police Officers were checking Vehicles there. He claimed that there was a Police Booth at corner of Tikona Park near the Picket and that about 10 steps from there, the accused S.I. Vipin Kumar was seen by him having been encircled by 3 or 4 persons and that some physical quarrel was taking place between them. He further claimed that as soon as he tried to cross the road to go near S.I. Vipin, one gentleman came out from the Booth and he was having a Jacket in his hand. It was claimed that the said man told S.I. Vipin that the Jacket belonged to him (S.I. Vipin) and that Rs.10,000/- had been recovered from the Jacket and asked S.I. Vipin to count the same. It was claimed that S.I. Vipin kept refusing to count the money. Witness claimed that 3 or 4 persons surrounding the accused dragged him and took him into a Bus lying parked near the Quarters. He claimed that many people including he himself asked as to what was the reason, when one gentleman claimed that they were from CBI and asked them to return back. He claimed that those persons took S.I. while he himself returned back. He claimed that S.I. Vipin was Division Officer of their area and as he himself had a Photography Shop, S.I. Vipin used to approach him for taking Photographs of the spot.

CC No. 05/2012 Page42 of 73 During course of cross-examination by ld. PP, witness claimed that he had his Shop at a distance of less than ½ (half )Km. from the Park and that at the relevant time, his house was at a distance of 200 to 250 meters from the Tikona Park. He claimed that he had shut down his Shop by about 7.00 P.M. on 11.02.2004. He denied the suggestion that there were 3 - 4 Vegetable selling Booth near his House. He further denied the suggestion that at the relevant time, S.I. Vipin was wearing a Leather Jacket. He claimed that the incident took place at about 8.00 P.M. - 8.10 P.M. He claimed that about 8 to 10 days back SI Vipin had met him and asked him to reach the court and state all the facts as seen by him on 11.2.2004. He denied the suggestion that time and date of incident had been refreshed to him by SI Vipin. He claimed that as usual they had left their house at 7.30 PM on 11.2.2004. He could not say if he had left the spot at 8.00 PM/8.15 PM or at any other time. He claimed that the bus was lying parked in dark and he had not seen it. He claimed that he never came to know that accused had been arrested in this case by CBI for taking bribe. He claimed that as he had grown old he was not doing any work for the police station. He claimed that he did have interaction with ACP & SHO after the date of incident but had never told facts of the case to any of them on any occasion. He claimed that he did not deem it proper and fit to talk about the incident with them. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at instance of SI Vipin. 24 DW-6 ASI Narender produced on record sanction file in respect of SI Vipin Kumar from office of DCP (North). He CC No. 05/2012 Page43 of 73 claimed that as per record letter dated 13.10.2004 had been sent from S.C. Tiwari, SP, CBI to Sanjay Singh, DCP (North). The letter was Mark DW-6/A. Copy of draft sanction order was Mark DW-6/B and letter dated 20.12.2004 by S.C. Tiwari, SP, CBI to Rajesh Khurana, DCP (North) was Mark DW-6/C. During cross examination by Ld. PP, witness claimed that the sanction file was in his custody from October, 2006 till the time of its production in court. He claimed that he had never permitted the accused to inspect the same. He denied the suggestion that on 24.1.2003 (when examination in chief was recorded) he had brought the file of his own.

(In view of examination in chief of the witness recorded on 24.1.2013, this court was of considered opinion that interest of justice required the file to be retained in court till further orders. Accordingly Ahlmad was directed to put the file in an envelope and seal it with seal of the court. The envelope was opened and then re-sealed during course of further trial proceedings).

25 DW-7 HC Kamal Singh claimed that on 11.2.2004 he was posted in PS Timarpur as a constable and at 6.00 PM was on vehicle checking duty with SI Vipin, HC Vijayan and Ct. V.N. Mudda. He claimed that at about 7.30 PM SI Vipin signalled a motorcycle rider to stop and as he did not stop, he was chased by SI Vipin and himself (witness). He claimed that they were able to overtake the rider, stop him, check his documents and question him. He stated that at that time a telephone call had been received from PS CC No. 05/2012 Page44 of 73 Timarpur by SI Vipin on his mobile phone wherein he disclosed about apprehension of the motorcycle rider. He claimed that as documents of motorcycle were found in order, the rider was let off and they both returned back to spot of duty at about 8.00 PM. He claimed that while they were performing duty, SI Vipin again received a telephone call and while he was talking, 3-4 persons came and ghearoed him. He claimed that one of those persons brought out a jacket from inside the police booth, took out some money from the jacket claiming that it belong to SI Vipin and put forward the money before SI Vipin to hold the same. Witness claimed that when they objected, the said persons claimed that they were from CBI. He claimed that 2-4 public persons also collected there and objected. It was claimed that SI Vipin was dragged and taken into a vehicle where they too were taken, searched and made to sit. He claimed that when they were asked to leave, he returned back to his point of duty. SHO Timarpur was also claimed to have visited the spot at 6.45 PM. He claimed that they all were in uniform and no car was seen by him lying parked near the Tikona Park.

