Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . 1. Vikram Singh @ Vikram on 24 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI:
CBI Case No. 46/2016
RC3(A)/2012
BranchCBI/ACB, New Delhi
U/S 120B of IPC and
U/S 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act.
CNR No. DLET010012972012
CBI Vs. 1. Vikram Singh @ Vikram
S/o Sh. Harsaroop Singh
R/o Gali No.3/23, Vill. Gokulpur, New
Delhi.
Permanent Add: Vill & PO Samaypur,
Meerut, U.P.
2. Sardar Singh S/o Late Sh. Khazan Singh
R/o 2/6, MCD Staff Quarters, Andrews
Ganj, New Delhi49.
Permanent Add: Mohalla Mahboob Patti,
Kheri Kalan, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Kamal Prakash Yadav
S/o Sh. Rampati Yadav
R/o 77, Lumabani Apartment, Sector14,
Kaushambi, Ghaziabad, U.P.
Permanent Add: Vill. Jai Ke Pura, PO
Belasara, Distt. Ballia, U.P.
CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.1/53
Date of Institution : 14.09.2012
Date of Reserving for Judgment : 22.12.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2018
J U D G M E N T :
1. The CBI has filed the present chargesheet against three accused persons, namely, Vikram Singh @ Vikram, Sardar Singh and Kamal Prakash Yadav under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of of P.C. Act.
2. Accused Vikram Singh was posted as Beldar, whereas accused Sardar Singh was posted as J.E. in ward No. 237, MCD, Shahdara, South Zone at the relevant time. Accused Kamal Prakash Yadav was also posted as J.E. in the said ward but was transferred on the day of trap. A complaint dated 30.01.2012 was made by complainant Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu wherein he alleged that he was a contractor and was constructing two houses bearing No. 4/2578, Gali No.7, Bihari Colony and 177A, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. First house was at the stage of finishing, whereas the another one was still under construction. He further alleged that J.E. and Beldar of the area had demanded Rs.50,000/ from him for not booking the houses and for not taking demolition action. The said complaint was marked to Inspector Nikhil Malhotra for CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.2/53 verification. He secured presence of independent witness Sandeep Rohilla. In order to verify the complaint, complainant made a telephonic call to accused Kamal Prakash Yadav, J.E. During conversation, complainant asked him to make some concession in the bribe amount which was being demanded by accused Vikram Singh, on which accused Kamal Prakash Yadav told him that he would talk to accused Vikram Singh and would apprise him later on. At about 3.50 p.m., complainant received call from accused Vikram Singh who insisted the complainant to meet him and decide the amount of bribe. CBI team along with complainant reached office of accused persons where a conversation between the complainant and accused Vikram Singh took place which confirmed the demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/. Accused Vikram Singh asked the complainant to pay the bribe in his office in the evening. All the said conversations were recorded. FIR was registered. As it was late in the evening, trap was decided to be laid on 31.01.2012.
3. On 31.01.2012, presence of independent witnesses Surender Singh and Sandeep Rohilla was secured. Complaint was shown to independent witnesses and trap party members. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.20,000/ and informed that he could arrange only that much amount. Description of GC notes was mentioned in Handing over memo which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Its reaction with sodium CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.3/53 carbonate was explained to all the trap party members. Tainted GC notes were put in right side pant pocket of the complainant and he was directed to hand over the same to accused Vikram Singh on his specific demand. A digital recorder was handed over to the complainant to record the conversation which may take place between him and accused persons. Independent witness Sandeep Rohilla was directed to act as shadow witness to overhear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe. The complainant was directed to give signal by rubbing his face with his both hands. Another witness Surender Kumar was directed to remain with trap party. Shadow witness and complainant were also directed to give calls from their mobile phones on the mobile of Vikas Kumar Pathak after transaction of bribe in case they could not see the trap party members.
4. After completion of handing over proceedings, trap party left the CBI office at about 1430 hours and when reached IP Extension, the complainant made a call to accused Vikram Singh during which he informed that he would be coming to the office of complainant to collect the bribe amount. Thereafter, trap team reached the office of complainant at 4/161, Old Tejab Mill, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara and team members took position. The complainant and Sandeep Rohilla went inside. The complainant made call to accused Vikram Singh during which he called the complainant to MCD office, Shahdara CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.4/53 South, Delhi. Trap team members left at about 1540 hours and reached the office of accused. The complainant made a call to accused Vikram Singh and informed that he was waiting at Petrol Pump opposite MCD building to which accused informed that he was coming at the rear gate of MCD office. Remaining team members took suitable position. After a few minutes, accused Vikram Singh came near the gate of MCD office and signalled complainant to wait at the Petrol Pump to side gate where he met the complainant. The complainant had conversation with him and they also took tea. Thereafter, accused Vikram Singh demanded bribe. The complainant took out GC notes of Rs. 20,000/ and handed it over to accused Vikram Singh who received the same with his right hand and kept it in his right side jacket pocket. Acceptance of bribe by accused Vikram Singh was also seen by other team members. The complainant also gave preappointed signal. Accused Vikram Singh was apprehended. Digital recorder was taken from the complainant. The complainant informed that during conversation, he told accused Vikram Singh that he had brought only Rs. 20,000/ to which he asked him to pay atleast athanni i.e. Rs.50,000/. Accused agreed to accept Rs. 20,000/ and remaining after a day or two. Wash of right hand and right side jacket pocket of accused Vikram Singh were taken in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour.
CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.5/53Washes were transferred to glass bottles marked RHW and JPWR. Witness Surender Singh recovered bribe amount from the right side jacket pocket of accused Vikram Singh and number of recovered GC notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo.
5. During interrogation, accused Vikram Singh informed that he received bribe on the directions of J.E. Sardar Singh. He also informed that earlier J.E. Kamal Prakash Yadav was Incharge of the Ward who had initially demanded bribe and on his transfer, he told him to give his share in consultation with JE Sardar Singh. In the morning, accused Sardar Singh directed him to collect bribe from the complainant. Accused Vikram Singh was directed to call accused Sardar Singh and Kamal Prakash Yadav. Accused Kamal Prakash Yadav did not pick the phone. During conversation with accused Sardar Singh, accused Vikram Singh informed that money had been received to which Sardar Singh agreed to accept the same and asked him to the office of one Jain Sahib. Said conversation was recorded. Bribe amount was kept in the right side pocket of accused Vikram Singh and he was directed to hand it over to accused Sardar Singh on his demand. Trap party members and accused Vikram Singh reached near Shalimar Park, Bhola Nath Nagar opposite DCP(East) office. At about 1655 hours, accused Sardar Singh met accused Vikram Singh and had conversation with each other CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.6/53 but accused Vikram Singh did not hand over bribe amount. It appeared that he informed accused Sardar Singh about CBI proceedings. Both the accused were apprehended. Trap money was taken back from accused Vikram Singh. In the meanwhile, conversation between Kamal Prakash Yadav and accused Vikram Singh took place on his mobile phone during which he asked accused Vikram Singh to get away to his home and that he would take bribe money in the morning. Further proceedings were conducted in CBI office. Accused Vikram Singh and Sardar Singh were arrested. Recovery memo was prepared. Call details of mobile phones were obtained. Washes were sent to CFSL which gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein in the washes. Sanction for prosecution of accused persons was obtained.
