Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Gulshan Kumar S/O Sh. Om Prakash, on 29 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI01, CENTRAL DISTRICT. DELHI
CC No.: 44/09 RC : 18(A)/08
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s : 7 and Sec. 13 (2) r/w.
Sec.13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o 31/239, Ashok Nagar,
Bahadurgarh (Haryana)
Date of Institution : 27.05.2009
Judgment Reserved on : 20.09.2014
Judgment Delivered on : 29.09.2014
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, the accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Facts of the case
2. In the chargesheet, it has been stated that the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta son of Late Dillu Ram Gupta, lodged a written complaint, dated 09.05.2008, wherein he alleged that accused Gulshan Kumar, Food & Supply Officer, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/ from him, for not resealing his Fair Price Shop / Ration Shop, CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 1 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 2 which has been desealed on 05.05.2008. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR bearing No. RCDAI2008A0018 was registered, on 09.05.2008 and was entrusted to Inspector C.K.Sharma, for verification and investigation.
3. It is further stated that for verification, Inspector C.K.Sharma directed the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta to contact the accused Gulshan Kumar, on his mobile phone No. 9312554594 from the mobile phone No. 9313700588, in the presence of independent witnesses Kamal Kishore and A.K.Singh and recorded the conversation, which corroborated the version of the complaint and confirmed the demand of bribe by the accused Gulshan Kumar, from the complainant.
4. It is further stated that the complainant produced a cash amount of Rs.10,000/, consisting of GC Notes of Rs.500/ and Rs. 1,000/ denominations and the GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a practical demonstration regarding the chemical reaction between the phenolphthalein powder and the colourless solution of sodium carbonate was also shown to the complainant and all the trap team members. Thereafter, bribe amount of Rs.10,000/ was duly treated with phenolphthalein powder and was kept in the left side pant pocket of the complainant and he CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 2 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 3 was directed, not to touch the said bribe amount and was also directed to hand over the tainted bribe amount to the accused, only on his specific demand of bribe.
5. It is further stated that a digital voice recorder along with the compact cassette recorder and blank audio cassettes, were also arranged, wherein, the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded and thereafter, the DVR was handed over to the complainant and the functioning of the digital recorder was also explained to him.
6. It is further stated that mobile phone No. 9968081430 carried by Inspector C.K.Sharma (Trap Laying Officer) was feeded in the mobile phone No. 9313700588 of the complainant and he was directed to give a 'missedcall' on the mobile phone of the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), after completion of the bribe transaction. He was also directed to give the signal by scratching his head with both of his hands.
7. It is further stated that the complainant along with the witnesses and the members of the trap team reached the office of the accused at about 4.35 p.m. and on the way, the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta received a phone call on his mobile at about 3.50 p.m. CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 3 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 4 from accused Gulshan Kumar, which was also recorded.
8. It is further stated that after reaching the office of the accused Gulshan Kumar, the trap team members along with the witnesses took suitable positions in the vicinity. At about 4.55 p.m., a pre decided signal was received by Inspector Prem Nath, who further informed the other team members and thereafter the team members rushed to the office of the accused, where the accused and complainant were found standing at the entrance of the door of the partition, situated the office of the accused. Thereafter, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) challenged the accused Gulshan Kumar and the accused Gulshan Kumar was caught hold of by Inspector Raj Singh and Inspector Prem Singh and the digital voice recorder was also taken from the complainant. It is further stated that the complainant was asked to narrate the incident, on which, he stated that the accused Gulshan Kumar had come out of his office with him and entered the accounts branch, where a Photostat machine was installed and the accused made a photocopy of one letter and handed over the same to him and obtained acknowledgment from him. Thereafter the accused demanded the bribe amount with gesture of his fingers, on which the complainant had handed over the tainted bribe money of Rs.10,000/ to him, which was kept by the accused in his right hand side pant pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave a CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 4 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 5 predecided signal by scratching his head with both of his hands, towards the trap team. Thereafter, the trap team reached there and conducted further proceedings.
9. It is further stated that a colorless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the handwash of the right hand of accused Gulshan Kumar was taken, on which, the said colorless solution turned pink in color. On the directions of the Trap Laying Officer, witness Kamal Kishore recovered the tainted amount of Rs.10,000/ from the right side pant pocket of the accused and the numbers of the recovered notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the handing over memo, which confirmed that the recovered GC notes were the same, which were mentioned in the handing over memo. Thereafter, the accused Gulshan Kumar was directed to take off his black color pant and was provided with a pajama and the wash of his right side pocket pant was also taken with sodium carbonate solution, on which the solution also turned pink in color. Both the solutions were duly sealed.
10. It is further stated that the conversation of the complainant with the accused Gulshan Kumar, was also transferred into two blank audio cassettes and the same were also sealed and seized. The search of the office table drawer and the car of accused was also CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 5 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 6 carried out and rough site plan was also prepared. It is further stated that the specimen voice of accused was also taken and during investigations, two sealed bottles containing colored chemicals were also seized along with the recovered tainted money and the recovery memo was prepared and signatures of the witnesses were taken.
11. It is further stated that during the investigations, the chemical solutions were sent to CFSL for chemical examination and the CFSL reports had indicated that both the solutions had given positive tests, for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. It is further stated that the specimen voice of accused Gulshan Kumar and the recorded conversations were also sent to CFSL, for examination and the CFSL report has also given positive opinion, regarding the matching of the voice of accused Gulshan Kumar with the recorded conversations.
12. During the investigations, the call details of mobile phone of accused Gulshan Kumr and the complainant were also taken and the relevant records of the Fair Price Shop of M/s. Vijay Provision Store were also seized. The personal file of accused Gulshan Kumar was also collected from the concerned office.
13. During the investigations, the statements of independent CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 6 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 7 witnesses, the complainant and other members of the trap team were also recorded and necessary sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was also obtained and after completion of the investigations, the chargesheet was filed in the court and the accused Gulshan Kumar was sent up for trial.
14. Vide order dated 07.03.2010, the charges for the offences u/s. 7 and sec. 13 (1) (d) r/w. Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against the accused Gulshan Kumar, by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Evidence on behalf of Prosecution
15. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined a total of 13 witnesses, as under :
(i) PW1 Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, who is the complainant.
(ii) PW2 Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary, Delhi, who granted sanction for prosecution of accused Gulshan Kumar and proved the sanction order, passed under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988, as Ex.PW.2/A.
(iii) PW3 Dr. Rajender Singh, Director CFSL, New Delhi, who examined the recorded conversations between the complainant and the accused and proved his report as Ex.PW3/A. CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 7 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 8
(iv) PW4 Sh. R.S.Chauhan, who proved his report No. CFSL2008 /C0353, dated 10.06.2008, regarding the presence of 'phenolphthalein' and 'sodium carbonate' in the various exhibits, as Ex.PW4/A.
(v) PW5 Sh. Vinod Kumar, who was working as LDC in Accounts Branch of Food & Supplies Department, New Delhi. He handed over the original licence file Ex.PW.5/B, of FPS No. 7734 of M/s. Vijay Provisions, vide memo Ex.PW.5/A.