During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness denied the suggestion that SI Vipin had reached Tikona Park on his motorcycle at about 7.00 PM or had remained there till he was apprehended. He claimed that CBI officers apprehended him at about 8.05 PM. He further denied the suggestion that after reaching Tikona Park at 7.00 PM, SI Vipin had a talk with complainant Ishwar Singh at 7.45 PM. He claimed that infact he never saw SI Vipin talking to any Ishwar Singh nor had he seen any Santro Car lying CC No. 05/2012 Page45 of 73 parked there. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this regard. He admitted that prior to his deposition in court i.e. 24.1.2013 he had never stated to anyone the facts stated by him in court. He denied the suggestion about hand wash of accused having been taken by CBI officer inside the bus. He claimed that he returned back to PS Timarpur after completion of his duty hours at about 9.00-9.15 PM and that CBI officers were present there at that time. He claimed that he had not informed the SHO or the ACP regarding false implication of SI Vipin in this case. He claimed that he had never informed any authority in writing in this regard. He could not tell name of any of the CBI officers at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at instance of SI Vipin. He claimed that the timings deposed by him were not written anywhere and he was stating the timings by approximation as per his duty timings.

26 DW-8 Shri Prem Lal identified his signatures on Ex. PW-15/DB, 11/D1 & D2 and also on every page of Ex. DW-8/A. He claimed that the said information had been furnished to the applicant on basis of RTI application filed by him and was as per office records.

During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness agreed that rewards are given to officers for honest working.

After seeking permission from the court, witness was re-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and he then stated that copy of application under RTI Act was Mark D8/1 and reply from the Department was Mark D8/2.

CC No. 05/2012 Page46 of 73 During cross examination by Ld. PP, witness admitted that rewards were declared by SP, CBI and were sanctioned in cases of successful raids/searches. 27 DW-9 HC T. Vijayan during course of his examination in chief reiterated facts as stated by DW-7 HC Kamal. He however claimed that police officers on duty near the booth kept their tiffins, uniforms and personal articles including civil clothes in the booth while being on field duty.

After seeking permission, witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that the persons who had gheored SI Vipin had claimed that it was a raid and they were CBI officers. He further admitted that SI Vipin claimed that the jacket did not belong to him and that he should not be falsely implicated. He further admitted that some public persons who collected at the spot also objected to acts of those persons. He claimed that no hand wash of accused had been taken in his presence.

During cross examination by Ld. PP, witness denied the suggestion that S.I. Vipin was wearing a Leather Jacket on that day. He admitted that only four of them were on Picket duty at the spot from 6.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. and that during the said period, the Police Booth was under their control. He had no idea regarding arrest of Ishwar Singh on 08.02.2004. He claimed that S.I. Vipin had not talked to any individual person on that day and had remained in his view till he was apprehended. Witness claimed that he never came to know as to for what reason Vipin had been CC No. 05/2012 Page47 of 73 apprehended or for what purpose the raid was conducted. He claimed that after duty was over, he returned back to P.S. Timarpur and reached there at about 9.00 P.M. - 9.15 P.M. and then left for home. He claimed that he had no knowledge as to whether or not SHO and ACP had reached the Police Station by that time. Allegations of the Prosecution were put to the accused who denied the same. He further claimed that after S.I. Vipin was taken to the Bus, he and Constable Kamal were called there and no proceedings were conducted in the Bus. He denied the suggestion that hand washes and pocket wash were taken there. He denied the suggestion that he had not informed the DO or the SHO about apprehension of S.I. Vipin as he had been rightly apprehended by CBI. He also admitted about not telling the Sr. Officers in this regard. He admitted that being the second senior most Officer at Picket duty, it was his duty to inform Sr. Officers about apprehension of his senior i.e. S.I. Vipin in this case. He admitted that his Picket duty was over at 8.00 P.M. while he reached P.S. Timarpur at 9.00 P.M. - 9.15 P.M. He admitted that he had not informed any Sr. Officer about the incident during the intervening period. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused as he had worked under him.

28 DW-10 ASI Ravinder Kumar claimed that entry DD No. 18A & 20A dated 11.2.2004 (Register Ex. PW-12/1) were not in his handwriting. Copy of DD 72B dated 11.2.2004 PS Timarpur was proved by him as Ex. DW-10/A. Copy of DD 16A dated 9.2.2004 was proved as Ex. DW-10/B while copy of DD 18A dated 9.2.2004 CC No. 05/2012 Page48 of 73 was proved as Ex. DW-10/C. After seeking permission from the court, witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that on 11.2.2004 at about 7.45 PM he had given a telephone call to SI Vipin at his mobile number 9810098013 from land-line of PS Timarpur. He claimed that normally entries are made in DD register at the accurate time. He claimed that CBI officers reached PS Timarpur at about 9.00 PM on 11.2.2004 and instructed him to stop writing the Roznamcha thereafter. He claimed that it was thereafter that they made entry DD 20A noting down the timings as 9.00 PM and 22:30.

During course of cross examination by Ld. PP witness claimed that he had not reduced into writing anywhere the time (7.45 PM) when he made telephone call to SI Vipin. He claimed having made the call on direction of the SHO but admitted that the said fact was not reduced into writing. He claimed that the CBI team did bring SI Vipin to PS Timarpur on the night of 11.2.2004 and that the SHO and ACP had also been called there on directions of CBI. He admitted that the CBI team had duly informed them about the incident. Upon seeing copy of DD No. 20A dated 11.2.2004 (Ex. PW-12/1) witness claimed that as per the said entry, CBI team had reached PS Timarpur at about 9.00 PM and had left at 22:30.