6. The CBI has produced the copy of complaint dated 30.01.2012 made by the complainant Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu. Conversation between the complainant and accused Vikram Singh was recorded in CBI office vide Verification memo dated 30.01.2012. In the handing over memo(D4), making of written complaint, presence of independent witnesses, number of GC notes produced by the complainant, recording of conversation and forming of trap team is mentioned. In the recovery memo(D5), recovery of bribe amount from accused Vikram Singh, conversation taken place between the complainant and CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.7/53 accused Vikram Singh, taking of washes of accused Vikram Singh, conversation taken place between accused Vikram Singh and Sardar Singh, apprehension of accused Vikram Singh and Sardar Singh and the proceedings conducted at the spot as well in CBI office are mentioned. Arrest cum personal search memos of accused persons are D6 to D8. Site plans are D9 and D10. Specimen voices of accused persons were recorded vide memos D11 to D13. Washes as well as questioned voices and specimen voices were sent to CFSL vide forwarding letters D14 to D16. Demolition register of MCD Shahdara South Zone is D21. CFSL report shows that the expert was of the opinion that the washes, sent for examination, contained Phenolphthalein. Call details of the mobile phones are also part of the record. The transcriptions also show that there was demand of bribe by the accused persons. The documents prepared by the CBI bears the signatures of complainant as well as independent witnesses who remained associated in the investigation of the case. CBI has also filed the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
7. Accused Vikram Singh, Beldar of MCD, being a public servant demanded a bribe of Rs.50,000/ from the complainant Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu for not booking his properties and not taking demolition action on behalf of Junior Engineers accused Sardar Singh and Kamal Prakash Yadav.
CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.8/53The bribe money was accepted by him on behalf of his co accused persons. The CBI has filed on record the sanction orders, vide which the sanction for prosecution of the accused persons has been accorded under Section 19 of the P.C. Act.
8. The prosecution has also placed on record call details of accused persons as well as transcriptions of the recorded conversation amongst accused persons in order to show that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst accused persons in demanding bribe from the complainant. The prosecution has also filed the statements of complainant, independent witnesses and CBI officials recorded during investigation which also show that a trap was laid in which accused Vikram Singh caught red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant, and the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy with each other and in pursuance thereof, bribe of Rs.50,000/ was demanded from the complainant Injerjeet Singh @ Ashu. During trap, accused Vikram Singh accepted bribe of Rs.20,000/ from the complainant which was recovered from his person.
9. Consequently, my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.04.2013 framed charge against all the accused, namely, Vikram Singh @ Vikram, Sardar Singh and Kamal Prakash Yadav for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, besides charge for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.9/53 13(1)(d) of the PC Act against the accused Vikram Singh @ Vikram, to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. In order to support its case, CBI has examined as many as 29 witnesses who are discussed in detail below.
11. Thereafter, accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them as false and fabricated. They denied to have made any demand of bribe from the complainant and even claimed that the memos prepared qua them were ante timed and ante dated. Accused Vikram Singh has claimed that he has been falsely implicated by complainant in connivance with CBI and he had never demanded any money from complainant at any point of time for any purpose, and that at the relevant time he was posted at Control Room of Shahdara South Zone, MCD and was not concerned with affairs of Building Department at all, and that on 05.01.2012, some demolition was carried out by MCD at the property of complainant, who called him and requested to help him, but he refused as he was not capable of doing any favour or disfavour to the complainant, and that again on 23.01.2012, he was called by the complainant for preventing demolition, and that he again refused to help him as he was not in a position to help him or to influence or interfere in the work of Building Department, and that the tainted money and washes have been planted upon him in this case, and that he did not CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.10/53 demand any amount of Rs.20,000/ from the complainant or accepted or any such amount was recovered from him at any point of time, and as such opted not to lead any evidence in his defence. Accused Sardar Singh also stated that he never demanded or accepted any bribe from anyone, and that he was initially taken to CBI office on the pretext of making inquiry and subsequently framed in his case, and as such opted to lead evidence in his defence. Accused Kamal Prakash claimed that he never asked Vikram to act on his behalf, and that the latter was not junior to former in his department, and that he was forced to make a false confession and the same was used as alleged conversation, and that he was denied the services of a lawyer, and that he went to police on his own which he would not have done, if he was guilty, and as such he opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
12. As the accused Sardar Singh led evidence in his defence, he examined Sh. M.S. Rao as DW1, who had brought the summoned record which was containing original letter received from CBI addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer dated 26.06.12 along with copy of draft sanctioned order of accused Vikram Singh, Kamal Prakash Yadav and Sardar Singh, and copy of said original letter dated 26.06.12 is Ex. DW1/A, draft sanctioned order of accused Vikram Singh is Ex.DW1/B, draft sanctioned order of accused Kamal Prakash Yadav is Ex.DW1/C CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.11/53 and that of accused Sardar Singh is Ex.DW1/D. Another witness examined by Sardar Singh in his defence was Sh. Ashok Kumar DW2, who also brought the summoned record, i.e., the office order dated 30.01.12 passed by EE (Building) vide which accused Sardar Singh was posted in Ward Nos. 235, 236 and 237 and proved copy of the same as Ex.DW2/A, and that he had also proved the dispatch register dated 30.01.12 as Ex.DW2/B.
13. I have heard Sh. M. Saraswat, Ld. PP for the CBI, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Counsel for the accused Vikram Singh, Sh. Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Counsel for the accused Sardar Singh and Sh. Ashwin Vaish, Counsel for accused Kamal Prakash Yadav and also perused the record along with written arguments filed on behalf of CBI as well as on behalf of the accused persons.
14. Taking the official witnesses from EDMC/MCD first, PW2 Sh. Hari Ram, PW4 Sh. Sushil Kumar, PW5 Sh. S.R. Meena, PW6 Sh. Ram Rikhi Ram, PW7 Sh. Sushil Tyagi, PW8 Sh. J.P. Verma and PW13 Sh. Subhash Chand have proved the official record of Building Department; posting and transfer of accused persons; their leave details and the demolition processes etc. and as such the said witnesses are formal in nature. However, PW4 in his crossexamination on behalf of the accused admitted that the demolition of unauthorized construction at ongoing stage could be taken by the concerned official on seeing the copy of office order No. CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.12/53 CLO/Law/2012/3295. Moreover, PW5 in his crossexamination on behalf of the accused replied that the orders for taking demolition action passed by LG which was subsequently endorsed and was constituted as part of guidelines for taking action against ongoing unauthorized construction by Commissioner, MCD.
15. PW3 Sh. J.B. Singh, Commissioner of Excise, deposed that he was working as Additional Commissioner of EDMC from 01.06.2012 to 17.02.2013 and accorded sanction for prosecution against accused JE Kamal Prakash Yadav, JE Sardar Singh and Vikram Singh, Beldar, South Zone, Shahdara vide Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C respectively.
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, PW3 Sh. J.B. Singh replied that he had received a letter I his office from CBI for grant of sanction, and that no draft of sanction was received by him from CBI, and that he could not say if the sanction orders were sent by post or by dak register. He also replied that he did not recollect if the Officer of rank of JE of MCD comes under 'B' category after 6 th Pay Commission. He further replied that he checked the FIR and complaint which mentioned the name of accused Sardar Singh.
16. PW9 Sh. Ashok Kumar is formal witness, who has deposed about the facts that Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu was the contractor, who had constructed his house. However, this CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.13/53 witness has clearly stated in his crossexamination on behalf of the CBI that he had not stated before the CBI that the JE and Beldar of the area asked for the bribe for not demolishing the remaining part from Inderjeet Singh, which fact was confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A from portion A to A, wherein it was so recorded. PW10 Sh. Rajender Kumar Aggarwal had collaboration for two floors in a plot in Bihari Colony and knew Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu as the latter was given contract for construction on the said plot.
