Delhi District Court
In Re vs Dr. C. P. Singh on 8 July, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03 CBI NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CC No.012011
RC No.DAI2006A0043/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
DR. C. P. Singh
S/O SHRI NANHE RAM
R/O A2/75 Sector 19, NOIDA, UP.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for CBI.
Mr. Arif Mohd. Khan, Advocate for the accused.
08.07.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Dr. C.P. Singh has been arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) for having been caught red handed for accepting bribes for expediting the case of Om Parkash, a baildar for his promotion to the post of Asstt. Malaria Inspector in MCD. FACTS
2. The case of the prosecution is that Om Parkash (PW10) lodged a hand written complaint dated 06.10.2006 Ex.PW10/A State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.1/21 2 with SP, CBI alleging therein that Dr. C.P.Singh, Deputy Medical Health Officer, MCD, demanded Rs.2,000/ as illegal gratification from him for expediting the process of his promotion from baildar to Assistant Malaria Inspector and that the amount demanded was to be paid by him to the accused Dr.C.P.Singh, as per the latter's instructions in his office in the evening on the same day but he was unwilling to pay the same. The case of the prosecution is that after confirming the demand and bad reputation of the accused, F.I.R. Ex. PW 10/C was recorded and investigation was marked Inspector Prem Nath (PW14) who requisitioned services of two independent witnesses namely Y.P.Singh (PW11) and J.M.Vasava (PW13); that pre trap formalities were completed in the office of CBI such as giving instructions to the complainant Om Parkash as to how to use the digital recorder and the witnesses as to the manner of laying down the trap; that the bribe amount was made available by the complainant Om Parkash in the nature of 4 GC notes of Rs.500/ each which were applied with Phenolphthalein Powder in regard to which the holding memo Ex. 10/B was prepared and the CBI team alongwith the complainant and independent witnesses reached the office of MCD at 74, G Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi at 5.45 PM ; that the complainant contacted the accused on his Mobile No. 9811011928 from his Mobile No.9810586082 when the accused State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.2/21 3 told him that he was expected to reach office back at 8.00 PM; that the CBI team alongwith the complainant and independent witnesses remained at the spot awaiting for the arrival of the accused who came at 9.15 PM and climbed up the stairs to his office chamber.
3. It is then the case of the prosecution that the accused was followed by the complainant who struck a conversation with him in the stairs and went upto his room and bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/ was given to the accused and accepted by the accused; that as soon as the bribe amount was accepted, the pre appointed signal was given and accused was apprehended.
4. The prosecution case is that the conversation between the complainant and accused was tape recorded by using digital recorder; that bribe amount of Rs.2,000/ was recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the accused and the hand wash besides wash of the right side pocket of the pant with colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate turned pink. Needless to state, the case of the prosecution is that the proceedings and documentation work was done at the spot; that site plan Ex. PW 12/B and recovery memo Ex. PW 5/A were prepared; that the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 12/A and after obtaining sanction for prosecution as per Section 19 of the PC Act the present charge sheet has been filed against the accused for State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.3/21 4 committing an offence under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988.