29 No other witness was examined in defence and hence arguments advanced by Ld. PP and Ld. Counsel for accused were heard.

                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page49 of 73
                 30                         It was submitted by Ld. PP that prosecution case

stood proved from testimonies of PW-4,5,7,8,9,11 & 15. It was claimed that the initial demand was made by the accused on 10.2.2004 and the bribe amount was accepted by him on 11.2.2004. It was pointed out that the complainant had duly supported the prosecution story as regards demand made by the accused and had also proved his complaint. PW-8 Kailash Chand, it was stated had recovered the bribe amount from jacket of the accused while other proceedings stood duly proved by other members of the trap team. Ld. PP pointed out that the accused had never raised any voice qua his false implication and rather kept mum when apprehended and this fact connotes his guilty mind. It was claimed that the CBI officers primarily PW-11 & 15 had duly stood by prosecution evidence and had corroborated the prosecution story in totality. As per Ld. PP it was not a case of grant of benefit of doubt to the accused as prosecution had proved its case beyond all shadows of doubt. It was submitted that in case the accused is let off, a wrong signal would go to the society.

31 Ld. Counsel for accused on the other hand submitted that there was no basis for prosecution story to stand upon as the complainant himself and the other so-called public witnesses have not supported case of prosecution. During course of his submission Ld. Counsel has taken this court through testimonies of the complainant, the two so-called independent witnesses Kailash Chand and Nanak Chand in this regard. It was further submitted by Ld. Counsel that the complaint is silent about the spot where bribe CC No. 05/2012 Page50 of 73 amount was to be given but still spot was mentioned in column No.5 of the FIR, nor is there any written record about information qua the place of incident. It was submitted that in absence thereof, it has not been explained as to how the trap team reached Tikona Park where SI Vipin was scheduled for duty. It was also pointed out that there was no record of any conversation having taken lace at the spot between complainant and the accused and that the so-called recorded conversation/transcript did not support case of prosecution regarding any demand or acceptance therein by the accused. It was pointed out that the site plan itself was in doubt and was not duly proved. While on this, it was submitted that it was not proved on record as to who infact had prepared the site plan, no details were mentioned in the site plan and that the site plan was not corroborated by testimony of the witnesses. Ld. Counsel also pointed out from the records that the jacket from which the currency notes were allegedly recovered was never sealed at the spot nor any mark of identification put on it. As per Ld. Counsel, details of the jacket have not been deposed to by any of the witnesses who only claimed that accused was in uniform. Genuineness of the recorded conversation was also challenged by Ld. counsel who pointed out from records that although cassette containing conversation was prepared and sealed on 11.2.2004, the seal was broken open by the CBI officers on 12.2.2004, copy prepared and the cassette resealed. It was submitted that genuineness and correctness of the recorded conversation was in doubt. Yet another point raised by Ld. Counsel was that in case CBI officers were seeing the transaction, as was CC No. 05/2012 Page51 of 73 claimed by them in court, there was no occasion for them to wait for a signal from the shadow witness or the complainant. Ld. Counsel submitted that in case the CBI officers had seen the incident, they could simply approach and apprehend the culprit and ought not to wait for any signal from any person. Delay of 2 - 4 months in recording statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was also highlighted by Ld. Counsel. It was submitted that chances of manipulation could not be ruled out. Even the sanction order passed in this case was challenged and it was submitted that no valid sanction order was passed. Ld. Counsel pointed out that a letter dated 20.12.2004 had been received by the sanctioning authority from CBI whereupon the sanctioning authority made corrections in the earlier sanction order dated 15.12.2004 but still signed the sanction order as 15.12.2004. It was submitted that apparently sanctioning authority had acted under thumb of CBI. Various contradictions in testimonies of the witnesses were also highlighted by Ld. Counsel. It was also argued that some material witnesses like Inspector G.K. Pradhan, SI Prem Nath etc. were not examined by the prosecution. Attention of this court was also drawn to testimony of PW-8 Kailash Chand who had admitted that he had earlier been a witness in 10-12 cases and hence knew Inspector Navneet. As per Ld. Counsel, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on testimony of this witness and also of his office colleague. It was prayed that accused be acquitted. It was further submitted that the defence witnesses examined had duly proved the defence being raised by the accused.

                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page52 of 73
                 32                         During course of his submissions, ld. Counsel

inter-alia placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements i.e .Habeeb Mohd. Vs. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1954 SC 51); Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of MP (AIR 1954 SC 15); Kadiya Kambi Bhavan Manji Vs. Ismail Mamad & Another ( AIR 1955 Saurashtra 32); Bhagwan Dayal Piarey Lal Vs. State (AIR 1968 Allahabad 290) Ganadesh V Khandeparkar Vs. State (AIR 1968 Goa Daman & Diu 63) Kambi Vaghji Savji Vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1968 Guj. 11); Lachman Dass Vs. State of Punjab (1970 SC

450); Harchand Singh & Another Vs. State of Haryana [1973 STPL (LE) 6971 SC]; Tanu Kayputra & Another Vs. The State [1977 Cri.LJ (NOC) 119 (Cal)];G.B. Patel & Another Vs. State of Maharashtra (1979 SC 135); Gulam Mahmood A. Malek Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1980 SC 1558); R. Venkatesan Vs. State (1980 Crl.L.J. Page 41); Sevi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1981 SC 1230); Satya Narain Vs. State [1984 STPL(LE-Crim) 14520 Allahabad High court]; Raju Vs. State of UP [792 Crimes XI 1984(2)]; G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration) [1987 STPL (LE) 13191 SC]; Jwala Singh & Others Vs. State (1988 ALL.L.J. 1187); Sher Singh Vs. State (1989 (1) Crimes