17. PW11 Sh. Sandeep Rohilla did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile and as such he was cross examined at length by the Ld. PP for the CBI and stated that his statement was not recorded in the CBI Office, which fact was confronted with his statement Ex.PW11/A. He also stated that CD Q1 Ex.P1 and Ex.D1 did not bear his signatures. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that no proceedings regarding noting of any currency notes, application of any powder and demonstration thereof had taken place in his presence, and that nobody was apprehended/arrested in his presence on 31.01.2012 before he left the cross river mall nor any proceedings or writing work was done in his presence on 31.01.2012, and that he had signed the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/DC, Ex.PW1/DD, Ex.PW1/DA & DB, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW1/E were signed by CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.14/53 him in good faith at the asking of CBI and the document Ex.PW1/E was never read over to him before taking his signature nor he had gone through the same.
In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that his statement was not recorded in the CBI Office, which was confronted with statement Ex.PW11/A, it was found to be the statement of witness. He further replied that the CD Q1 Ex.P1 and one cloth parcel Ex.D1 do not bear his signatures, and that he reached CBI Office at about 4.00pm on 30.01.2012 and remained sitting at reception for about 11.30hour, and that he reached CBI office on 31.01.2012 at about 3.30pm as he was asked on 30.01.2012 to report at that time, and that he along with Surender and two or three CBI officials went inside the Crossriver Mall, and that no proceeding with regard to noting of any currency notes, application of any powder and demonstration thereof had taken place in his presence on 31.01.2012 before leaving CBI Office, and that he had some work at home, they permitted him to go to his home and he came back to his house, and that while leaving Crossriver Mall, he was told by CBI officials to report at CBI office next day in the evening hours, and that no writing work was done after getting down at Crossriver Mall and his departure from there, and that nobody was apprehended/arrested in his presence on 31.01.2012 before he left Crossriver Mall nor any proceeding or CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.15/53 writing work was done in his presence on 31.01.2012, and that on 01.02.2012, he reached CBI Office at about 5.00pm and some CBI officials obtained his signatures on about 40 pages, and that the date beneath his signatures on Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/DC, Ex.PW1/DD, Ex.PW1/DA & DB, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW1/E are not in his handwriting, and that the pen was provided by the CBI when he put his signatures on all these documents, and that he had signed these documents in good faith at asking of CBI, and that he had gone to CBI Office once after 01.02.2012 also, and that the document Ex.PW1/E was never read over to him before taking his signatures nor he had gone through the same, and that he had signed these documents in good faith at the asking of CBI, and that it was already lying prepared when he reached there, and that he was given the written text by the CBI to read on his subsequent visit on 01.02.2012 when his voice was recorded.
18. PW12 Jagdish Babu, Superintendent Engineer (Electrical) had handed over photocopy of application form of Bhartiya Airtel Ltd regarding Mobile Number 9717750139 allotted to JE Sardar Singh and proved its productioncum receipt memo as Ex.PW12/A, and also deposed that document MarkY1 is the photocopy of application form of mobile number 9717786853, which was allotted to Kamal Prakash Yadav. PW14 Sh. Surender Singh turned hostile and did not support the CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.16/53 case of prosecution, and as such he was crossexamined at length by the Ld. PP for CBI and stated that he did not give any statement to the CBI, and stated that CD Q2 and cloth cover Ex.P6 do not bear his signature, and that his introductory voice was not recorded by the CBI and did not know whether introductory voice of Sandeep Rohilla was recorded or not. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that from CBI Office, he was taken to Cross River Mall and remained there for two hours or so, and that the date beneath his signatures on Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/DC, Ex.PW1/DD, Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/E (23 sheets), Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D were not in his handwriting nor the said documents were read over to him and he put his signatures at the instructions of CBI by the pen given by CBI. He also replied that he had been to CBI Office in April, 2012 and his signatures were on some written and several plain papers on that day also and further replied that no documents were prepared and read over to him and he put his signatures in good faith. PW15 Sh. Lala Ram deposed that he was using Airtel Connection bearing No. 9968584544 at the relevant time. PW16 Sh. Adarsh Sharma was awarded the work of still photography of demolition and sealing actions of Shahdara South Zone by Executive Engineer on 25.08.2011 for financial year 2011, and on 23.01.2012, he was given intimation from CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.17/53 MCD, Shahdara Shouth Zone for demolition to be conducted at property No. 2578, Bihari Colony, 382, Bhola Nath Nagar and 4779, Bhola Nath Nagar. PW17 Sh. Karam Chand deposed that in the year 2012, he was using Tata Indicom connection No. 9211517774 and never applied for mobile number 9999967457 or got issued in his name. PW18 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd, deposed that mobile number 9990405303 was in the name of Inderjeet Singh and proved CAF as Ex.PW18/A, besides CDR of the said number for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.01.2012 as Ex.PW18/C and certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act as Ex.PW18/C. PW19 Sh. Anand Kumar proved his signatures at point A on arrest cumpersonal search memo of Kamal Prakash Yadav on Ex.PW19/A, besides on specimen voice recording Ex.PW19/B at point A. PW10 HC Ram Niwas was posted at PS Farsh Bazar in January, 201 2 and on 23.01.2012 he was instructed by duty officer to accompany the MCD Staff for Bihari Colony, Bholanath Nagar Area along with other officials of PS. PW21 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services, proved the CAF, CDR along with certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act related to mobile phone 9212431467. PW22 Sh. V.B. Ramteke, Sr. Scientific Officer, proved his report Ex.PW22/A regarding bottles marked as Ex.RHW and Ex.JPW(R), which gave positive test for the presence of CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.18/53 phenolpthalein. PW23 Sh. Anuj Bhatia proved the CAF, CDR and certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act qua the mobile phone number 97111370693 in the name of one Lala Ram. PW24 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. Also proved CAF, CDR and the certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile phone number 9717786853 issued in the name of MCD.
19. PW25 Inspector Nikhil Malhotra was working as Inspector CBI, ACB Delhi, and that on 30.01.2012 a complaint was marked to him by Sh. Ganesh Verma for verification, which was made by complainant Inderjeet Singh, and that in order to verify the allegations mentioned in the complaint, presence of independent witness Sunil Rohilla from NDMC was secured, and that since the verification revealed the demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/ by Beldar Vikram from the complainant, therefore, a case was registered under Section 7 of the PC Act against him, and that a trap team was constituted consisting of Inspector Vikas Pathak as TLO, Inspector Kailash Sahu, Inspector Pankj Vats and SI A.K. Maurya, besides one more independent witness Surender Singh, and thereafter the complainant produced the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/ as on being asked, he stated that he was not able to arrange Rs.50,000/ as demanded by the official but could arrange only Rs.20,000/ and during verification demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/ was established as CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.19/53 Beldar Vikram Singh was insisting for Rs.50,000/ and that he should at least give him athhanni (Rs.50,000/), and that Vikram further stated that Kamal Yadav had asked him to hand over the bribe amount to Sardar Singh and that they would divide the bribe money amongst themselves later, and that thereafter he deposed all the proceedings which took place during the said trap. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that he could not identify the signatures of the persons on CD Q2 Ex.P7, and that he did not preserve the original recording of verification proceedings, and that he did not seize the DVR used in verification proceedings and that the CD Q1 was prepared by me.
Similar facts were deposed by PW27 Inspector Vikas Pathak. However, in his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that the Malkhana Incharge was maintaining the record regarding depositing and taking out the case property from Malkhana, and that he did not remember the name of the then Malkhana Incharge. He also replied that he had not recorded the statement of Malkhana Incharge nor collected any record from his concerning deposit of exhibits of the case property of the present case. He further volunteered that he had deposited the exhibits/case property in the malkhana on the very next day after the trap. He admitted that malkhana officials were putting stamp on the front page of memo regarding deposit of CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.20/53 case property.