CHARGE
5. The accused being a public servant was charged for having demanded and accepted Rs.2,000/ as illegal gratification from the complainant Om Parkash on 06.10.2007 at 9.15 PM at the stairs of first floor of G74 Connaught Place, New Delhi within the meaning of Section 7 of PC Act. The accused was secondly charged for using corrupt or illegal means for obtaining pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.2,000/ from the complainant Om Parkash and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses. At the cost of repetition, the complainant Om Prakash was examined as PW10 who supported the prosecution case and on whose evidence I shall dwell in detail in the reasoning part of this judgment. PW11 was Y.P.Singh, was posted as Personal and Administrative Officer in Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar who was associated during the pre trap and post trap proceedings and the shadow witness was PW13 J.M.Vasava, who retired as Senior Pay & Accounts Officer, ONGC,Delhi. State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.4/21 5
7. The prosecution further examined four officials from Anti Malaria Department, MCD. PW3 was Prem Dutt Sharma, LDC who deposed that next promotion of a Malaria baildar in the MCD is to the rank of Permanent Jamadar which post was lying vacant during the relevant time; that Mayor had written a letter to the Municipal Health Officer for filling up 87 promotion posts of Malaria Jamadars but the seniority list of the Malaria Jamadars was not ready. He deposed that information had been sought from the accused who was working as Deputy Medical Health Officer for preparation of tentative list of baildars and the accused had written letter dated 19.04.2006 Ex.PW3/A to 12 different Zones falling under him for preparation of seniority list. Another witness from MCD was PW5 Naresh Singh Chauhan, Assistant Malaria Inspector. He was posted in the same office as the accused and deposed that on 06.10.2006 he had left the office after duty hours but was called again to the office by the CBI at 11.00 PM and on coming back to the office he joined the proceedings and signed the recovery memo dated 07.10.2006 Ex.PW5/A. PW6 was Ajay Pal Singh, Malaria Baledar, who deposed that accused had been caught by the CBI and he was called to the office to sign the recovery memo Ex.PW5/A. PW8 was Surender Sharma, Malaria Beldar . He also deposed that he was called to the office in the morning at 4.00 AM on 07.10.2006 and State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.5/21 6 was called upon to sign certain documents.
8. The sanction for prosecution granted against the accused by the Competent Authority vide resolution dated 08.10.2007 running into 10 pages was proved by PW7 U.B.Tripathi, Director, Vigilence, which is Ex.PW7/A.
9. In the category of expert witnesses were examined PW1 V.B.Ramtek, Sr.Scientific Officer, GradeII, Chemistry, CFSL. He deposed examining the sealed bottles Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 containing the hand wash and right side pant's pocket wash of the accused soon after his apprehension and proved his report Ex.PW1/A that the solution contained the presence of Phenolphthalein in both the exhibits.
10. PW2 was D.K.Tanwar, Sr. Scientific Officer, GradeII (Physics), CFSL. He deposed examining two sealed parcels Q1 and S1 and conducting the auditory examination of the voices of the conversation contained therein and proved his report Ex.PW2/A inter alia proving the exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and stated that the voice in the audio Q1 resembled the voice in the specimen of the accused S1.
11. The prosecution also examined R.K.Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited in regard to the call details of Mobile No. 9810586082 belonging to the complainant i.e. Ex.PW4/B alongwith Mobile Application Form, Copies of Driving Licence State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.6/21 7 and Ration Card Ex.PW4/C1 to C3.
12. The call details of Mobile No.9811011928 belonging to the accused were deposed by PW9 Jyotish Moharana, Alternative Nodal Officer, Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Limited i.e. Ex.PW9/B.
13. PW12 was Inspector Umesh Vashist, who was a member of the trap team that nailed the accused.
14. PW14 was Inspector Prem Nath who was the Investigating Officer or the Trap Laying Officer who deposed about entertaining the complaint Ex.PW10/A, summoning the witnesses and conducting all the necessary proceedings leading up to the formal arrest of the accused for taking bribe.
15. Lastly PW15 was Dy.S.P. Karan Arya, who got his name changed from H.K.Lal and deposed that he took charge from inspector Prem Nath and obtained details of the call records in respect of the mobile numbers of the accused and the complainant and collected the CFSL report and after obtaining sanction for prosecution filed the charge sheet in the Court. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/DEFENCE EVIDENCE
16. On the close of the prosecution evidence all the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to the accused who denied the case of the prosecution and refuted that he accepted any bribe from the complainant. He deposed that he State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.7/21 8 never demanded any money nor accepted the same from the complainant and rather the complainant tried to thrust the money into his pocket saying it was Rs.2000/ to which he remarked "kaya main paiso ko sir pe maru" and stated that he has been framed in this case by an overzealous complainant who was not entitled to be considered for an out of turn promotion for the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector.
17. In defence, accused has examined DW1 Dr.N.R.Dass, Deputy Medical Health Officer, who deposed about the lay out of the office of DMHO and deposed about certain photographs Ex.DW1/1 to Ex.DW1/5.