(vi) PW6 Sh. Ved Prakash, has produced the call details of the mobile phones No. 9312554594 and 9313700588, registered in the names of the accused Gulshan Kumar and complainant Vijay Kumar, respectively. This witness has produced the call details Ex.PW.6/C, in respect of mobile No. 9312554594 of accused Gulshan Kumar and the call details of mobile No. 9313700588 of complainant Vijay Kumar, Ex.PW.6/D.
(vii) PW7 Sh. Arvind Mathur, who was working as LDC in the office of Food & Supplies Department, has proved the arrestcum personal search memo of accused Gulshan Kumar as Ex.PW7/A.
(viii) PW8 Sh. R.K.Chauhan, Sales Tax Inspector, has proved the recovery memo dated 09.05.2008 as Ex.PW8/A. He has further proved the letters dated 16.06.2008 and 27.05.2008, written by him, as Ex.PW.8/D and Ex.PW.8/E, respectively.
(ix) PW9 Sh. I.C.Gupta, is brother of the complainant.
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 8 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 9
(x) PW10 Sh. Anand Kumar Singh, is an independent witness, who was requisitioned by the Trap Laying Officer, to witness the trap proceedings.
(xi) PW11 Sh. Kamal Kishore, is another independent witness, who was also requisitioned by the Trap Laying Officer, to witness the trap proceedings.
(xii) PW12 Inspector C.K.Sharma, is the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) of the present case, to whom the complaint of the complainant Vijay Kumar was marked for verification and laying the trap.
(xiii) PW13 Inspector Yogesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present case.
16. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded on 10.03.2014, wherein, he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further stated that he was posted as Food & Supply Officer in the office of FSO, Shalimar Bagh since 2007 and Fair Price Shop No. 7734 in the name of the complainant was within his jurisdiction. On 24.1.2008, the said shop was sealed by the department for violation of rules. It was however desealed on 29.1.2008. On 30.01.2008, ration cards of that shop were transferred, to Fair Price Shop No. 8076 by him. FIR u/s. 7/10/55 E.C. Act was also registered against CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 9 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 10 the complainant, besides imposition of penalty of Rs.5000/. There was a Kerosene Oil Depot (KOD) lincence No. 3787/94 in the name of MUKUL, the nephew of the complainant. This KOD was also being run by the complainant, who used to sit there. It was against the rules. The accused had asked the complainant not to do an act against the rules, otherwise, he may have problems from the department. He did not relish it and felt annoyed with the accused. Ultimately, a show cause notice to Mukul KOD was issued, to which the complainant gave a reply and the same was received in the office of accused, on 03.05.2008. On 07.05.2008, letter Ex.PW8/C was prepared under the signatures of Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Asstt. Commissioner, NorthWest, calling M/s. Mukul KOD to FSO, on 14.5.2008. The accused had delivered this letter to the complainant as Mukul himself did not come to the office. On 08.05.08 at about 06.19 p.m., the accused telephoned the complainant on his mobile No. 9313700588 from the mobile of accused bearing No. 9312554594 to inform about the said letter and told him that he may take it from the accused. On 09.05.08 at 11.01 a.m., complainant Vijay Kumar gave a call that he would be coming to the accused. Accused told him to reach his office within one hour, or so, as the accused had to leave the office for some work. The accused again told him on phone that he shall collect the letter and make endorsement to the effect. At about 01.30 p.m., the complainant again phoned the accused and CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 10 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 11 said that he got late and would reach within another 1 1 ½ hours. On the same day, complainant Vijay Kumar reached the office of the accused at about 4.30 p.m. to receive the said letter in the name of M/s. Mukul KOD. After his coming, the accused got the photocopy of the letter done, as office copy, and gave the original to the complainant. When they came out from the room where photocopy machine was installed, complainant took out some currency notes from his pocket and offered to the accused saying that the accused may see that no action is taken on the notice to M/s. Mukul KOD. The accused refused to take the money and in an attempt to thrust the same on the accused, the notes fell down on the ground and in the meanwhile 34 persons, saying that they were from CBI reached there. One of them, whose name the accused came to know as Inspector C.K.Sharma, forced the accused to pick up the notes and put the same in his pocket. After a little while and on the resistance of the accused, he himself took out the notes from the pocket of the accused. Inspector C.K. Sharma, thereafter took the accused to CBI office and did what he wanted to do and got certain papers signed from the accused under duress. The accused also preferred to lead evidence in his defence.
Evidence in Defence
17. During the trial, the accused has also examined one witness in CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 11 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 12 his defence i.e. DW1 Sh. Ramkesh, who was working as Personal Assistant to Shri R.K.Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner, Food & Supply Office, Delhi, who has deposed that at about 4.30 p.m., he was present in his office. At about 4.45 p.m., he went to the room adjacent to the A.C. Office, for copying some documents, as a photocopy machine was installed there. He further deposed that at that time, he saw FSO Shri Gulshan Kumar, present there with one Vijay Kumar, FPS owner. 34 persons were also present there at that time. He has further deposed that he saw some currency notes lying on the ground. One of those 34 persons lifted the said notes and tried to hand over the said notes to accused Gulshan Kumar, but, Gulshan Kumar refused to accept the said notes. In the meantime, one of those persons caught hold of Gulshan Kumar with his hands and told that they were from CBI and he directed Gulshan Kumar to do as per his directions and on their directions, accused Gulshan Kumar took the said currency notes and put the same in his pant pocket.
18. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for the CBI and Sh. N.K.Sharma, Advocate, Ld. defence counsel for the accused.
Arguments on behalf of the C.B.I .
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 12 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 13
19. It has been argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that the accused was working as Food & Supply Officer, GradeI, Circle19, under the GNCTD and the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta was running a Fair Price Shop (Ration Shop) No. 48, at Pitampura, Delhi, in the name and style of M/s. Vijay Provision Store and on 24.01.2008, his shop was sealed by the Additional Commissioner, Food & Supply, and therefore, he submitted an application for reopening of his shop on 25.01.2008. Thereafter, his shop was reopened on 29.01.2008 and on 30.01.2008, all the ration cards of his shop were transferred to fair price shop No. 8076. An FIR was also registered against the complainant, in which a penalty of Rs.5000/ was imposed on him and thereafter, he met the accused, who demanded a bribe of a sum of Rs.20,000 to 30,000/ from the complainant on the pretext that, in case, he failed to pay the bribe amount to the accused, he would again get his ration shop sealed.
20. It is further argued that the complainant lodged a written complaint with the CBI and after due verification, the FIR was lodged on 09.05.08 and thereafter, the trap proceedings were conducted. It is further argued that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case, beyond a shadow of doubt, and the complainant as well as the shadow witnesses, have proved that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.20000/ CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 13 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 14 from the complainant.
21. It is further argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that during the trap proceedings, the tainted GC notes of Rs.20,000/ were duly recovered from the possession of the accused and during the trap proceedings, the wash of the hand and pant pocket of the accused were also taken in a solution of sodium carbonate in water, on which, the solutions had turned pink, which indicated the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hands and the pocket of the accused. He has further argued that the CFSL report has corroborated these facts and it has been established on record that the solution contained the Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.