20. PW26 Inspector Shitanshu Sharma detailed all the investigative steps, which took place in his presence, viz., the further investigation was entrusted to him; arrested accused Kamal Prakash Yadav and prepared his personal search memo; recorded specimen voice of accused Kamal Prakash Yadav; took the certain documents into possession produced by Rajender Kumar Aggarwal, Sh. Hari Ram, Sh. Jagidsh Babu, Sh. Adarsh Sharma, Sh. Ram Rikhi Ram and Sh. J.P. Verma; received the relevant documents including CDR, CAF and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act from Tata Services Pvt Ltd, M/s Vodafone Mobile Phone Services Ltd and M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd; sent the exhibits of present case to CFSL and received the CFSL report during investigation; and finally prepared the chargesheet to file the same before the Court along with supporting documents and statements of witnesses.
21. PW28 Dr. Rajender Singh, Retd Director, CFSL, deposed that on 08.02.2012, the physics division of CFSL received four sealed parcels from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter No. DAI2012A0003/1804 dated 08.02.2012, and that again on 15.03.2012, the physics division of CFSL received another sealed parcels from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter No. RC03(A)/2012/4128 dated 15.03.2012, and the same are marked as Parcel Q1, Q2, S1, S2 and S2B, and that Parcel Q CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.21/53 1 was found containing compact disc having questioned voice recording of Sh. Kamal Prakash Yadav and Sh. Vikram Singh, and that Q2 was found containing a compact disc having questioned voice recording of Sh. Kamal Prakash Yadav, Sh. Vikram Singh and Sh. Sardar Singh, and that S1 was containing a compact disc having specimen voice of Sh. Vikram Singh, and that S2 was found containing a compact disc having specimen voice recording of Sh. Sardar Singh, and that S2B was containing a compact disc having specimen voice recording of Sh. Kamal Prakash Yadav, and that on examination of the said parcels, he found that questioned voice of Sh. Kamal Prakash Yadav, Vikram Singh and Sh. Sardar Singh tallied with their respective voices in respect of their linguistic, phonetics and other general spectographics, and proved his report as Ex.PW26/J. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that there was no notification under Section 79A of the I.T. Act of Central Government in his favour or in favour of CFSL, CBI till date for the purpose of providing expert opinion as an examiner on electronic form of evidence before any Court. He admitted that no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with regard to exhibits had been issued by him. He further replied that in CFSL only three types of opinions are given, i.e., probable identification, negative identification and no opinion. He also answered that he is not aware if FBI, USA has CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.22/53 stopped using voice prints in Courts as evidence. He admitted that there is a software for detecting tampering in the recordings, and that through softwares, it can be established if any tampering in the recording is there or not. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that CFSL does not have any such software in its lab to detect the tampering in the recordings, and that for giving reliable opinion on voice examination, there is need for mixing questioned voice with unknown voices along with questioned and specimen voices. He also answered that he had not read any text on voice identification. He further answered that he did not demand original recordings and DVR from the IO.
22. PW29 Sh. K.D. Verma, Assistant Commissioner, EDMC proved the note sheet dated 07.05.2012 as Ex.PW29/A whereby he was delegated powers of Commissioner, EDMC by Sh. J.B. Singh, the then Addl. Commissioner, EDMC, under Section 491 of DMC Act 1957 as amended by the DMC Amendment Act, 2011. He also proved the Officer Order No. EDMC/CED/DA/2012/47 dated 07.06.2012 with regard to the delegation of Power in favour of Sh. J.B. Singh, the then Addl. Commissioner, EDMC, which was passed by Sh. S.S. Yadav, the then Commissioner, EDMC as Ex.PW29/B.
23. Coming to the public witness, namely, PW1 Sh.
Inderjeet Singh @ Ashu, who is the complainant of the case and CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.23/53 deposed that during the year 2012, he was in the process of constructing two houses bearing no.4/2578, Bihari Colony and 177A, Bholanath Nagar. On 23.01.12, accused Kamal Yadav, JE, MCD, Shahdara South Zone visited the site of construction at 4/2578, Bihari Colony and met him; during the said meeting, accused Kamal Yadav demanded a bribe of Rs.1 lakh for not booking for demolition the said building; on the refusal of complainant, part demolition was carried out by accused Kamal Yadav and MCD team; thereafter, accused Vikram Singh was called to the spot by accused Kamal Yadav, who reached the spot. PW1 further states that then, both the accused Kamal Yadav and Vikram Singh demanded Rs.1 lakh at once, failing which, further demolition was to be carried out in the said building. As the PW1 did not want to pay the bribe, he went to CBI office on 30.01.12 and submitted his written complaint Mark X1. Thereafter, PW1 complainant was introduced to Insp. Nikhil Malhotra and Sh. Rohilla of NDMC and one blank DVR was arranged in which the introductory voice of Sh. Rohilla was got recorded. From CBI office, the complainant was directed to call accused Kamal Yadav on his mobile to the mobile of accused Kamal Yadav and during the conversation, PW1, the complainant, told accused Kamal Yadav that accused Vikram was demanding a big amount. Accused Kamal Yadav told the complainant "koi baat nahin" and he would speak to accused CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.24/53 Vikram. PW1 further states that after sometime, while he was in the CBI office, he received a call on his mobile from accused Vikram who said that "Kamal ji, JE Sahab se baat ho gai hai, aap kab milenge". After the said conversation, Insp. Nikhil and Sh. Rohilla came to his office ie 4/161, Street No.11, Old Tejab Mill, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara at ground floor where the DVR in switch on mode was placed in his pocket. After sometime, accused Vikram reached the spot and demanded a bribe of Rs.50000/ and thereafter, he, Insp. Nikhil and Sh.Rohilla returned to CBI office. The recording in the DVR was transferred into CD Ex.P1 which was got signed by PW1 and Sh. Rohilla. The CD was played in the Court and PW1 identified the introductory voice of Sh. Rohilla recorded in the beginning of the CD on 30.01.12 in CBI office in his presence, his own voice and voice of accused Kamal Yadav in the conversation which took place between them when PW1 had called accused Kamal Yadav from CBI office.
24. He also identified the conversation which took place between him and accused Vikram Singh which was recorded in the DVR, kept in his pocket.
25. He further states that on 31.01.12, at about 10.00 am, he reached CBI office where one other witness Sh. Surender was introduced to him. A demonstration was held by Sh. Maurya before him and said two witnesses. PW1 was having CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.25/53 about Rs.20,000/on which powder was applied and number of the same were noted down in a document Ex.PW1/B. PW1 also proved the FIR Ex.PW1/C. This witness further states that powder treated notes were kept by Sh. Surender in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter, his search was taken to find out as to whether there is any other thing in his pocket or not and he had been told not to touch the notes. The document was got signed and then the team proceeded for the trap. They stayed at Patparganj from where he made telephone call to accused Vikram and told him to come to his office. Then, the entire trap team reached to his office. Thereafter, accused Vikram telephoned him that he would take some time to reach. Accused Vikram did not reach and thereafter, PW1 again made call to accused Vikram. Accused Vikram told PW1 to reach on the back door of MCD office. The entire team rushed towards MCD office and stopped near the MCD office at petrol pump. PW1 alongwith witness Rohilla came out of the vehicle and made call to accused Vikram to reach at Petrol Pump telling him that PW1 was getting his vehicle repaired. By giving the signal, accused Vikram asked PW1 to go to him. PW1 reached there. Witness Rohilla was following PW1 at a distance of 20 steps. PW1 had already been told by the CBI people that the moment, accused Vikram accepts the notes, he should give the signal by moving his hand on his face and witness Rohilla was told to give the CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.26/53 missed call simultaneously. PW1 reached near the accused Vikram. Accused Vikram did "hai hello" with PW1 and ordered two cups of tea from the nearby teashop. Accused Vikram asked PW1 what he had been doing at Petrol Pump. PW1 told him that he was getting his vehicle washed from petrol pump. PW1 told accused Vikram that he has to go to attend the marriage of his cousin sister. Accused Vikram asked as to what PW1 had brought and PW1 told accused Vikram "zayada to nahin hai, jitna hai meri pocket mein hai dekhta hoon". PW1 handed over those Rs.20,000/ to accused Vikram and asked him to count the same. Accused Vikram said "aap hi gin lo". PW1 counted the notes and gave to accused Vikram. Accused Vikram took the money and kept in his right hand side jacket pocket. PW1 further states that he gave the preappointed signal. Witness Rohilla was at the distance about 20 steps. After about 2 minutes, Inspector Pathak and Vats both reached there and apprehended accused Vikram. Meanwhile, entire team reached there and he was made to sit in a vehicle. The vehicle was stopped at the distance of about 100 meters and hand wash of the accused Vikram was taken. The water, in which the hand of the accused Vikram was got washed, turned into pink colour. The same was put in a bottle and the bottle was sealed. The seal after the use was handed over to witness Surinder or Rohilla.