18. DW2 was Dr. A.D.Somashekhar, A.D. Malaria. He deposed that Dr.C.P.Singh was with him on 06.10.2006 and they came back to the Connaught Place Office at 8.30 PM after attending a meeting with the DHO and went to their respective rooms to prepare a status report on Dengue as per the directions of the Chief Secretary.
19. I have heard Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI) and Ld.Defence Counsel for the Act. I have perused the record carefully and minutely.
20. Shri A.K.Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for the State urged that though the accused was not a member of the Promotion Committee, he being the Deputy Medical Health Officer was entrusted with the State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.8/21 9 task of receiving nominations of the baildars from 12 different zones under him and vested with the task of forwarding the same to the Competent Authority which he was deliberately delaying for ulterior motives. He urged that in any case whether or not the accused was in a position to favour the complainant is hardly of any consequence in as much as motive is not required to be proved under the P.C.Act and presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises of such motive or reward on raising a demand and accepting the bribe.
21. Ld. Sr.PP for the State (CBI) has further urged that the accused came late at night in his office and had the audacity to meet the complainant for the purposes of accepting the bribe amount; that there was no other factor that could explain the intimacy between the accused and the complainant. He urged that the tainted money was recovered from his possession ; that the hand wash as well as pant pocket wash were positive and there was no question of the money being planted.
22. Per contra Shri Chander Shekhar, ld. Counsel for the accused has urged that complaint being a baildar was not eligible for out of turn promotion as Assistant Malaria Inspector and he referred to the copy of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules which is Ex.10/D1to the effect that the same was brought into effect in 2010 and earlier to that the promotion from Baildar was State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.9/21 10 to the post of Jamadar and then to the Assistant Malaria Inspector. Ld. Counsel has vehemently urged the complainant as the General Secretary of the Union of Baildars had collected money from several Baildars on promise of expediting the process of their promotion and since it was getting delayed he got the accused framed in order to silence them. Mr. Chander Shekhar, ld. Counsel has vehemently urged in reference to the tape recorded conversation vide Ex.Q1 and the transcript Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E that no demand was made by his client for receiving illegal gratification which was even admitted by PW12 Inspector Umesh Vashist and PW14 Inspector Prem Nath. He then took the Court through the evidence of PW10 Om Parkash, PW11 Y.P.Singh and PW13 J.M.Vasawa and brought out certain discrepancies or contradictions in their evidence interalia pointing out that inner lining of the pant Ex.P2 seized from the accused after the incident did not turn pink and it was a case where the money was attempted to be thrust into the pant pocket of the accused and he had been framed. In his submissions, he has relied on following decisions (1976) 1 SCC 37 Muluwa v. State of M.P; (1995) 3 SCC 351 M. O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala; 73 (1998) DLT 318 Chander Bhan v. State (CBI); (2006) 2 SCC 250 Om Parkash v. State of Haryana; (2009) 2 R.C.R. (Cri.) 134 C. M. Girish Babu v. CBI; (2009) 3 R.C.R. (Crl.) 370 A. Subair v. State of Kerala; State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.10/21 11 (2009) 15 S.C.C. 200 State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Gao Wankhede; 2011 (2) JCC 1059 Prem Singh Yadav v. CBI.