22. It is further argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI, that the sanction for prosecution, against the accused, was duly granted by the PW2 Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary, GNCTD, vide sanction order Ex.PW2/A. He has further argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused, beyond shadow of doubt, and therefore, the accused should be held guilty and convicted for the offences u/s. 7 and Sec. 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988.
Arguments on behalf of the accused CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 14 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 15
23. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove any case against accused and there are a large number of material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, which makes the entire case doubtful. He has argued that the complainant was having grievances against the accused and the Food & Supplies Department, since the year 1997, and therefore, the IO was required to conduct the investigations about the previous conduct of the complainant also. He has argued that the purpose of investigation is to bring out the truth and it should not be confined to bring the evidence, only against the accused. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the judgment, in case titled as Saurabh Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as 2014 Cri L.J. 200, in support of his above contention.
24. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that there is no presumption against the accused, either in fact or in evidence and the statement of the witnesses, including the complainant and the other formal prosecution witnesses, are to be considered as a whole, to find out the truth. He has pointed out various contradictions in the depositions of the complainant, the other public witnesses, the trap laying officer and the other prosecution witnesses. He has also argued that the complainant, the other public witnesses and the trap laying officer, have all given different versions of the proceedings, CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 15 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 16 which are contradictory in nature and therefore, casts a doubt on the entire prosecution story. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal, reported as (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 685 (SC)
(ii) Mritunjay Biswas Vs. Pranab @Kuti Biswas & Anr, reported as 2013 (4) JCC 2481 SC
(iii) Govindaraju @Govinda Vs. State of Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr., reported as 2012 (3) JCC, 1714 (SC )
25. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that during the trial, the prosecution has failed to produce the source of the alleged recorded telephonic conversations between the complainant and the accused and therefore, the copies of the recorded conversations and transcripts are inadmissible in law. He has further argued that neither the original DVR nor the original recordings were produced before the court, during the trial, as the same had already been destroyed, due to the fault of the IO/TLO. He has further argued that the prosecution cannot take benefit of its own lapses, regarding the nonproduction of the original recordings and therefore, the prosecution cannot prove the copies of the alleged recorded conversations in the copied CDs, as secondary evidence. He has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) Rakesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State, reported as 163 (2009) DLT 658 (DB Delhi) CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 16 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 17
(ii) Ram Singh & Anr. Vs. Cos. Ram Singh, reported as AIR 1986 SC 3
(iii) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as 2011 STPL (Web) 291 Supreme Court
(iv) Mahavir Prasad Verma Vs. Dr. Surender Kaur, reported as 1982 AIR 1043 SC
(v) R. Venkatesan Vs. State, reported as 1980 Cri.L.J. 41 Madras
26. The Ld. defence counsel has also argued that except the complainant, there is no other witness of 'demand of bribe' by the accused, from the complainant and there are a large number of material contradictions in his deposition, which makes even the demand of bribe, doubtful. He has also argued that even the alleged tape recorded conversations do not indicate that a demand of bribe was made by the accused from the complainant. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI, reported as 2011 (2) JCC 1059
(ii) P.K. Gupta Vs. CBI, reported as 2011 (4) JCC 2352
(iii) State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Devender Singh, reported as 2013 (4) JCC 2635
(iv) Rajender Prasad Sharma Vs. State, reported as 2014 (2) JCC 1162
(v) Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana, reported as 2010 (3) JCC 1842
(vi) B. Jayraj Vs. State of A.P., reported as 2014(3) JCC 1552 CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 17 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 18
27. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that even the sanction for prosecution of the accused was granted by the competent authority in a mechanical manner and there was no application of mind. He has argued that the deposition of PW2 Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary, GNCTD, who passed the sanction order Ex.PW2/A, clearly indicates the non application of mind and therefore, the sanction granted by him is not a valid sanction, for prosecution, as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the following judgment, in support of his above contention:
(i) CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal 2014, reported as Cri. L.J. 930 (SC)
28. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that during the trap proceedings the IO and the TLO have failed to seal the alleged recovered tainted GC notes and the GC notes have been produced before the court, during the trial, in an unsealed condition. Furthermore, the seal of the CBI had remained with the TLO, Inspector R.K. Chauhan, at all times and he had not handed over the same to any other independent witness, after its use. He has further argued that the entire link evidence regarding the seizure of the recovered tainted GC notes and hand wash solution and pant pocket CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 18 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 19 wash solution and the deposition of the same at the Malkhana of the CBI and thereafter, sending of the same to the CFSL, CBI, for expert chemical examination, is missing and therefore, the same also casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) Ukha Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1531
(ii) State of Rajastahn & Ors. Vs. Mani Ram & Ors., reported as 1980 Cri L.J. NOC 173 (Rajasthan)
(iii) Hannan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported as 2013 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 94 Delhi
(iv) Rajender Kumar Narang Vs. State, reported as 2014 (2) JCC DLI 1085
29. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that during the trial, the accused has also produced evidence in his defence and DW1 Ramkesh was examined by him, who had deposed that on 09.05.2008, at about 4.45 p.m., he saw the complainant standing with the accused, along with 34 other persons and he also saw the currency notes lying on the ground and one of those persons lifted the said notes and tried to hand over the same to the accused, but, the accused Gulshan Kumar refused to accept the said notes and raised his hands while refusing to accept the said notes and thereafter, those persons caught hold of the accused and told him that they were from CBI and thereafter, under fear, the accused took the said CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 19 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 20 currency notes and put the same in his pocket. The Ld. defence counsel has further argued that the deposition of the defence witness has also dented the prosecution story and his deposition is also to be considered by the court and the standard of proof of defence evidence is not the same as that of the prosecution evidence. The Ld. defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contention:
(i) Munshi Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2002 SCC (Cri) 175 SC
(ii) Krishna Janardan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported as (2008) 2 SCC Cril. 166
(ii) Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, reported as (2010) 3 SCC Cri. 330
30. The Ld. defence counsel has prayed that in view of the large number of material discrepancies and contradictions on record, as argued above, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused and the accused be acquitted of the charges, framed against him.
31. I have carefully perused the case file and I have also given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for the CBI and Sh. N.K Sharma, Ld. defence counsel. I have also gone through the various judgments cited by the Ld. defence counsel, in support of his contentions.