283); Panchanan Rout Vs. State of Orissa (1991 Cri.LJ 2442; Pooran Chandra Rastogi Vs. State of UP (1992 Cri.L.J. 2430); Abdul Rashid Ansari Vs. State of UP in Criminal Appeal No. 2997 of 1983;Suresh Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of MP [1993 STPL (LE-Crim) 9099 MP); N.M. Rajendran Vs. The State [1995 STPL (LE-Crim) 7485 MAD]; Vineet Narain & Others Vs. UOI & CC No. 05/2012 Page53 of 73 Another [1997 STPL (LE) 24692 SC]; Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1997 SC 3400); Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab [1998 STPL (LE) 25504 SC]; Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra [2003 STPL (LE) 32306 SC]; State of Maharashtra Vs. Anant Gurunath Jotrao (2005 Cri.L.J. 4450); T. Subramaniam Vs. State [(2006) Insc page 9]; Balwinder Singh @ Billa Vs. State of Haryana [2009 (2) RCR (Criminal 730]; Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 325]; Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of MP[2010 STPL (LE-Crim) 33769 MP]; Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 959]; Vishal Chand Jain Vs. CBI in Crl. A. No. 579/2005; Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI (Delhi) [2011 (2) JCC 1059]; Pitabash Lohara Vs. State of Orissa [2011 (4) Crimes 196]; Lalaso Balu Shaikh & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 945 of 2003; Virendra Kumar Bhaladhare Vs. State of MP [2012 (1) Crimes 28 (MP)]; Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. State of MP [2012 STPL (LE-Crim) 43247 CHH].

33 In reply arguments, it was submitted by Ld. PP that the initial demand stands proved on record by PW-4,5 & 7, acceptance of tainted bribe amount by the accused stands proved from testimonies of PW-5,11 & 15 while recovery was proved by PW-5,8 & 15. While referring to the judicial pronouncements, Ld. PP submitted that merely because the complainant turns hostile, prosecution story cannot be thrown out. It was also submitted that merely because the independent witnesses joined in the raid had participated in some earlier raid proceedings, he could not be termed CC No. 05/2012 Page54 of 73 as a stock witness and his testimony could not be thrown out for this. It was submitted that prosecution witnesses had duly proved demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused, who by keeping mum when confronted by the TLO, had accepted his guilt by way of his conduct. It was further submitted that no reliance could be placed upon the defence witnesses examined in this case as the accused had miserably failed to prove on record that the mobile number belonged to him or was being used by him. In support of his submissions and his reply arguments, ld. PP placed reliance inter- alia upon Ali Vs. State (1995 Crl. L.J. 2974) ; Madan Lal Vs. State (2010 IX AD (Delhi) page 687); Ram Chander Vs. CBI (177 (2011) DLT page 90); State through CBI Vs. Satvir Singh (176 (2011) DLT 556); Satish Chander Vs. CBI (2011 IX AD (Delhi) page 270) and had also placed heavy reliance on Mahesh Vs. State ((2008) 13 SCC page 271).

34 I have given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and have also perused the records.

35 Let us start with the complaint Ex.PW-4/A. Admittedly, the complaint was moved by complainant Shri Ishwar Singh before CBI Authorities on 11.02.2004. On basis thereof, FIR Ex.PW-11/1 came to be registered which mentions that complaint was received in CBI Office at 2.30 P.M. It had been admitted by the complainant during course of his testimony that the words at point D to D "Verna Kal 10,000 Rupay de Jana" were not in his handwriting and were not so mentioned when he moved the complaint. Now, as was rightly pointed out by ld. Counsel for the accused and has been CC No. 05/2012 Page55 of 73 observed by this Court, the complaint is absolutely silent about the place or time when the bribe amount was to be handed over to the accused. Surprisingly, the place finds mention in FIR which had been registered before CBI team left the Office. The place mentioned is Timarpur, Tikona Park and direction and distance are mentioned as north and 19 Kms. away from CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The same finds mention in Column No. 5 of the FIR. Now, it had no where come on record as to how or under what circumstances the place and direction came to be mentioned in the FIR. It appears that the concerned Officers of CBI had a premonition as to where the transaction was to take place and knew the distance from CBI Office even before they left the Office. In the alternative, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that FIR was anti - timed and had been prepared afterwards. It would be pertinent in this regard to mention that the TLO (PW-11) during course of his cross- examination had claimed having raided Timarpur on basis of information given to him by the complainant. There being no record as to when complainant had given said information, doubt is created regarding genuineness of the FIR.

In Abdul Rashid Ansari's case (Supra), there was nothing in the complaint or any of the subsequent documents to show the time or place for giving and taking of the bribe nor was there anything in the documents to indicate that the same had been informed to the TLO or other CBI officers by the complainant. It was observed that despite there being no certainty for availability of accused, the trap was organized it was something strange and cast CC No. 05/2012 Page56 of 73 suspicion as to the act and conduct of the investigating team. In the present case all that has been claimed is that information in that regard was given by the complainant. Admittedly, there is no document prepared in that regard and the handing over memo Ex. PW-4/B simply mentions that the trap team left the CBI office for police check post at Tikona Park under PS Timarpur. In absence of even a word as to how the said place or time was fixed, in opinion of this court the story put forth is suspect.