FINDINGS
23.It is in the evidence of PW10 Om Parkash that after lodging of written complaint Ex.PW10/A, at the behest of the CBI officials he made a call to the accused in order to confirm that there was demand for illegal gratification from his side. Perusal of call record of Mobile No. 9810586082 Ex.PW4/B in the name of the complainant would show that an out going call was made on 06.10.2006 at 12.49.50 to Mobile No. 9811011928 belonging to the accused and the same is corroborated as per the call detail record of the latter Ex.PW9/B. However , there is no tape recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused in regard to the said confirmation. Secondly, there is no denying the prosecution case that the CBI team alongwith the witnesses and the complainant reached at 6.30 PM at the Anti Malaria Department, Connaught Place at about 6.30 PM and a call was made by complainant from his mobile to that of the accused at 18.34.49 as indicated in call detail records Ex.PW4/B visàvis Ex.PW9/B. The said tape recorded conversation was played in the court and the transcript is Ex.PW10/D. The voices in the tape that was played in the court were identified as that of the accused and State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.11/21 12 the complainant and it goes as under : "A(Accused) Hello Dr. C.P.Singh C(Complainant) Sir Ji Namaskar Om Parkash A Namaskar C Chaat Khaoge Sir, Neeche Khara hun Main A Hai Hai C Chaat Khani Hai Sir A Kahan Pe C Yahi Khara Hun Neeche Connaught Place Mein Aaoge Abhi A Main Thora late Aunga Yaar C Kitne Baje Tak Sir A Aath Baj Jayenge C Acha Ji, Aaj Itna Kaise Sir A Aaj Ek Meeting Hai, Uski Ek Vo Banani Hai Report, Ruko To Dekh Lo, Teri Marji C Chalo Main Dekhta Hu, Rukunga Sir, AA Jana A Hun C Aa Jana. "
24. The said conversation doesn't signify any demand for bribe made by the accused. The prosecution case is that thereafter the accused came at 9.30 PM and climbed the stairs leading to his Office along with DWI when he was followed by complainant and shadow witness PW13 J.M.Vasawa. It is the prosecution case that as soon as conversation was struck by PW10 Om Parkash with the accused, the digital tape recorder was put on. It is in evidence that there were 23 persons outside his office and while one of them the complainant was allowed to go inside, the shadow witness PW 13 was stopped and he was told that it was a govt. office and outsiders were not allowed. PW11 Y.P.Singh, PW12 Inspector Umesh Vashist and PW14 Inspector Prem Nath corroborated the version of PW13 J.M.Vasawa that he could not follow the State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.12/21 13 complainant and the accused inside the office of the accused and was sent back by some employee from the stairs . PW10 Om Parkash here admitted in his cross examination that Naresh Chauhan talked to shadow witness but he was unable to say whether the shadow witness was stopped by Naresh Chauhan and asked to go back.
25. It would be pertinent to mention here that the lay out of the office is depicted in site plan Ex.P.W.12/B and PW12 Inspector Umesh Vashist and Inspector PW14 Inspector Prem Nath besides other witnesses admitted that office of the accused was located on the first floor which could be approached by stairs in "ZShape" i.e. 89 steps on access from the ground floor and then a platform and then again 89 steps and then on the platform, the office opening on the right side. PW10 Om Parkash deposed that as soon as he was inside the room (sic - office), the accused asked him if he had brought the money and he replied in the affirmative and took out the tainted amount of Rs.2,000/ from his pocket and extended the same towards the accused, who accepted it with his