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 20 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 21 FINDING / OBERVATIONS (A) Demand of Bribe and Its Acceptance
32. Perusal of the record shows that in order to prove the demand of bribe money, by the accused, from the complainant, the prosecution has examined, the complainant as PW1. There is no other witness of the 'demand of bribe' by the accused, from the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta, lodged a written complaint Ex.PW1/A, on 09.05.2008, on the basis of which, case FIR bearing No. RC DAI2008A0018, was registered at CBI, ACB, New Delhi, on 09.05.08, at about 2.00 p.m. The complainant has proved his complaint dated, as Ex.PW1/A, wherein, he has stated that he was running a fair price shop (ration shop), at FP48, Pitampura, New Delhi, in the name and style of M/s. Vijay Provision Store and the said shop was sealed on 24.01.08 by Sh. D.P. Diwedi, Additional Commissioner, Food & Supply and after investigation, Sh. D.P. Diwedi had directed to open the shop. He further complained that he went to accused Gulshan Kumar, FSO, Circle No. 19, Shalimar Bagh, with the copy of the order, on 02.05.2008, on which, the accused Gulshan Kumar got his shop restarted on 05.05.08, after marking his old ration cards to his shop and in lieu of that he demanded a bribe amount of Rs.20,000/. Complainant further stated that the accused CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 21 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 22 Gulshan Kumar threatened him that in case a bribe of Rs.20,000/ was not paid by him, then he shall get his shop resealed. Thereafter, on 08.05.08, the accused Gulshan Kumar again asked him to pay a bribe amount of Rs.20000/, on 09.05.08, by calling him from his mobile phone No. 9312554594, on the mobile phone of the complainant bearing No. 9313700588 and threatened that in default, his shop shall be closed again. The complainant further stated that he was not inclined to pay the bribe to accused Gulshan Kumar, FSO Circle19, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and therefore, he had come to the CBI office, after arranging an amount of Rs.10000/.
33. On the above complaint ExPW1/A, case FIR Ex.PW1/B was registered and the same was marked to Inspector C.K. Sharma, for verification and laying the trap, by Sh. Bhupender Kumar, SP, CBI. But, in his deposition before the court as PW1, a large number of material contradictions and discrepancies have come on record. The complainant has made a large number of improvements in his deposition before the court, from his complaint Ex.PW1/A and his statement given to the CBI, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his deposition before the court, he has deposed that his ration shop was sealed by Sh. D.P. Diwedi, on 24.01.2008 and he made an application for reopening the shop on 25.01.08. Thereafter, he received a show cause notice on 25.01.08 and in terms of his CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 22 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 23 application for reopening of his shop, his shop was desealed on 29.01.08. Thereafter, on 30.01.08 all the ration cards of his shop were transferred to fair price shop No. 8076. He has further deposed that an FIR was also lodged against him and on 30.04.08, he came to know about the revocation order of his ration shop. He has further stated that a penalty of Rs.5000/ was also imposed on him, as his earlier security amount was forfeited and thereafter, he approached accused Gulshan Kumar who was working as FSO, Circle19, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. This witness has further stated that the accused Gulshan Kumar, demand approximately Rs.20,000/ to 30,000/, but, he finally agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 20,000/ as bribe. He has further deposed that accused Gulshan Kumar had asked him, on 05.05.08, to pay the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/, to him, on 09.05.2008. In this deposition, the complainant has never disclosed any demand of bribe by accused Gulshan Kumar prior to 08.05.08 and has also not disclosed anything about receiving of any phone calls from the accused.
34. In his deposition before the court as PW1 the complainant has further stated that he discussed the entire episode with his brother I.C. Gupta (PW9) and thereafter, his brother contacted CBI and thereafter, he received a telephonic call from SP, CBI, who asked him about his difficulties or harassment and thereafter, SP, CBI, asked the CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 23 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 24 complainant to meet him on 09.05.08, before noon. The complainant has further deposed that he visited the CBI office accordingly, with his brother I.C. Gupta, who wrote an application at his instance. This witness has further deposed that the complaint was read over to him and was signed by his brother, in the office of the SP, CBI, where, the SP, CBI, had also asked the complainant, whether he had brought the money, on which, he replied in affirmative and told him that he had brought a sum of Rs.10,000/. Thereafter, he showed the currency notes to SP, CBI, and since the currency notes were in smaller denominations, the SP, CBI, offered to get the currency notes changed to higher denominations and the SP, CBI, got the currency notes changed into currency notes of higher denominations. These facts are not mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/A. Perusal of the complaint Ex.PW1/A, further indicates that the complainant was not willing to pay any bribe to the accused and therefore, his brother contacted the CBI. In his deposition before the court, this witness has categorically stated that he visited the CBI office for the first time on 09.05.08 and had never visited the CBI office either on 08.05.08 or prior to 09.05.08. Therefore, it is surprising to that the complainant despite having no intention to pay the bribe amount to the accused, visited the CBI office after arranging the amount of Rs.10,000/. As the complainant had never visited the CBI office prior to 09.05.08 and had never met the SP, CBI, prior to 09.05.08, how he came to know CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 24 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 25 about requirement of trap money or the procedure to be adopted by the CBI, for laying the trap, is not clear. Furthermore, the complainant has deposed that he received a phone call from the S.P., CBI on 08.05.08, but, even then, he was not disclosed anything about the arrangement of the cash amount of Rs.10,000/, which was taken by him to the CBI office on 09.05.08. Therefore, the deposition of the complainant, in this regard is suspicious.
35. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as, "B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., reported as 2014 (3) JCC 1552", decided on 04.09.2014, as under:
7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma Vs. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu Vs. C.B.A. (2009) 3 SCC 779.
9. In so far as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Section 13(1) (d) (i) (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.
(emphasis supplied) CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 25 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 26
36. It is also held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as, "P.K. Gupta Vs. CBI, reported as 2011(4) JCC 2352", as under:
14. In A. Subair v. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587, the Supreme Court held as under:
"The legal position is no more res integra that primary requisite of an offence under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act is proof of a demand or request of a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the public servant. In other words, in the absence of proof of demand or request from the public servant, for a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the offence under Section 13(1) (d) cannot be held to the established."
15. It is settled law that mere recovery of bribe money, divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantial evidence of demand and acceptance in the case is not reliable. (See M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. 2001 (1) JCC 118 : 2001(1) SCC 691. In view of above propositions of law, it is recapitulated that the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act is available for the offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 and not for Clause (d) of Section 13(1). For offence under Section 13(1)
(d), it will be required to be proved that some initiative was taken by a person who receives and in that context demand or request from him will be a prerequisite.
(emphasis supplied)
37. Perusal of the record further shows that TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12) has deposed that on 09.05.08, his SP, Sh. Bhpender Kumar, called him and introduced the complainant to him and thereafter, the complaint Ex.PW1/A was marked to him and thereafter, he took the complainant to his chamber and thereafter, he arranged two independent witnesses, namely, Anand Kumar Singh (PW10) and Kamal Kishore (PW11). But, both these witnesses namely, Anand Kumar Singh (PW10) and Kamal Kishore (PW11), CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 26 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 27 have categorically stated in the court that they received instruction, in writing, from their superior officers on 08.05.08, itself, for visiting the CBI office on 09.05.08. Both these witnesses have categorically stated in the court that they have reached the CBI office at about 9.009.30 a.m. Therefore, the depositions of PW10 Anand Kumar Singh and PW11 Kamal Kishore contradicts the statement of the complainant PW1 and TLO PW12 Inspector C.K. Sharma, that the complainant had never visited the CBI office prior to 09.05.08.