36 As per case of prosecution after FIR came to be registered, demonstration proceedings were conducted which are reflected in Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B. Now time of commencement of these proceedings is not mentioned in this document although, it is mentioned that the Memo was completed at 16:30 hrs. Last paragraph of the document makes interesting reading. It mentions that this Handing Over Memo is completed at 16:30 hrs and signed by all the members of the trap team including both the independent witnesses and the complainant. The trap team left the CBI office for Police Check Post at Tikona Park under P.S. Timar Pur. The complainant and the shadow witness left by complainant's Santro Car bearing No. DL-8CG-7704 and other members followed the same by Government Vehicles. Thereunder appear signatures of 8 witnesses. It is surprising as to how aforesaid facts came to be mentioned in the Memo over and above signatures of the attesting witnesses. It appears that all is not well with this document.

                37                         As regards the Recovery Memo Ex.PW-4/C, copy


                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page57 of 73

of this document handed over to the accused was placed on record by ld. Counsel as Ex.PW-4/DA. Perusal of the said two documents reveal that signatures of the TLO Inspector N.V.N. Krishnan appear on the right hand side in the original while the signatures appear on left hand side and in the middle in the carbon copy. No plausible explanation had been furnished in this regard except for vague submission that the misplacement was due to shifting of the carbon paper. This submission in opinion of this Court holds no ground as the signatures on the carbon are too misplaced as compared to those on the original for the same to have appeared at that place due to mere shifting of the carbon paper. Moreover, the signatures on the carbon copy also appear to be in original.

38 So much for the documents prepared in this case. 39 During course of trial, the complainant has disowned case of the prosecution as was laid out before this Court. The complainant had been examined as PW-4 and during course of his testimony in Court, he had specifically claimed that it was two Constable who came to his house who had informed him about the accused having called him and about his having demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him. He had claimed that even after reaching the spot, he had insisted to hand over bribe money to the accused but Constable present there insisted on receiving the money and hence he (complainant) handed over money to him (Constable). No doubt, during course of cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, witness admitted having mentioned in his complaint about accused having demanded money from him, but he had denied the suggestion that CC No. 05/2012 Page58 of 73 accused had ever demanded Rs.10,000/- from him on 10.02.2004 or 11.02.2004. He further claimed that when he had a talk with CBI Staff in CGO Complex and told them his problem regarding two Constables coming and demanding money, it was the CBI staff which told him that complaint should be given against that person for whom bribe was being demanded and that CBI staff also gave him the draft complaint which was copied by him as being Ex.PW-4/A. That being the position, the complainant apparently has exonerated the accused and has denied all the suggestions of the accused having demanded or having received any bribe amount from him. It would be pertinent at this stage to mention that although case of the prosecution was to the effect that complainant had gone to the spot from CBI Office in Santro Car bearing No. DL-8CG-7704, the complainant during course of his testimony in Court specifically claimed that he had gone to the spot from CBI Office in his own Wagon R Car and Santro Car did not belong to him. At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mentioned that Gyanender who was owner of the said Santro Car examined as PW-7 (name wrongly mentioned as Dayanand in place of Gyanender) specifically claimed that on 11.02.2004 he had taken his vehicle i.e. Santro Car bearing No. DL-8cG-7704 for some work of the Bank where he worked and had left his house at about 9.00 A.M. or 10.00 A.M. and had retruned back at about 8.00 P.M. or 9.00 P.M. and that Shreepal (PW-5) was also with him during that period. There had been no challenge to his this testimony by the prosecution side and as such, testimony of PW-7 Gyanender throws out entire case of prosecution regarding the complainant having gone to the CC No. 05/2012 Page59 of 73 spot in the Santro Car and regarding the alleged transaction of bribe having taken place inside the said Car.

40 PW-5 Shreepal, as per case of Prosecution was a friend of the complainant and during course of his examination-in- chief, he appears to have reiterated the entire case of the prosecution except for the fact that he claimed that a Pen type Tape Recorder was given to the complainant to record conversation and that he could not see if tainted money was handed over to accused by complainant or not and that he did not see the transaction of money. Now interestingly , the witness had not mentioned all these facts during course of his statement recorded U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-5/DA) and infact during course of his cross-examination his entire examination-in-chief was confronted as none of those facts found mentioned in his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Apparently, this witness had made material improvements while deposing in Court as compared to what was stated by him before the CBI Officers. In this regard, it would pertinent to refer to Sher Singh case (Supra) wherein it was observed that when the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another, testimony of such witness fails to inspire confidence. Also pertinent in this regard would be observations made in Pitabash Lohara case wherein it was observed that where material aspect of evidence deposed in Court had not been deposed before the I.O. in course of recording of statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C., credibility of the witness becomes suspect and normal course is not to accept such evidence to record the conviction of the accused.

                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page60 of 73
                 41                         The other public witness PW-7 Shri Gyanender

(wrongly mentioned as Dayanand) as per his testimony in Court had never witnessed the actual incident of transaction in this case and whatever was stated by him in Court was as per information given to him by Ishwar Singh. However, during course of his cross- examination by ld. Counsel for accused, he caused a major dent in the prosecution story regarding the Santro Car being not available at the spot (as has already been discussed hereinabove). Significantly, the witness was never re-examined or cross-examined by the Prosecution to clarify ambiquity.