right hand and kept the same in his right side pant pocket. He further deposed that as soon as the accused accepted the money he started to move outside the room for proceeding to his residence; that he was not in a mood to talk but still he requested him that his promotion file may now be cleared by him to which the accused replied that he was in a hurry and he had to reach his office as he was already late. The tape recorded conversation converted into the transcript State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.13/21 14 Ex.PW10/E running into 6 pages goes as under : C (Complainant) Chand Sahab Kaise Aaye
1. Vivek Sath Tu Bata, So Hai Kaya Ho Gaya (Not Audible) Aa Baith Ha Ji Kaise, Kisse Milna Hai S.W. (Not Audible) Bhai Kaam, Raat Mein, Bhai Raat Mein Thore hi Kaam Kar Raha Kaun Sahab Koi Sahab Na Choro Na Choro Na Bhai Ka Naam Batao S.W. C Are Ajay Paani Pila De Bhai Acha Sir Thank You C Are Bhai Surender Paani Pila De Kisko Nahi Sare Kisko Aavan Ko Para ji Election Aa Raha Hai Ab Batao Kaise Karna Hai Maine Ek Bar
- Woh Hi Baat Kar Raha Hu Aapse Woh Hi Doctor Sahab AA Gaye C Kitna Time Lagega Une Ek Minute Hai C Kitna Time Lagega Aane Mein Kaun Sidhe Sidhe Baat Kar Di Maini (Not Audible) Main Marta Hu Pachas Sou Ki Jarurat Nahi Hai Aise Bilkul Bhi (Complainant Ki Staff Ke Logo Se Baat Cheet Ho Rahi Hai Do Minute Ke Baad Mein) C Sir Namaskar A(Accused) Aa Gaya Tu (not Audible) Yeh Pardhan Ne Pareshan Kiya Hua Hai Sir Dekhta Hu Sahab Ji Aa Gaye Bata Du Mana Kar Diya usne Photo Copy Banao, State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.14/21 15 Maine Bharti Kare Andar Daba Diye Sahab Ko De Diye Ha De Diye Thik Ek Minute Tape Chalne Ke Baad Kaya Baat Hai, Kayon Pareshan Kar Rahe Ho Chal C Mera Sir Ji A Hai Bhai, Ha Bolo, Bolo C Meri File Me Baat Kahni Thi A Kaye Ki C Wait Kar Raha Tha Vaise A Hai C Aapke Ane Ki Wait Kar Raha Tha Ki Aa Rahe Ho Sava Aath Baje Tak A Kab, kahan C Aapse Telephone Pe Baat Hui A Han Han C Main Aa Jau Samjha Nahi Nikalne Parenge A Kisko C Mayor Sahab Kahte Hai FileWile Ke Liye Promotion Wali Ki A Uspe Major Point Honge C Aisa Kis Liye A Usme Mere Ko Kaya Dikkat Hai main To Kar Doonga, Mujhe Kaya Hai C Ek Minute A Chale C Ek Minute A Han C Ek Minute A Nahi Bekar Ki Baat Nahi Sochni Chahiye C Thik Hai Sahab Ji A Manu Main Tension Nahi Rakhta, Kahi C Thik Hai Sir, Thik Hai A Samjhte Hai, Dimag Kharab Kar Rakha Hua Hai Saalo Ne, Subhe Se C Do Hazaar The A Hain C Do Hazaar Hain Ji A Paise Ko Sar Mein Marunga, Chal Bhi Aa Na, Kaha Gaya C Udhar Hai, Ab Kaha Ja Rahe A Hum C Chor Do Ji, Aage Tak Chor Doge A Nahi Arey AA YaarKahan Gaye Bhai Yeh Delhi Administration, Tilak marg State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.15/21 16 A Tilak Marg Pe Chief Secretary Ke Paas Jana Hai Tilak Marg A Yeh Tilak Marg kahan Hai C Tilak Marg Yeh Raha Ji A Chal Chal Phir Guest House Tu Kary Pe Jayega , Kahan Jayega Ghar C Main Bhi Nikal, Ha Ji Ghar Niklunga Ji A Idhar Kahan Se Bachao use Koi Baat Nahi Ek Minute Ha Bata Diya, Koi Baat Kaa Hua, HuaNahi Paise Ek Minute Ji Anjaan Vayakti Paise Haath Se Liye C Ha Ji Anjaan Vayakti Natak Nahi, Natak nahi Is Haath Liye, Esme Rakh Kaun Se Haath Se Liye The Sidhe Haath Se Hun Sidhe Haath Se Haath Pakar Kar Rakhna, Haath Pakar Kar Rakho Ghar Ka Address "
26. Now, in regard to the appreciation of evidence in trap cases, their lordships in the case of M. O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala (Supra) observed as under : " It is well settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.16/21 17 cannot be acted upon Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribegiver has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon it or not in those given circumstances."