38. Perusal of the record further shows that in complaint Ex.PW1/A, the complainant had categorically stated that his shop was desealed on 05.05.08 and in lieu of that, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/ from him and also threatened him that, in case, he failed to pay the bribe amount, then he shall get his shop sealed again. But, he had not deposed anything about these facts in his deposition before the court and has also not disclosed any reason as to why he kept on waiting till 09.05.08, when he visited the CBI office and lodged the written complaint.
39. Perusal of the record further shows that the complainant was having grievances against the Food & Supply office since the year, 1997 and in his crossexamination he has admitted that on 24.12.96, a case FIR No. 1815/96 was registered against him u/s. 7 of Essential CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 27 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 28 Commodity Act, and in that case he pleaded guilty and the court released him on probation, on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 5000/. He has further admitted that on 22.10.07, the Food & Supply department had issued him a show cause notice to show cause, as to why, the licence of his fair price shop may not be canceled, in lieu of his conviction u/s. 7 of Essential Commodity Act, vide order dated 30.04.97. He has further admitted that the licence of his fair price shop was cancelled by the department, vide order dated 03.11.07 and therefore, he filed a petition bearing No.8325/07, before the Hon'ble High Court on 03.11.07, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 15.11.07, observed that the licence of his shop should not be cancelled and the department should reconsider the show cause notice given to the complainant. It was further admitted by the complainant that the cancellation order dt. 03.11.07 was withdrawn by the department, vide order dated 05.12.07. This witness has further admitted that on 24.01.08, his shop was raided by the officials of the Food & Supply department at about 5.00 p.m. and at that time, his shop was found closed. He has further admitted that on that day, it was not a weekly off for the shop and as per rules, the shop should have remained opened till 7.00 p.m.. He has admitted that his shop was sealed on 24.01.08 and not on 25.01.08. He has further stated that the seal of the shop was opened on 29.01.08 and the shop was inspected and many irregularities were found. He has further CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 28 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 29 admitted that on 25.01.08, he received a show cause notice, regarding suspension of his licence and he had replied to that notice. But, on 17.04.08, he received another show cause notice from the department. He has further admitted that he gave reply to the said show cause notice on 17.04.08, itself. He has further admitted that the order dated 25.01.08, was revoked,vide order dated 30.04.2008 and a penalty of Rs.5000/ was imposed on him. None of these facts have been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW1/A.
40. All the above admissions on the part of the complainant clearly indicate that the complainant was a habitual offender and was having grievances against the department for taking action against his misdeeds and therefore, in the consider opinion of this court, the complainant was having every reason to lodge a false and motivated complaint against the officials of Food & Supply Department.
41. Perusal of the record further shows that the complainant lodged his complaint Ex.PW1/A, on 09.05.08, after due deliberations with his brother I.C. Gupta (PW9) and the SP, CBI, Sh. Bhupender Kumar. From the evidence on record it can be safely inferred that the complainant was in constant touch with the CBI officials for last several days, prior to lodging the written complaint on 09.05.08. It is also observed that the complainant had deposed about his visit to the CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 29 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 30 CBI office, for the first time, on 09.05.08, but, the circumstances, as discussed above and the deposition of the other witnesses, clearly indicate that the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta had visited the CBI office on several occasions, prior to 09.05.98. There are also material contradictions in his deposition, before the court as PW1, from the deposition of his brother I.C. Gupta (PW9). Complainant PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta has categorically stated that on 08.05.2008, the accused Gulshan Kumar had demanded a bribe of Rs.20000/ from him and since he was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he discussed the entire episode with his brother I.C. Gupta, who contacted the CBI and in turn, he received a telephonic call from CP, CBI, who asked about his difficulty and then the SP, CBI, directed the complainant to meet him on 09.05.08, at 12.00 Noon. Accordingly, he visited the CBI office. His brother wrote the complaint Ex.PW/1, at his instance and the same was read over to him and was signed by him and his brother. But, PW9 I.C. Gupta has not deposed anything about contacting the CBI office or the SP, CBI, on 08.05.08. Nothing has been disclosed by him about contacting the CBI on 08.05.08. On the contrary, he has stated that he suggested the complainant to visit the CBI office on 09.05.08. He had further deposed that on 09.05.08, he took his brother I.C. Gupta to the CBI office, at around, 10.00 a.m. and contacted SP, CBI, there. Thereafter, the SP, CBI, called two witnesses and one or two CBI inspectors for verifying the legality of CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 30 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 31 the complaint. But, the TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12) had deposed that the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta was introduced to him by the SP, CBI, Sh. Bhupender Kumar, on 09.05.08 and he lodged a written complaint with the SP, CBI, and the said complaint was marked to him for verification and thereafter, he arranged two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Anand Kumar Singh (PW10) and Sh. Kamal Kishore (PW11). The deposition of TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma also indicates that PW9 I.C. Gupta was never present at the CBI office or in the room of the SP, CBI, when the complaint was marked to him for verification and further action. PW9 I.C. Gupta had further deposed that the SP, CBI, had asked the complainant to ring accused Gulshan Kumar on his mobile and thereafter, they noticed that the accused Gulshan Kumar demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000/ from him. He had further deposed that prior to making the phone call, his brother was asked to make a complaint in writing. But, he was unable to write because his right thumb was not working and therefore, he wrote the complaint in Hindi, on his behalf. But, these circumstances have not been disclosed by any of the prosecution witnesses, including the TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12) or the complainant himself. No explanation has been given by the complainant, as to why his brother I.C. Gupta had written the complaint, on his behalf. Even in his crossexamination, PW9 I.C. Gupta has given contradictory statements and had deposed that on CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 31 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 32 08.05.08, he had not gone to his office as it was a Sunday and his brother had contacted him at his residence, at about 10.00 a.m. But, from the calender for the year 2008, it is clear that 08.05.2008, was a Thursday and was a working day.
42. Perusal of the record further shows that there are a large number of material contradictions in the depositions of complainant PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta and his brother PW9 I.C. Gupta, from the testimony of the other independent witnesses, namely, PW10 Anand Kumar Singh, PW11 Kamal Kishore and PW12 TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma, regarding the proceedings conducted by the SP, CBI, on 09.05.08, in his office, when the complainant PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta allegedly contacted him with his brother I.C. Gupta. The complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta had categorically stated that he met SP, CBI, with his complaint and thereafter, he called inspector C.K. Sharma and introduced him and directed inspector C.K. Sharma to verify his complainant and thereafter, Inspector C.K. Sharma took him to his room, where other CBI officials were present. He had further stated that the two independent witnesses from the Sales Tax and Excise Department, had also joined them in the said room. He had deposed in his crossexamination that the complaint Ex.PW1/A, was written by his brother in the CBI office, in the room of Inspector C.K. Sharma, and not in the room of S.P., CBI. He had further deposed CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 32 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 33 that prior to lodging of complaint, he had met SP, CBI, and the complaint was written at about 12.30 p.m. He had further deposed that he remained in the room of SP CBI for about half an hour and the SP CBI asked him to write his complaint, on which, he brought the complaint from his brother, in the room of SP, CBI. Thereafter, SP, CBI, called Inspector C.K. Sharma to his office. PW9 I.C. Gupta had deposed in his crossexamination that he wrote the complaint, perhaps in the the side room, to the room of SP, CBI and his brother had given complaint to the SP, CBI. PW9 I.C. Gupta had denied the suggestion of the Ld. defence counsel that his borther PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta, had not visited him on 08.05.08, at his residence. But, PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta had categorically deposed before the court, that he had discussions with his brother I.C. Gupta (PW9), on phone when his brother was in his office. It is pertinent to mention here that the SP, CBI, Sh. Bhupender Kumar, has not been examined during the trial and he is not even cited as a witness in the charge sheet, to make clarifications regarding the above proceedings and contradictions.