26. This witness further stated that thereafter, accused CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.27/53 Vikram made the call to accused Kamal Yadav, but the same was not connected. Accused Vikram informed the CBI officials that the orders had been issued day before vide which JE had been transferred and now JE is Sardar Singh. Accused Vikram connected the phone to JE Sardar Singh and told him that he had received the article of Aashu and again told to Sardar Singh "Aashu ke paise aa gaye hain". Accused Vikram Singh was called by Sardar Singh near Shalimar Park, outside the office of Jain sahab. Accused Vikram asked Sardar Singh to reach to him. Sardar Singh told accused Vikram that he should reach to Sardar Singh and they are to go somewhere also. Entire team in both the vehicles reached near the Shalimar Park and the same amount of Rs. 20,000/ was handed over to accused Sardar Singh. Sardar Singh put the money in his pocket. CBI team arrested accused Sardar Singh. Thereafter, the entire CBI team came back in MCD office where accused Vikram received the call from Kamal Yadav. Accused Vikram told Kamal Yadav to ran away from MCD Office. Accused Vikram told to Kamal Yadav on phone "Sir, wo paise aap le lete aashu wale". Accused Kamal Yadav told "abhi aap bhag jayo, kal le lunga". There was huge crowd near the MCD office. Then the CBI team took accused Sardar Singh and accused Vikram to CBI office.
27. PW1 further stated that the documents were prepared in the CBI office and he put his signatures. He signed CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.28/53 the recovery memo Ex.PW1/D (comprising six sheets) at point A on all the pages. The recording from the DVR were transferred into CD and the CD was sealed. He put his signatures on the seal of the CD alongwith other two witnesses. The recovered currency notes of Rs. 20,000/ were also sealed in sealed cover and his signatures alongwith the signatures of other two witnesses were taken on the seal. He signed number of papers. This witness identified the currency notes collectively Ex. P2, handing over memo Ex. PW1/B, one Grey jacket, worn by accused Vikram at the time of taking the money Ex. P3 and voice identification cum transcription memos and the transcriptions Ex. PW1/E. After completing the proceedings at the CBI office, he returned to his home.
28. In his crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he replied that the plan on both the properties have not been sanctioned, and that he is into the business of construction for last three years and even today, he is into the same business. He admitted that sanction plan is mandatory for the construction of the building, and that he had not taken any step against the demolition made by the accused persons, and that he had not made any complaint to any superior officer of the MCD with regard to asking of bribe. He also admitted that he was annoyed with the accused persons for demolition of the part of the construction of property bearing No. 4/2578, Gali No.7/2, Bihari CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.29/53 Colony, Shahdara, Delhi, and that till today his both the above mentioned properties have not been sealed by the MCD. He also admitted that the construction of property bearing No. 4/2578, Gali No.7/2, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi was completed after the incident. He also admitted that there was no sanction plan for the property bearing No. P177A, Main Road, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara. He further replied that the property No. 4/2578 had already been completely constructed at the time of demolition, and that the other property bearing No. P177A, Bholanath nagar is still incomplete and has not been sealed by the MCD, and that similarly, property bearing No. 4/2578, Bihari Colony has not been sealed by the MCD and demolished protion has already been reconstructed without seeking any further permission from the MCD. He also admitted that no demand was made on 30.01.2012 by accused Kamal Yadav. He further answered that it was mentioned during the recording on 30.01.2012 that "Kamal Yadav Bahut Bade Amount Ki Maang Kar Rahe Hain", and admitted that the name of Kamal Yadav is not mentioned. He volunteered that he said "Aap Ke JE Sahab Bahut Bade Amount Ki Baat Kar Rahe Hain", and that he did not recollect whether the word "JE" is mentioned in the recording or transcription or not.
29. He also answered that he had mentioned in his complaint about the demand of Rs.1 Lac by accused Vikram and CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.30/53 Kamal Yadav, and that he had not mentioned about the demolition of his property bearing No. 4/2578, Bihari Colony. He further admitted that there were two rooms on the plot which were removed and then the construction was made. He also answered that the property bearing No. 4/2578, Bihari Colony was belonging to Maya Devi, Parmeshwari Devi and one other person, and that he had not represented to have obtained any site plan to the owners of the property bearing No.4/2578, Bihari Colony. He further replied that he was not aware whether any demolition charges bill was raised by the MCD in respect of demolition carried out on property on 23.01.2012, and that at that time he started construction on property bearing No. 4/2578, measuring 100 square yards, no sanction plan was being approved by the MCD, and admitted that he never applied for approval of sanction plan and that the property no. 177A and 177B, Main Road, Bhola Nath Nagar are different properties and that the photocopy of the affidavit/declaration executed by Sh. Geetam Singh Ex.PW1/DA bears his signatures at point A as witness, and further admitted that in the document Ex.PW1/DA, there is reference of property number as 177/1B, Bholanath Nagar at point X, and replied that except Ex.PW1/DA, he did not give any document to CBI in respect of himself carrying out construction on property No.177A, Bholanath Nagar. He denied the suggestion as wrong that he had intentionally given wrong CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.31/53 property number to CBI so that the property No. 177/1B may not be booked in misalband register (unauthorized building booking register). He admitted that he had suffered heavy loss due to demolition action carried out in his property No.4/2578.
30. He further answered that in between 11.30 to 11.45am on 30.01.2012, IO had himself made a call and conversed with accused Vikram Singh and the said conversation was recorded and the said conversation was recorded and the same was heard by him, and that on 30.01.12, he left CBI office at about 1.00/1.30pm for his office situated at 4/161, Street No.11, Bhola Nath Nagar, Delhi, and that at that time both the punch witnesses, namely, Sh. Rohilla and Surender Kumar had accompanied them, and that prior to leaving for his office, at that time, one document was prepared and the same was duly signed by both the punch witnesses. He volunteered that one document was prepared after returning back to CBI office and at that time also, signatures were appended on the said document by punch witnesses and him. He also replied that on 30.01.12, they had reached at his office at around 2.00/3.00pm, and that accused Vikram had met them outside his office, i.e., back side of MCD Office opposite petrol pump, and that when he had visited CBI office for the first time on 30.01.2012, punch witnesses namely, Sandeep Rohilla and Surender Kumar were already there. He also admitted that he had identified the voice of Sandeep CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.32/53 Rohilla, after hearing his voice in CD Q1 played in the Court, and that at about 10.30am, he had talked to accused Kamal Yadav. He further replied that the transcription Ex.PW1/E was shown to him and after going through the same, he admitted that there was no wordings in the transcription as "Koi Baat Nahin"
alleged to be stated by the accused Kamal Yadav. He further admitted that there were no wordings in the transcription as "Kamal Ji JE Sahab Se Baat Ho Gai Hai, Aap Kab Miloge"
alleged to be stated by him with accused Vikram. He further replied that the distance between his office and the shop was approximately one kilometer. He further admitted that prior to reaching his shop on 30.01.2012, he did not take CBI officials or punch witnesses at MCD Office behind KKD Court to verify or get it verified regarding demand of accused Kamal Yadav, and that he had not told the CBI officials regarding the office of accused Kamal Yadav falling on the way from CBI Office to his shop, and also admitted that his signatures did not appear on CD and cloth wrapper Ex.D1, and volunteered that he had signed on some of the cloth wrappers as well as on some of the CDs. He also replied that his sample voice was not taken by the CBI officials.