42 PW-8 Shri Kailash Chand during course of his examination-in-chief had claimed that Ishwar Singh was driving a Car like Maruti but could not tell the exact make. He had deviated from the prosecution story when he claimed that immediately after reaching the spot, accused sat in vehicle of the complainant and after coming down, he went to the nearby Police Booth. He claimed that he took out money from pocket of jacket of accused immediately after he was brought out from Police Booth by the CBI Officers. He could not remember from which pocket he took out the money or fingers of which hand of the accused were washed and also what was the colour of the solution. He could not even identify the Jacket Ex.P-60 as he claimed that he could not exactly say whether it was the same Jacket or not. He could not even identify currency notes. He claimed that Site Plan Ex.PW-8/1 was prepared at the time of demonstration and Ishwar Singh was given a Digital Recorder and conversation recorded therein was copied in a cassette. Surprisingly, CC No. 05/2012 Page61 of 73 the witness was never cross-examined by ld. PP in that regard. 43 It was during course of his cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused that the witness claimed that he had earlier been a witness in 10 to 12 cases and for this reason, he had been familiar with the TLO Inspector Navneet. He could not say as to what was meant by 'LHW', 'RHW' & 'LSJPW' and admitted having signed the bottles at instance of CBI. He could neither deny nor affirm that there were Rs.10,000/-, some powder and wash of hands of Nanak Chand in the bag carried by trap team to the spot. In this regard, it would be pertinent to refer to G.V. Nanjundiah's case wherein it was observed that where one of two independent witnesses had admitted having earlier joined 3 or 4 raids of CBI and the other independent witness was from the same Office, none of them could be called an independent witness. Also pertinent is Virender Kumar's case (Supra) wherein also it was observed that where two witnesses joined in the trap raid were from same Office, they could not be called independent witnesses. Kailash Chand & Nanak Chand admittedly were from the same Office i.e. Sales Tax Department. In view of the aforesaid discussion of testimony of PW-8 Shri Kailash Chand and the judicial pronouncements relied upon, in opinion of this Court, no reliance can be placed on his testimony.

44 It would be significant to mention herein that as per case of Prosecution and as deposed by the TLO, cassette containing conversation between complainant and the accused as had been prepared on 11.02.2004 was sealed and after all CC No. 05/2012 Page62 of 73 proceedings were over, seal was handed over to PW-7 Shri Kailash Chand and on 12.02.2004, the seal was broken open, copy of cassette prepared and it was re-sealed after taking seal from Kailash Chand. During course of his testimony in Court, Kailash Chand denied that seal of the sealed cassette had ever been broken open in his presence. Kailash also claimed that seal was never taken back from him after it was given to him on 11.2.204.

45 Now, Kailash Chand has claimed that Nanak Chand accompanied him throughout proceedings. The said Nanak Chand when examined as PW-9 had claimed that he alongwith Kailash Chand had reached CBI Office at about 10.00 A.M. and had remained there till evening when CBI Officers told them that telephone call had been received and they had to go to Timarpur. He claimed that they were not told objective of visit to CBI Office and both were taken to Timarpur and after 15 minutes he and Kailash Chand and others were asked to come out and taken to the Police Station where he was made to sit in room of SHO and his signature obtained on some papers. He claimed that no other proceedings took place in his presence. He denied all the suggestions to the contrary put up by ld. PP during his cross-examination. 46 So, the position is that neither the complainant has supported case of Prosecution nor testimony of the so called independent witnesses comes to rescue of the Prosecution. Even the investigation in this case has left much to be wanted. Recently, in Surajit Sarkar Vs. State (2013 VII AD (SC) page 435), it was observed that investigation must be precise and focused and in case CC No. 05/2012 Page63 of 73 Investigating Officer leaves glaring loop holes in the investigation, the defence would be fully entitled to exploit the lacuna. It was further observed therein that it would not be permissible to ignore the defects in an investigation and hold a person guilty of an offence which he appears to have not committed.

47 Besides, there are some material contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses which shake case of Prosecution from its foundations. While PW Shri Kailash Chand had claimed that accused was searched and money taken out by him near the Police Booth, as per the TLO and other CBI Officers and case of prosecution, the recovery was made in the CBI Bus after hand washes of accused had been taken. There are discrepancies in testimonies of witnesses as to whether the complainant had stated about the accused having put the money in the left pocket or inner left pocket of Jacket. Significantly, colour of the Jacket was never deposed to by any of the witnesses and rather few of them even failed to identify the same when it was shown in Court. All the witnesses have claimed that accused was in uniform. It is also case of prosecution that accused was wearing a Leather Jacket. Now, in case accused was wearing the Leather Jacket, how could the TLO see his name plate and PW Shri Kailash Chand see the Stars on his shoulder strip has remained unexplained. As already mentioned hereinabove, prosecution story of accused having sat in the Santro Car at the spot and the transaction having taken place there are disowned by the complainant and PW Shri Gyanender as complainant claims having gone to the spot in his Wagon R Car CC No. 05/2012 Page64 of 73 (although he denies any transaction having taken place inside the Car or with accused) and PW Shri Gyanender (wrongly mentioned as Dayanand) claimed that Santro Car was with him from morning till night for his official purpose and could not have been at the spot for the transaction.