43. Perusal of the record further shows that a large number of discrepancies have come on record, even about the handing over of the currency notes, by the complainant to the CBI officials, for the purposes of conducting the trap proceedings. PW1 Vijay Kumar CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 33 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 34 Gupta has deposed that he handed over a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/ to Inspector C.K Sharma for conducting the trap proceedings and there were six or eight GC notes of Rs.500/ denomination, while the remaining were of Rs.1000/ denomination. The complainant was not sure about the number of the GC notes of different denominations. He had categorically stated in his examinationin chief on 06.04.2010, that the SP, CBI, had asked him about the bribe money, on which he told the SP, CBI, that he had brought a cash amount of Rs.10,000/ and thereafter, he showed him the currency notes. The complainant had further stated that the currency notes taken by him were in smaller denominations and the SP, CBI, offered to get them changed to higher denominations. He had further deposed that the SP, CBI, got the GC notes changed into higher denominations and he paid Rs.10,000/ of smaller denominations, in exchange. But, nothing has been disclosed by his brother PW9 I.C. Gupta, in this regard. On the contrary, during his crossexamination, he has stated that they had not taken the money with them, but some money was lying in his pocket and some money was also lying in the pocket of his brother Vijay Kumar Gupta and it was about Rs.3000/ or Rs.4000/. He had further stated that some notes were of Rs.500/ denomination and some notes were of Rs.100/ denomination. He was having no knowledge about the denominations of the currency notes held by his brother Vijay Kumar Gupta. He had denied the CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 34 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 35 suggestion that the SP, CBI, had changed the notes, from smaller denomination to higher denomination, of his own. He had categorically stated that the currency notes, which were given by him and his brother were kept for trap proceedings, as it is. PW12 Inspector C.K Sharma, TLO, had given a different version altogether. He had deposed that he reached the office of the SP, CBI, between 12.30 p.m. and 1.00 p.m., and at that time the complainant was sitting alone with the SP, CBI, and the SP, CBI, had asked the complainant whether he had brought the money, on which, the complainant had replied in affirmative and had said that he had brought the amount. He had further deposed that the currency notes were not shown by the complainant to the SP, CBI, and therefore, the question of changing the smaller denomination notes to higher denomination notes, by the SP, CBI, does not arise. He had denied the suggestion that the SP, CBI, had offered to get the smaller denomination notes changed to higher denomination currency notes and the SP, CBI, had in fact got it done. He had also denied the suggestion that the complainant gave Rs.10,000/ to the SP, CBI, in exchange of smaller denomination currency notes. He had further stated that the SP CBI had not even asked the complainant to get his written complaint. This witness has volunteered that the complaint was already written, before he reached the office of the SP, CBI.
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 35 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 36
44. PW10 Anand Kumar Singh and PW11 Kamal Kishore, have also given different versions, regarding the proceedings conducted in the office of the SP, CBI, on 09.05.08. In his crossexamination, on 27.04.2012, PW10 Anand Kumar Singh had stated that the complainant Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta met him at about 9.15 9.30 a.m. in the room of the TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma and the complainant was already having the complaint with him and the same was read over by PW11 Kamal Kishore. He had further deposed that no questions were asked by him or PW11 Kamal Kishore, from the complainant, regarding his complaint. He had categorically stated that neither he nor PW11 Kamal Kishore were taken to the room of SP, CBI. He was even not remembering whether he met SP, CBI, on that day or not. This witness was also having no information about the denominations of the currency notes. In his further cross examination on 18.07.2012, this witness had deposed that he along with PW11 Kamal Kishore, stayed in the room of SP, CBI, for about 1520 minutes. This witness has categorically stated that the complainant Mr. Gupta was already having a written complaint with him and he had not brought the complaint from his brother, to the room of SP, CBI. This witness has further stated that the complainant had not shown any currency notes, brought by him, in the room of SP CBI. He had categorically denied the suggestion that the denomination of the currency notes were changed in the room of the CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 36 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 37 SP, CBI. PW11 Kamal Kishore had also deposed that on 09.05.2008, he reached the office of CBI at CGO Complex, New Delhi, at about 9.30 /9.45 a.m. and at about 12.45 p.m., he was taken to the room of SP, CBI , where the complainant and the SP, CBI, were present. It is relevant to note that none of these witnesses have talked about the presence of PW9 I.C. Gupta in the room of the SP, CBI, along with the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta. In his further crossexamination on 08.10.2012, this witness has categorically stated that the complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta had not shown any currency notes, brought by him, to the SP, CBI, and therefore, it would be wrong to suggest that the SP, CBI, changed some of the currency notes, brought by the complainant in his presence. However, this witness has volunteered that the currency notes were changed, but the same were not changed in the room of the SP, CBI.