31. He also answered that the documents which were prepared on 30.01.2012 were brought by some CBI official on which their signatures were obtained and he did not remember CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.33/53 his name, and that both the punch witnesses left the CBI office at about 12.00 midnight/12.30am in the intervening night of 30.01.2012 and 31.01.2012, and that so many CBI officials were doing typing work on 30.01.2012, and on 30.01.2012 sealing work was done which includes DVR, CD, tainted GC notes and washes, and that on 30.01.2012, he did not talk with accused Kamal Yadav and Sardar Singh on telephone. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in his complaint that his property No. 4/2578 was already demolished by CBI officials and that in the transcription Ex.PW1/E, allegedly between him and the accused Kamal Yadav, it was mentioned that "Main Samajh Nahin Paa Raha Hoon, Kya Bol Rahe Hain Aap". He replied that on 31.01.2012 he had not met the punch witnesses, namely, Sandeep Rohilla and Surender Kumar. He further replied that on 31.01.2012 from CBI Office, he came to his house, and that he did not visit any other place on 31.01.2012, and that the CBI official by applying phenolphthalein powder on a piece of paper, and that the conversation dated 30.01.2012 was played before CBI officials on 31.01.2012 by playing the CD Q1 in the computer. He also replied that he did not remember the name of CBI official who had broke opened the seal of the pullanda of CD Q1 on 31.01.2012, and that the said CD Q1 was again re sealed on 31.01.2012 after hearing the same, and that the CBI officials had also signed on CD Q1 as well as on the pullanda, CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.34/53 and that he had not talked with accused Sardar Singh on 30.01.2012 or thereafter. He admitted that accused Sardar Singh never made any demand from him. He further replied that he was sitting in the official vehicle of CBI when accused Sardar Singh came at the spot, and that the personal search of accused Sardar Singh was carried out but he had not signed the same at the spot, and that he did not remember whether it was signed by him or not. He also replied and that the accused Vikram and Sardar Singh had talked with each other for 12 minutes at the spot when they met each other, and that the accused Vikram had handed over money to accused Sardar Singh at around 5.00 5.30pm, and that he did not remember whether accused Sardar Singh had received money with both hands or not. He volunteered that he did not know whther accused Sardar Singh took the money or not. He further replied that the hand washes or washes of clothes of accused Sardar Singh were not taken in his presence, and that he had signed on the washes seized in the present case. He admitted that when accused Sardar Singh was apprehended, he told that he is innocent. He further answered that on 30.01.2012, he came to know that accused Kamal yadav was transferred, and that after apprehension of accused Sardar Singh, he went to CBI Office, and that he returned to his house in the intervening night of 30/31012012 at 12.30am, and that on such subsequent visits, IO made inquiries from him and no CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.35/53 other proceedings taken place in his presence. He denied the suggestion as wrong that he was not a witness to Ex.PW1/DA and Ex.PW1/DB as he was not present at the time of their preparation. He admitted that his position is not shown in Ex.PW1/DA and volunteered that he was sitting in the official car which was parked at a distance, and admitted that the position of the car was also not shown in Ex.PW1/DA.
32. He further replied that he had not forced accused Vikram to give money to accused Sardar Singh and that he did not know, if CBI officials had forced accused Vikram Singh to give money to accused Sardar Singh. He admitted that accused Vikram Singh was well known to him prior to incident and he had talked with him several times personally as well as on telephone. He also replied that he did not remember exactly but the handing over memo Ex.PW1/B was probably prepared either in the night on 30.01.2012 or in the morning of 31.01.2012, and that he did not remember how much time was consumed in preparing the handing over memo, and denied the suggestion as wrong that handing over memo was neither prepared in his presence or in the presence of punch witnesses or that the same was fabricated document. He could not tell as to on which date, he signed the handing over memo Ex.PW1/B. He further replied that arrest papers of accused Sardar singh and Vikram were prepared in his presence and that it were prepared at CBI office, CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.36/53 and that he did not remember whether those were signed by him or not, and that he signed all the documents where he was asked to put signatures by CBI officials, and admitted that he is not a signatory to arrest cum personal search memos Ex.PW1/DC and Ex.PW1/DD. He denied the suggestion as wrong that he is not the signatory to these memos as the same were not prepared in his presence. He also admitted that two bottle washes did not bear his signatures. He has further answered that he had stated to CBI in his statement that during the said meeting, accused Kamal Yadav demanded bribe of Rs.1 Lac for not booking for demolition of the said building or that he refused for the same, and on confrontation, the same was found not recorded in the statement Ex.PW1/DE. He also replied that the CBI official had not made any inquiry in his presence whether the accused Vikram was in position to get the demolition done or to stop the same, and that the talks between the accused Vikram and himself had taken place at a distance of about 50 meters from the Tea Stall situated at the corner of MCD office, and admitted that no consent was given by accused Vikram till the time they left CBI office for agreeing to accept Rs.20,000/ from him and that no specific demand of Rs.20,000/ was ever made by accused Vikram from him, and admitted that that when he met accused Vikram he was not aware as to how much money was lying in his pocket. He further replied that the CBI had not CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.37/53 recorded the statement of accused Vikram in his presence about informing them regarding transfer of accused Kamal and joining of accused Sardar Singh in his place, and that the conversation between accused Vikram and accused Sardar Singh lasted for about 11 1/2 minutes. He also replied that he did not remember the time but it was on 23.01.2012 when accused Vikram demanded money from him for the first time, and that the accused Vikram was known to him for last one or one and half years prior to 23.01.2012. He further replied that accused Vikram made call to accused Sardar singh twice after his apprehension in his preence, and again said he made only one call. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that no call was ever made by accused Vikram to accused Sardar or that no such conversation had taken place as stated by him in his examinationinchief. He also replied that he did not remember whether inner lining of pocket of jacket was signed by him or not, and volunteered that punch witness had signed the same, and that he did not make any inquiry before going to CBI whether accused Vikram was posted in building department under accused Kamal or Sardar Singh, and admitted that he did not tell CBI till the time he lodged his compaint that demolition was carried out on one of the properties on 23.01.2012. He further replied that he did not lodge complaint to CBI immediately after 23.01.2012 as his cousin was to be married in CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.38/53 between, and that he did not remember the date of marriage of his cousin. He further admitted that accused Vikram was not with the demolition squad on 23.01.2012 and volunteered that he (accused Vikram) reached the spot after his reaching there and he was called by accused Kamal. He further admitted that he made telephonic call to accused Vikram at 1.26pm, 1.28pm and 2.12pm on 23.01.2012 and volunteered that accused Kamal also made the call to accused Vikram. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that he requested the accused Vikram to get the demolition stopped and he refused to do so. He further replied that he did not know, if accused Vikram was posted in Control Room, Shahdara, South Zone, since 10.08.09 and that he did not mention the dates of demand from 23.01.2012 till 30.01.2012 in his complaint, and admitted that there was no preappointed date, time and place of transaction between him and the accused till the time he lodged complaint with CBI, and also admitted CBI officials brought one leather bag with them at the spot, and replied that he did not remember whether the powder used for demonstration was taken out from the same bag or was kept back in the same bag. He admitted that before leaving CBI Office, he did not convey to suspect that he was coming with Rs.20,000/ only, and admitted that jacket of accused Vikram was seized by CBI official near MCD office and that he had not met all the three accused together before the date of incident, CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.39/53 and that he did not remember if copy of any document was given to accused Vikram in his presence, and that the digital recorder was taken back by TLO after challenging accused Vikram, but he did not remember whether the digital recorder was thereafter switched off or not, and admitted that the amount of bribe was not mentioned in the conversation with the accused Vikram at the time of making the call for verification at CBI Office, and further replied that MCD had not carried out any demolition action on his two properties bearing No. 4/2578, Gali No.7, Bihari Colony and 177A, Bholanath Nagar after registration of the case till today. He further admitted that accused Vikram had not demanded sum of Rs.20,000/ outside MCD Office and volunteered that he had demanded Rs.50,000/ or Rs.60,000/ from him. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that no such amount of Rs.50,000/ or Rs.60,000/ was ever demanded by accused Vikram. He also replied that CBI team had not offered the search of member of team to accused Vikram in his presence.