48 Let us deal with the Sanction Order. Much had been argued by ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that the Sanction Order Ex.PW-3/A was a fabricated document. It had been submitted that earlier Sanction Order dated 15.12.2004 was modified by Shri Rajesh Khurana after receipt of letter dated 20.12.2004 from CBI where upon a fresh Sanction Order was prepared and was signed in back date as 15.12.2004. It was claimed that infact it was this back dated order which was being relied upon in this case. As per ld. Counsel, the Sanction Order had been passed without application of mind and had caused prejudice to the accused. 49 This Court thinks otherwise. What appears to this Court is that the original Sanction Order dated 15.12.2004 was not found to be happily worded by the concerned Authorities of CBI and as such they desired that it be modified as per their request. It is not the case that the Sanctioning Authority Shri Rajesh Khurana had ever refused to accord sanction or had subsequently accorded sanction under pressure of CBI or in view of letter dated 20.12.2004. What transpires in this case is that the originally drafted Sanction Order was modified by the Sanctioning Authority to bring it in consonance with desires of the CBI Officials. This by no means can lead this Court to infer that the order was passed under pressure of CC No. 05/2012 Page65 of 73 CBI officials. What had been changed was language and not substance of the Sanction Order. Although, it would have been desirable that the Sanctioning Authority would not have changed the original Sanction Order merely to bring it in consonance with desires of CBI Officials. The concerned Sanctioning Authority should have struck to its order and should not have modified it (language-wise) but even if the same has been done, no fault can be found with the order Ex.PW-3/A as it is now stands. It had been observed in Mansukh Lal's case (Supra) that mind of the Sanctioning Authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be connecting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. It was further observed that since the discretion vested absolutely in the Sanctioning Authority, it must be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration and the Authority should not have been compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution. As already observed in the present case, the discretion had been exercised by the Sanctioning Authority of its own free will and only some corrections/ modifications in the language used was made at instance of Investigating Agency.

50 Let us now have a look at the cassette and the transcript. Admitted, as per case of the prosecution a credit card type chip was given to the complainant for recording the conversation and the conversation was recorded at some distance by one Manoj Kasana. As already pointed out herein-above, the said credit card type chip has been referred to as being a pen type recorder and also a digital phone recorder by different witnesses.

CC No. 05/2012 Page66 of 73 Now, a perusal of transcript dated 19.4.2004 (Ex. PW-4/E -D-14) reveals that there is no explicit demand by any person recorded therein. A perusal of it reveals that it refers to some conversation before sitting in the car and not thereafter as last few lines mentioned "Gaadi mai baith le" and "Haan gaadi main baith le and gaadi main baithna mai abhi aa raha hun". This implies that the conversation recorded was prior to sitting in the car. Admittedly there is no transcript or recorded conversation on record recording the alleged transaction which took place inside the car. Be that as it may, it is admitted case of prosecution that cassette prepared on 11.2.04 was sealed and the seal was broken upon by CBI officials of their own on 12.2.04 without any permission from the court or any senior CBI officer. Not only this, a perusal of CFSL report dated 21.4.04 (Ex. PW-1/A) reveals that transcript of spot conversation of four pages had been sent to CFSL alngwith forwarding memo on 23.2.2004. It has remained a mystery during course of trial as to what was the transcription which had been sent to CFSL on 23.2.2004 when the transcription (D-14) admittedly was prepared on 19.4.04. There is no explanation whatsoever regarding the two transcripts. In this regard it would be pertinent to refer to observations made in Vishal Chand's case (Supra). In said case too the complainant had turned hostile and although he proved his complaint, he did not support case of prosecution regarding the demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused. In that case also there was story of two transcriptions having been prepared i.e. one dated 21.9.2002 and the other dated 30.9.2002. It was observed "the doubt is compounded for the CC No. 05/2012 Page67 of 73 reason that if the transcript was already available on 21.9.02, there was no occasion for the IO Inspector Alok Kumar to prepare another transcript on 30.9.02. Thus, in my view, audio recording of the conversation is suspect and prosecution cannot take advantage of said recording." Facts of present case are similar. 51 Not only this, there is yet another disturbing fact in this case which was not pointed out by either side during course of submission at the Bar. As per case of prosecution, CBI team had used the seal "CBI 71/2003 ACB ND". This seal had been used inter-alia on all the sealed parcels. It was impression of this seal which appears on the documents and it was the seal impression on the parcels sent to CFSL in respect of washes. However, as per CFSL report (D-13) Ex. PW-1/A, the cassettes sent for examination to CFSL were sealed with seal of "CBI ACB ND" and not with the seal of "CBI 71/2003 ACB ND".

Interestingly, the seal impression was mentioned at more than one places in the report as "CBI ACB ND". This leads this court to the conclusion that all has not been well with the investigating agency in this case. Although the recorded conversation even otherwise does not come to help of the prosecution, the fact noted herein above testifies to slip shod manner of investigation and unending endeavour to implicate the accused in this case.