45. Perusal of the record also shows that during the alleged trap proceedings, an amount of Rs.10,000/ was allegedly recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. Complainant PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta, had deposed that he gave the bribe money to accused Gulshan Kumar, near the staff room, close to the room of accused Gulshan Kumar, where a photocopy machine was installed and the bribe money was handed over to accused Gulshan Kumar by him, while coming out of the said room. But, while hading over the bribe CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 37 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 38 money, the currency notes had fallen down from his hands and both of them went down to pick up the currency notes and in this process, their heads collided and he felt a bit giddy and in the mean while, accused Gulshan Kumar picked up the currency notes and he had already signalled the CBI team, which was nearby and thereafter, they came towards him and when the CBI team was coming towards them, the currency notes were in the hand of Gulshan Kumar and thereafter, he kept the same in his pocket. Thereafter, the CBI team caught Gulshan Kumar with both hands and thereafter, they took him inside the office, where the hands of accused Gulshan Kumar were washed and his pant was also washed. He has further deposed that the washes were kept in glass bottles, which were sealed. He had further deposed that the colour of the hand washes were pink but, he had failed to remember the person who had recovered the money from the pocket of accused Gulshan Kumar. He had volunteered that the CBI officials, who were present there, had recovered the money and as far as he remember, Inspector C.K. Sharma had recovered the bribe money. But, Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12), has deposed that PW11 Kamal Kishore had recovered the currency notes from the pant pocket of the accused. He had further deposed that when the bribe money was handed over by him to Gulshan Kumar, the two independent witnesses were standing nearby, but, the shadow witness was not with him, when he gave the money to accused CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 38 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 39 Gulshan Kumar. In his crossexamination, on 17.10.2011, this witness had admitted that the currency notes had fallen down from his hand, while giving the same to accused Gulshan Kumar and it was he, who picked up the notes. This witness had admitted that these facts were not told by him to the CBI officials and he had deposed these facts, for the first time, in the court. He had further stated that the signal was not given by him by ringing the phone, but, by spreading his both hands on his head. From the perusal of the record, it is further observed that the alleged currency notes were not sealed by the CBI officials, after the alleged recovery and the currency notes were produced before the court, during the trial, in an unsealed condition. These tainted currency notes were never sent to CFSL for chemical analysis to establish the fact that the said currency notes were also having the presence of the phenolphthalein powder, on them. Furthermore, the hand wash solutions were allegedly kept in two small glass bottles and the wash of the pant pocket of the accused was also kept in a third small glass bottle. But, the said glass bottles, containing pink colour hand wash and pant wash solutions, were never produced before the court, during the examination of PW1 Vijay Kumar Gupta or PW8 R.K. Chauhan, who witnessed the above proceedings. However, only two glass bottles Ex.P15 & Ex.P16, were produced before the court, for the first time, during the examination of PW10 Anand Kumar Singh, on CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 39 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 40 27.04.2012. After the completion of the final arguments, this court had also summoned the case property from the Malkhana for perusal and on seeing the glass bottles Ex.P15 & Ex.P16, it was observed that the two glass bottles, which were used by the CBI officials for keeping the alleged hand wash solutions of the accused, were the quarter bottles of 180ml. capacity of the liquor brand "Mcdowell No.1". There is no explanation by any witness as to why the empty liquor bottles were used by the CBI officials during the trap proceedings, for keeping the hand wash solutions of the accused. There are a large number of chemicals, including the alcohol, which turn pink on having chemical reactions with alcohol. Only these two bottles were sent to the CFSL for chemical analysis. None of the witness had deposed about the fate of the third glass bottle in which the wash of the left hand of the accused, was kept. The CFSL report Ex.PW4/A, also indicates that only the two sealed glass bottles, were sent to the CFSL and were containing the right hand wash solution and the right hand pant pocket wash solution. The report Ex.PW4/A indicates that the left hand wash solution was never sent to the CFSL, for chemical analysis. None of the witnesses have deposed about the fate of the left hand wash solution. PW10 Anand Kumar Singh had categorically stated that both hands of accused Gulshan Kumar were got washed and the solutions were kept in glass bottles, which were sealed in his presence. He had also deposed that the pant pocket of accused CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 40 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 41 Gulshan Kumar was also washed and the wash solution was also kept in a separate bottle and the same was also sealed. It is relevant to mention here that as per TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12), the hands of accused were held by Inspector Prem Nath and Inspector Raj Singh, who were also the members of the trap team. But, none of these two witnesses, has been cited or examined during the trial. Furthermore, PW12, Inspector C.K. Sharma, has not handed over the CBI seal to any other member of the trap team, after its use. The CBI seal had remained with him, at all times.
Corroborative Electronic Evidence
46. Perusal of the record also shows that there are a large number of material contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, regarding the method of verification of the complaint Ex.PW1/A, through alleged telephonic conversations, between the complainant and the accused. But, this court is not citing the details of the material contradictions and discrepancies in the oral depositions of the various prosecution witnesses, as the corroborative electronic evidence, in the form of the alleged recorded conversations and its transcripts, as well the call detail records, could not be proved by the prosecution during the trial, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 41 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 42
47. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as, "Achchey Lal Yadav Vs. State, reported as Criminal Appeal No. 1171/2012", decided on 04.09.2014, as under:
10. Thus, computer generated electronic records is evidence, admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
11. Subsection (1) of Section 65B makes admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions specified in Subsection (2) of Section 65B.
It was further held as under:
14. The normal rule of leading documentary evidence is the production and proof of the original document itself. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Under Subclause "d" of Section 65, secondary evidence of the contents of a document can be led when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable. Computerised operating systems and support systems in industry cannot be moved to the court. The information is stored in these computers on magnetic tapes (hard disc). Electronic record produced there from has to be taken in the form of a print out. Subsection (1) of Section 65B makes admissible without further proof, in evidence, print out of a electronic record contained on a magnetic medical subject to the satisfaction of the conditions mentioned in the section. The conditions are mentioned in Subsection (2). Thus compliance with Subsection (1) and (2) of Section 65B is enough to make admissible and prove electronic records.
15. Thus, if witnesses deposed concerning computer print outs of call details generated they must speak the facts to establish that clauses (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of Section 65B or subSection (3) thereof, as the case may be, are satisfied. It is not enough to say "I have seen the call details of the aforesaid three telephone connection on the record. The said calls details are Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW21/C respectively. The details are correct as per our record maintained in our office."
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 42 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 43 (emphasis supplies)
48. In the present case, the complainant allegedly made telephonic calls to the accused on 09.05.08, and the same was allegedly recorded at the CBI office, for the purposes of verification of the complaint Ex.PW1/A. The alleged conversations between the complainant and the accused, during the trap proceedings, were also recorded. The recorded conversations were allegedly transferred into separate cassettes, but, during the final arguments, the Ld. PP for the CBI, has conceded the fact that the source of recording of the alleged conversations, i.e., the digital voice recorder, was not available for production before the court and the alleged original recordings had already been erased by the CBI officials. Perusal of the record also indicate that during the crossexamination of the complainant (PW1), an application was moved by the accused on 08.11.2011, for issuing necessary directions to the prosecution for producing the original DVR before the court and reply to the said application was also filed by the CBI, wherein, it was reported that there were a limited number of DVRs available with the CBI for recording the conversations and the disc of the digital tape recorder cannot be produced before the court, as deemed confidential and containing information relating to other cases also. Perusal of the record further shows that during his examination in chief, on CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 43 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 44 07.01.2013, TLO PW12 Inspector C.K. Sharma, had categorically stated that the recordings regarding verification of complaint on the digital recorder were deleted from the digital voice recorder, after preparation of the copies of the said conversations. In his further examinationinchief, on 19.02.2013, he had further deposed that the conversations recorded on the DVR will not be available, as they might have been deleted, after copying the conversations in the audio cassettes and there is only one DVR in the branch and the same was used in so many cases of the branch.
49. Perusal of the record further shows that an application was moved on behalf of the Ld. PP for the CBI, on 05.03.2013, wherein, it was stated that the CBI may be permitted to lead the secondary evidence for proving the recorded conversations, as the recordings of the alleged conversations have been erased, inadvertently, as only one DVR was available with the CBI. No other reason or specific cause had been disclosed in this application, for leading the secondary evidence to prove the recorded conversations. Vide order, dated 25.03.2013, the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, had directed that the evidence regarding the cassettes shall be considered by the court at the ultimate stage and no orders for disposal of the said two applications were passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, with following observations :
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 44 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 45 Sh. N.K. Sharma Ld. Counsel for the accused, has filed reply to the application moved by Ld.PP u/s 65 (c) of the Indian Evidence Act. Ld. PP had moved an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence.