33. It had been common contention of defence counsels that CBI has failed to prove the requisite ingredients of demand and acceptance. It was also argued by the defence counsels that the recovery proceedings are doubtful in this case and therefore all accused persons are entitled for acquittal. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the CBI argued that PW1/Complainant and the CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.40/53 recorded conversations duly proved the ingredients of demand and acceptance. He further submitted that irrespective of testimony of independent witnesses, i.e., PW11 and PW14, prosecution has duly proved its case.
34. First of all, I shall deal with the evidence related to demand, because demand is the first requisite condition to establish a case for offence under Section 7 of the Act. On perusal of evidence led by the prosecution, it is revealed that PW1/Complainant was the only witness of prosecution to prove this ingredient. Prosecution has also relied upon some recorded conversations in support of evidence of PW1. PW1 had allegedly made a complaint to CBI regarding demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/. However, unfortunately CBI did not prove that original complaint of PW1. A photocopy of the said complaint was placed on the record, which was marked as Mark X1. It is well apparent that this piece of document was not proved in accordance with Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Record shows that no permission was taken by the CBI to lead secondary evidence in respect of aforesaid document. Thus, a major piece of evidence is missing in the case to prove that PW1 had actually made a particular complaint before CBI. However, since this piece of document was placed on the record by the prosecution, it can be certainly used against prosecution. For that purpose, if I look into this document, then I do find that there CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.41/53 was no mention of any particular date of making demand of alleged bribe. This fact assumes importance because in his deposition before the Court, PW1 stated that accused Kamal Yadav met him on 23.01.2012, during his visit to site of construction at 4/2578, Bihari Colony, and at that time he demanded bribe of Rs.1 Lac for not booking that building for demolition. He further alleged that accused Vikram Singh was called at the spot by accused Kamal Yadav and thereafter both of them demanded Rs.1 Lac at once. Had it been so, then nothing prevented PW1 to specifically mention in his alleged complaint given to CBI that such demand of Rs.1 Lac was made by accused Kamal Yadav and Vikram Singh on 23.01.2012. During his crossexamination, PW1 admitted that the aforesaid building was demolished by team of MCD on 23.01.2012. However, he had not mentioned such facts in the complaint given by him to CBI. Another interesting aspect of allegations made by PW1 before CBI relates to amount of bribe. This complaint was allegedly made on 30.01.2012. In his deposition, PW1 mentioned about demand of bribe of Rs.1 Lac, as made on 23.01.2012. He did not refer to any other incident of subsequent demand, if made by any of aforesaid accused persons. He did not say that amount of Rs. 1 Lac was bargained or that on a subsequent date this amount was reduced to Rs.50,000/ by any of aforesaid accused persons. Still, in the complaint given to CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.42/53 CBI, PW1 referred to bribe amount of Rs.50,000/ only. It was not explained by the prosecution that when such amount of Rs.50,000/ was demanded by aforesaid accused persons, which compelled PW1 to approach CBI with his complaint against such demand. Further, there is considerable delay in making the complaint which also creates a suspicion regarding its concoction. PW25 was the verification officer. According to his statement before the Court, on 30.01.2012 a complaint was marked to him and in that complaint there were allegations of demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/. This situation assumes importance because according to prosecution as well as PW1 and PW25, PW1 had made a call to accused Kamal Yadav from CBI Office, during verification proceedings. This call was made on 30.01.2012 and was allegedly recorded in a DVR. At that time, PW1 told Kamal Yadav that Vikram was demanding a big amount. However, when such big amount was so demanded by Vikram, remains an unanswered question. Neither PW1 nor PW25 nor IO/PW26 came up with description of any such incident of a big amount being demanded by accused Vikram. It is not to be forgotten that according to PW1, amount of Rs.1 Lac was initially demanded by accused Kamal Yadav on 23.01.2012 and on that day also accused Vikram had been called at that time by accused Kamal Yadav only. Therefore, it was not a possible scenario that there would have been some big amount demanded CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.43/53 by accused Vikram, which could not be within knowledge of Kamal Yadav. In fact, PW1 did not allege in his deposition that after 23.01.2012 accused Vikram met him on some different day and thereafter he made demand of some big amount. Therefore, the alleged talk between PW1 and accused Kamal Yadav taken place on 30.01.2012 during verification process, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual bribe amount to be paid and saying that Vikram was demanding big amount, does not fit into the facts deposed by PW1 before the Court. It is further interesting to see that as per prosecution, on 30.01.2012 itself, PW1 along with CBI Team including PW25 came to the office of PW1 at Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara. At that time, allegedly accused Vikram came to his office and once again PW1 had conversation with accused Vikram. As per the alleged talk between these two persons (as per transcript of such alleged talk being part of Ex.PW1/E), the amount of Rs.50,000/ was finalized after a bargain during this conversation. Thus, this alleged conversation would show that prior to aforesaid bargaining, amount of Rs.50,000/ was not bargained as amount of bribe. In that situation, question arises as to how in his alleged complaint given to CBI, PW1 could allege that accused Kamal and accused Vikram were demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/. Apparently, this complaint was given prior to verification process and prior to above mentioned bargain with accused Vikram. Therefore, CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.44/53 complainant could not have any basis to allege in his complaint given to CBI that accused Kamal and Vikram were demanding Rs.50,000/.
35. So far as specific case of accused Sardar Singh is concerned with regard to acceptance and recovery, PW1 the complainant deposed that the entire team in both the vehicle reached near Shalimar Park and the same amount of Rs.20,000/ was handed over to accused Sardar Singh and that Sardar Singh put the money in his pocket and that CBI Team arrested accused Sardar Singh and as per his further deposition, the hand washes or washes of clothes of accused Sardar Singh were not taken in his presence and that he had signed on the washes seized in the present case and that the conversation between accused Vikram Singh and accused Sardar Singh lasted for about 1 1.5 minutes but in the recovery memo, it is mentioned that at about 16:55 hours, one person (identified lateron as Sardar Singh) came towards Vikram Singh met him and they had talked with each other but after 1015 minutes also, Vikram Singh did not hand over the bribe amount and that it appeared that Vikram Singh had informed Sardar Singh about CBI proceedings, and it looked as if they were moving on the road here and there to flee themselves from the spot and further, PW1 was shown two bottles of washes and he admitted that they two bottles do not bear his signatures.
CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.45/5336. PW25 Insp. Nikhil Malhotra deposed that no bribe amount was given by accused Vikram to accused Sardar Singh and that accused Vikram was directed prior to his meeting with accused Sardar Singh to hand over the bribe money to accused Sardar Singh after meeting and that accused Vikram and accused Sardar Singh had met on the main road outside the DCP office (East) and that neither Panch witness nor any other team members was deputed near or with accused Vikram to hear the conversation between accused Vikram and accused Sardar Singh on their meeting together and that no DVR was handed over to accused Vikram to record the conversation between accused Vikram and accused Sardar Singh and that no washes of accused Sardar Singh was taken.