52 As per case of prosecution, accused was wearing a jacket, after receiving the money kept it in the jacket and the bribe amount was subsequently recovered from the same. Now, the said CC No. 05/2012 Page68 of 73 jacket (Ex. P-60) was never got identified from the complainant (PW-4) & PW-5 Shripal while PW-8 Kailash Chand and PW-9 Nanak Chand refused to identify the same as being the same jacket which had been worn by the accused at the time of incident and from which recovery was effected. In Jasbir Singh's case (Supra), the case property had not been sealed and non establishment of identity of incriminating articles by the prosecution was taken as one of the grounds to acquit the accused.

53 Peculiar facts of case have led this court to give thoughtful consideration to the story put forward by the investigating agency. Investigating agency wants this court to believe that accused had demanded bribe from the complainant and when complainant reached the fixed place, even after meeting the complainant, accused remained busy in doing some other work (checking of vehicles) and came to the complainant after about 45 minutes and then sat in his car to receive the bribe amount. It is also claimed on behalf of the investigating agency that lights inside the car were "on" when accused received the bribe amount. The story appears improbable to this court. Firstly, when the bribe receiver meets the bribe giver, he would surely like to take the bribe in hand in the first instance and not postpone taking of bribe. Significantly, he would not like to have the car lights "on" while taking the money and surely would have the lights "off" or atleast choose a place with low or dim light to complete the transaction. He surely would not like to have the lights "on" while taking or counting money as this court is being made to believe. There is yet another suspect in this regard. As per CC No. 05/2012 Page69 of 73 claim of CBI officials in the trap team, they saw the complainant giving money to the accused, accused counting it and putting it in pocket of his jacket. In case the CBI officers had seen it, there is no reason why they kept watching for a signal from the shadow witness/complainant before proceeding to apprehend the accused. They could surely have come forward and apprehended him. Similar observations was made in N.M. Rajendran's case (Supra) wherein it was observed "Thus the very claim of the prosecution appears to be very superfluous and imaginary, not at all possible for any moment. If an officer of the rank of Inspector piloted the whole scheme of trap and was sitting at the very nose of those people, watching the entire episode , where exists the need for signaling by PW-2 to such an officer."

54 The alleged incident in this case took place on 11.2.2004. Statements of as many as 9 witnesses appear to have been recorded in this case. A perusal of those statements reveals that the same had been recorded on various dates between 5.4.04 to 20.7.04. There does not appear on record any statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. which had been recorded on 11.2.04 or immediately thereafter. The gap of nearly two months in recording the statements of witnesses has remained unexplained from side of the prosecution. 55 In Raju's case (Supra), statement U/s 161 Cr.

P.C. was recorded on the next day of occurrence. It was observed inter-alia therein that if the investigating offer deliberately avoids to record the statement of eye witnesses with promptness, the investigation becomes suspect and tainted and does not inspire CC No. 05/2012 Page70 of 73 confidence at all. To similar effect was the observation in Maruti Rama Naik's case (Supra) wherein it was observed that no reliance could be placed on testimony of witness whose statement was recorded a day later when the investigating officer had ample opportunity to record the said statement on the day of incident itself. 56 Although during course of his submissions Ld. Counsel for accused had placed reliance on a plethora of judicial pronouncements which have been mentioned herein-above, only the relevant ones have been referred to in detail despite the court having gone through all the judgments.

57 As regards the judicial pronouncements relied upon by Ld. PP, the same have been perused by this court and in considered opinion of this court the same do not come much to rescue of the prosecution. In Ali's case (Supra) while referring Privy Council judgment (1947 PC 75), it has been observed "testimonies of witnesses do not become inadmissible for the reason that the police had read out the statement to them before they entered the witness box.

58 In Madan Lal's case (Supra) bribe amount was reportedly recovered from coat of the accused, but on facts the said case is quite different from the present.

59 Ram Chander's case (Supra) primarily dealt with presumption under PC Act.

60 In Satvir Singh's case (Supra) it had been observed that testimony of a hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record all together and part of his evidence CC No. 05/2012 Page71 of 73 which is otherwise acceptable can be relied upon. It had further been observed therein that testimony of a witness could not be discredited merely because he had appeared as a witness in 3-4 cases of CBI. In the present case the witness had admittedly joined 10-12 raids and admitted that he knew the TLO Krishnan in that regard. So, on facts present case is distinguishable.

61 While referring upon Mahesh's case (Supra), it was argued that minor discrepancies should not be taken into consideration and that delay in recording statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was immaterial and merely because a witness had appeared earlier has a Panch witness, his testimony was not discredited. A perusal of said judgment would show that there had been delay of 3-4 days in the said case and the Panch witness reportedly had been appearing as Panch witness from 1978 to 1981while in the said case he had joined investigation in the year 1988. His residence was proximate to the police colony. Facts of this case quite different. 62 Keeping in view all the aforesaid, this court in facts and circumstances of the case is of considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case to the hilt. There are different versions on record regarding recovery of currency notes and the proceedings conducted thereafter, which make prosecution story doubtful. It is undisputed proposition of law that where it is possible to have two view from evidence on record i.e. one in favour of prosecution and the other in favour of the accused, the latter should prevail. In the present case on an over all consideration, a reasonable doubt certainly arises regarding guilt of the accused.

CC No. 05/2012 Page72 of 73 Prosecution having failed to establish guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, accused in considered opinion of this court is entitled to an order of acquittal and he is accordingly ordered to be acquitted.

             Announced in the open court                                       (M.R. SETHI)
             on 27.07.2013                            SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
                                                              TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI




                  CC No. 05/2012                                                                             Page73 of 73