27. With the said proposition of law at the back of our mind, when I advert to this case I am afraid bare perusal of the transcript Ex.PW10/D read visàvis the hearing of the tape recorded conversation Ex.PW10/E do not indicate that any demand was made by the accused for illegal gratification. It doesn't reflect that any talk of promotion of the complainant was broached with the accused or that any amount was discussed or demanded. There are several contradictions in the evidence of witnesses that belie the prosecution story. PW10 Om Parkash in his cross examination confronted with the question that no demand for bribe was reflected in the conversation tried to make a material improvement stating that accused demanded bribe by using some gestures that were not explained by him. This statement was in contradiction to his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC. Ex. PW10/D3 where nothing was indicated that accused demanded bribe by using some gestures. Further State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.17/21 18 damage is caused to the prosecution case by PW11 Y.P.Singh who in contradiction to the evidence of PW10 Om Parkash that bribe money was paid in the office, testified that he saw the complainant and the accused coming down the stairs having a conversation and the complainant handing over the bribe amount to the accused. PW11 Y.P.Singh further lied and over zealously stated that the office of the accused at first floor was visible from the ground floor where the members of the CBI team were stationed/deployed which fact was denied by not only PW13 J.M..Vasawa but also by PW12 Inspector Umesh Vashist and PW14 Inspector Prem Nath and clearly brought out in the photographs E.X DW1/A1 to A6 that leads to an inference that he was not present at the spot during the relevant time.
28. At the cost of repetition, PW13 J.M.Vasawa who testified that he had not seen the transaction taking place between the accused and the complainant. Infact contrary to the statement under Section 161 Cr.PC.Ex.PW13/DX in which he stated that accused on being apprehended denied that he had accepted any bribe, in his examination in the court, he testified that the accused on being apprehended accepted that he had taken bribe. Last but not the least, if the prosecution version is accepted, the tainted money was put by the accused in the right side pocket of the pant which on applying solution of sodium carbonate after State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.18/21 19 his apprehension turned pink but examination of the the inner lining of the pant of the accused Ex.P2 by the court indicates that it remained quite white throughout this time and not pinkish in colour which was put to thet witnesses and that further creates suspicion in the mind of this court with regard to the veracity of the case of the prosecution.
29. The sum and substance of the above discussion is that at the time of the transaction only the accused and complainant were present. The tape recorded conversation Ex.PW10/E does not indicate that any demand of bribe was made and rather the purport of tape recorded conversation indicate that the accused was shocked and baffled on being offered the money and instantly remarked "Paise Ko Sar Mein Marunga," which translated in English imply "what the hell he would with the money"and therefore, it is difficult to discern that any demand of bribe was made. The taped recorded conversation rather indicates that the complainant very cleverly ducked the issued and started talking on subject that had nothing to do with his promotion. In regard to presumption under Section 20 of the Act, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case State of Maharashtra. Vs., Dnyaneshwar Laxman Gao Wankhede (Supra), wherein it was State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.19/21 20 observed as under : "16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence viz. Demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused visavis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."
30. It is in evidence that PW 11, 12 and PW 14 admitted in their cross examination that there was nothing in the tape recorded conversation to indicate that any demand for bribe was made by the accused. Needless to state the complainant was an "interested witness" and his version about the incident appears to be not truthful and not above suspicion. In the absence of corroboration from any independent source it is difficult to rely on his words alone. Mere fact that his hands had turned pink on applying the solution of sodium carbonate is not decisive in as much as the defence version is that the complainant suddenly thrusted the money upon him. The proximity between the two is hardly of any State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.20/21 21 consequence considering that PW 10 was the General Secretary of the Union. It is also in evidence that the accused had come back to the office with his colleague DW2 after attending a meeting with the Divisional Health Officer. Working in the Malaria Department it is but obvious that he constantly required services of baildars and it is but probable that the complainant being the General Secretary of the Union maneuvered the entire incident in such a manner so as to frame the accused piqued by the fact that he could not be promoted as Asstt. Malaria Inspector or in order to silence the other Baildars and the accused is able to put forth a plausible explanation of the sequence of events. FINAL VERDICT
31. In the said view of the discussion, I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence charged. The accused is on bail and his bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 08.07.2011.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03 CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI v. Dr. C. P. Singh Page No.21/21