37. Similarly, as regards accused Kamal Yadav, there is no iota of admissible evidence of demand or acceptance or obtaining bribe as alleged in the CBI case and even PW1 admits that no demand was made by accused Kamal Parkash Yadav on 30.01.2012 and he admits that the transcript does not contain what he said in his chief and that he did not mention date or time of the visit of accused Kamal Parkash Yadav when he allegedly demanded bribe and he admitted that on the date of filing of the complaint, he knew that the said accused is to be transferred.
38. From the said pieces of deposition of the said witnesses, no case is established against accused Sardar Singh CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.46/53 and Kamal Prakash Yadav with regard to acceptance and recovery of the alleged bribe amount.
39. Further, there is no identification of voices of the accused or the complainant from the complainant contained in the CD allegedly transmitted from the DVR, as the CD was never played before the complainant in the court. Alleged mobile phone used by accused Vikram bearing No.9999967457 is in the name of PW17 Karam Chand and it is also mentioned at the top of his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW17/DA. Similarly, the mobile phone No. 9212431467 which was allegedly used by accused Sardar Singh was registered in the name of one Chand Rani but she is not a prosecution witness before this court.
40. The alleged conversation between accused Vikram and the other two accused Sardar Singh and Kamal Parkash Yadav were recorded in the in built memory of the DVR from the mobile phone and thereafter it was transmitted to CD but the said inbuilt memory of DVR was admittedly deleted and was never produced before the court and the CD which is a secondary evidence has not been proved after due permission of the court for leading the secondary evidence. In view of the non production of original voices of the complainant and the accused due to deletion of the same from the DVR in built memory is fatal to the prosecution case and further, gave jolt to the CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.47/53 deposition of PW28, the expert who deposed that the voices recorded in the CDs (Compact Discs) of the three accused and the complainant and the same were found to have tallied with the voices those of said persons, became futile exercise, even if we ignore the Section 79A of the I.T. Act, 2000 and the counsel for the said accused have already withdrawn their said arguments with regard to Section 79A of the I.T. Act, 2000 during oral submissions.
41. The aforesaid analysis of evidence would show that the alleged complaint given to CBI with allegations of demand of Rs.50,000/ being made by accused Kamal Yadav and accused Vikram, was perhaps given at some subsequent stage, i.e., after the alleged bargain over the bribe amount. The other possibility may be that whole story of demand of bribe was artificially crafted. Thus, such evidence of PW1 read along with other piece of evidence projected by prosecution creates serious doubt over the allegations of demand.
42. The other piece of evidence in support of demand was presented by prosecution, in the form of recorded conversations and the recorded conversation was produced in a CD, i.e., CD Mark Q1. As per testimony of PW1 and PW25, the alleged recording in DVR was transferred into this CD through a computer. PW1 in his examinationinchief deposed that the CD was signed by him and Mr. Rohilla (PW11). However, when CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.48/53 such CD was produced by malkhana official, it was found that the same was not having the signature of PW1, neither it was having signature of PW25. PW11 had turned totally hostile in the case and did not support the case of prosecution that any such CD was prepared in his presence and he signed it accordingly. PW25 in his crossexamination deposed that TLO or subsequent IO did not take any certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act regarding aforesaid CD Q1 nor did he issue any such certificate. In such circumstances, such piece of evidence in the form of CD Q1 was inadmissible in evidence and hence it cannot be looked into at all. As inevitable implication, the transcripts allegedly prepared on playing such recorded conversations contained in CD cannot be looked into. Same is the situation in respect of subsequent alleged recorded conversations.
43. Another aspect related to such piece of evidence is that, allegedly these recorded conversations were sent to CFSL for their comparison with specimen voice samples of the accused persons. It is not the case of CBI that for the purpose of taking voice sample of the accused persons, permission in this regard was taken from the Court. Thus, the fact remains that such specimen voice were taken without permission of the Court. During arguments, Ld. defence counsels referred to one judgement passed by Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.49/53 Bisht Vs. CBI, 2007 (1) JCC 482 and it was argued that the voice sample taken could not be basis of comparison because the process of taking such sample was null and void and it was so obtained without consent of the accused. In the aforesaid case, Delhi High Court dealt with a question if, Special Judge could direct the accused, so as to compel him to provide sample of his voice and the Court concluded that it could not have been done and the accused could not have been compelled to be his voice sample. The reason of aforesaid finding was that consent of accused was not taken. This is one of the requirement before taking voice sample of any accused. This process of taking consent of accused is undertaken by Court, when an application for seeking permission for this purpose is moved by the IO. However, as already noted in this case no such permission was taken by the IO at all. In the case of Rakesh Kumar & Ors Vs. State, 2004 (72) DRJ 311, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was dealing with some specimen handwriting and signatures taken by the IO without permission of the Court and for the purpose of comparison with questioned handwriting. Delhi High Court held that in absence of permission from the Court, such specimen taken by the IO was illegal and hence such evidence could not be looked into. Thus, in nutshell, the final situation remains that the recorded conversations cannot be looked into at all and apart from testimony of PW1, there is no evidence to prove demand. I CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.50/53 have already held that evidence of PW1 suffers from serious doubts over the question of demand. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon to say that ingredients of demand have been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
44. Last but not the least, PW1/Complainant in his crossexamination dated 17.05.2013 specifically admitted that he had apprehension of demolition of other buildings for want of sanction of the site plan. He specifically admitted that he was annoyed with accused persons for demolition of part of construction of property bearing No. 4/2578, Gali No.7/2, Bihari Colony, Shahdara, Delhi. He further admitted that till date both the above referred properties have not been sealed by the MCD. He categorically admitted that construction of property bearing No. 4/2578 was completed after the incident. In his cross examination dated 18.07.2013, he again admitted that there was no sanction plan for the property bearing No. P177A, Main Road, Bholanath Nagar, Shahdara and that the property bearing No. 4/2578 had already been constructed at the time of demolition and that other property bearing No. P177A still had not been sealed by the MCD. Similarly, other property bearing No. 4/2578 has also not been sealed by the MCD and demolished portion has already been constructed without seeking further direction from the MCD. In his further cross examination, he has admitted that he suffered heavy loss due to CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.51/53 said demolition. In view of the said admissions of the complainant/PW1, an inference can easily be drawn that he was having grudge against the accused persons in order to save his illegal construction of the said properties and he wanted to take all the precautionary measures, including this case so that same may not be demolished or sealed by the MCD. Certainly, he has an axe to grind against the accused persons and as such possibility of their false implication cannot be ruled out.
45. It is well settled law that in order to prove charge under Section 7 of the Act, prosecution has to prove three ingredients, i.e., demand, acceptance and recovery. In absence of proof of any of these ingredients, the case of prosecution has to fail.
46. On the similar grounds, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, could not be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
47. Similarly, allegations of Section 120B IPC were based upon alleged conversations recorded by way of voices with the help of electronic devices of all the three accused and the complainant could not be established as per law and also on the ground that originals of the same have not been produced in the court and in view of the said discussion, it can be safely be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt qua the CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.52/53 said offence also.
48. Consequently, all the three accused are acquitted of the charges for the offence U/S 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC. Their PB and SB are discharged.
49. The file be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH TEWARI Location:
TEWARI karkardooma
Date: 2018.12.24
14:22:05 +0530
Dictated in the Open Court (Rakesh Tewari)
directly to the steno, checked District & Sessions Judge (East)
on the computer screen and Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
announced in the Open Court
on this 24th day of December, 2018.
CBI No. 46/2016 CBI Vs. Vikram Singh etc. Page No.53/53