Ld. counsel for the accused had also moved an application on 08.11.11 seeking production of original DVR. CBI had filed reply to the said application wherein they had claimed that he DVR could not be produced as it was confidential and contained information relating to other cases also.
I have heard both of them for considerable length. Sh. N.K. Sharma states that cassettes in the instant case had already been played in the Court and exhibits marks were put on them. So in case, the application moved by prosecution is allowed, it would amount to granting of retrospective permission to CBI.
I find myself in agreement with this contention of Sh. N.K. Sharma, adv. Let evidence regarding cassettes be considered by the Court at the ultimate stage. No orders are being passed on both the applications moved. Same be kept on record indicating stand taken by both the parties vizaviz those cassettes.
50. From the above circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to produce the source from which the copies of the audio cassettes were prepared and were sent to the CFSL for expert opinion. Only the copies of the alleged recorded conversations have been placed on record. It was also conceded by the Ld. PP for the CBI, during the final arguments that the recorded conversations could not be proved during the trial, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the prosecution cannot take benefit of its own fault and lapses, due to which, the recorded conversations were deleted by the CBI officials from the DVR, during the investigations.
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 45 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 46
51. Perusal of the record further shows that during the trial, the prosecution has produced the call details of the mobile phone No. 9312554594, which was being used by the accused and mobile phone No. 9313700588, which was being used by the complainant Vijay Kumar, for the period, w.e.f., 05.05.2008 to 09.05.2008. PW6 Ved Prakash, is the Asstt. Nodal Officer of Reliance Communications Ltd., who produced the computer generated call details, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D, in respect of the mobile phone of accused Gulshan Kumar and the complainant Vijay Kumar, respectively. This witness has deposed as under: .
Further I have been shown the computer generated customer detail and call details which I had forwarded to the CBI. The customer details is now Ex. PW6/B and the call detail for the period 5.5.08 to 9.5.08 in respect of mobile no. 9312554594 in the name of Gulshan Kumar running into 5 sheets which is now Ex. PW6/C. The call detail for the period 5.5.08 to 9.5.08 in respect of mobile no. 9313700588 in the name of Vijay Kumar running into 8 sheets which is now Ex. PW6/D. Ex. PW6/C & PW6/D bears the seal of company at point A on all the sheets.
52. When the above testimony of this witness is examined in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as 'Achchey Lal Yadav vs. State' (Supra), it is clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the call detail records of the mobile phones used by accused Gulshan Kumar and the complainant Vijay Kumar, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 46 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 47 Act. Furthermore, the complainant had alleged that he was in touch with the accused, since January, 2008, but, no call details of his mobile phone or the mobile phone of the accused, w.e.f. January, 2008 till 09.05.2008, have been brought on record.
Link Evidence
53. Perusal of the record further shows that no evidence has been led by the prosecution about the deposition of the case property at the Malkhana of the CBI. The entire link evidence has remained missing, during the trial. No document has been produced before the court, regarding the deposition of the case property at the Malakhana, The MHC(M) of the Mlakhan has not been examined. No register of the Malkhana has been produced before the court, to prove that the case property was duly deposited at the Malkhana of the CBI, after the trap proceedings, on 09.05.08. No evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the case property was sent to the CFSL on 13.05.08. The official who deposited the case property at CFSL, on 13.05.08, has not been examined or produced before the court. No document has been produced before the court to indicate the date or time, on which, the case property was received back at the Malkhana of the CBI, after the chemical analysis at CFSL.
54. Even in the case of the recorded conversations, which were CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 47 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 48 allegedly transferred to the audio cassettes, there is no evidence on record to prove that the recorded audio cassettes were duly deposited at the Malkhana of the CBI, in duly sealed condition. No register of the Malkhana has been produced before the court even in this regard. No evidence has been led to indicate as to when the audio cassettes were sent to the CFSL for expert opinion. None of the prosecution witnesses, including the TLO Inspector C.K. Sharma (PW12) and the IO Inspector Yogesh Kumar (PW13), have deposed anything in this regard.
55. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as, "Ukha Kolhe Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported as AIR 1963 SC 1531", decided on 04.09.2014, as under:
8. But there is no evidence on the record about the person in whose custody this phial remained till it was handed over to the Sub Inspector of Police on April 13, 1961 when demanded. There is also no evidence about the precautions taken to ensure against tampering with the contents of the phial when it was in the Civil Hospital and later in the custody of the police between April 13, 1961 and April 18, 1961. Even the special messenger with whom the phial was sent to the Chemical Examiner was not examined: and Ext. 43 which was the acknowledgment signed by some person purporting to belong to the establishment of the Chemical Examiner does not bear the official designation of that person. The report of the Chemical Examiner mentions that a sealed phial was received from the police officer by letter No. C/010 of 1961 dated April 18, 1961, but there is no evidence that the seal was the one which was affixed by Dr. Rote on the phial. These undoubtedly were defects in the prosecution evidence which appear to have occurred on account of insufficient appreciation of the character of the burden which the prosecution undertakes in proving a case of an CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 48 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 49 offence under S. 66 (1) (b) relying upon the presumption under S. 6 (2).
(emphasis supplied)
56. The absence of the entire link evidence regarding the deposition of the case property in sealed condition at the Malkhana of the CBI and sending of the case property to the CFSL for chemical analysis and expert opinion, also makes the prosecution case doubtful.
Sanction for Prosecution
57. The sanction for prosecution of the accused, who was working as Food & Supply Officer, Circle 19 at Shalimar Bagh, District North West, under Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as required under the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was granted by PW2 Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Chief Secretary, GNCTD, vide order, Ex.PW2/A. The perusal of the testimony of PW Sh. Rakesh Mehta, the then Chief Secretary, GNCTD, indicates that the sanction for prosecution has been granted in a routine and mechanical manner, without any application of mind.
58. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled "C.B.I. Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported as 2014 Cri. L.J. 930", as under :
7. The prosecution has to satisfy the court that at the time of sending the matter for grant of sanction by the competent authority, CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 49 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 50 adequate material for such grant was made available to the said authority. This may also be evident from the sanction order, in case it is extremely comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of the case may be spelt out in the sanction order. However, in every individual case, the court has to find out whether there has been an application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority concerned on the material placed before it. It is so necessary for the reason that there is an obligation on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to give or withhold sanction only after having full knowledge of the material facts of the case. Grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore, the provisions in regard to the sanction must be observed with complete strictness keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty.
Consideration of the material implies application of mind. Therefore, the order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. In every individual case, the probability has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record, were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law. This becomes necessary in case the court is to examine the validity of the order of sanction inter alia on the ground that the order suffers from the vice of total non application of mind.
(emphasis supplied)
59. PW2 Rakesh Mehta, has deposed that he was the competent authority to remove the accused and he considered the memos, FIR, CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 50 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 51 statement of witnesses and report of the CFSL, for grant of sanction for prosecution of the accused. He has proved the sanction order as Ex.PW2/A. But, in his crossexamination, he has failed to depose about the material documents, which were considered by him for granting sanction for prosecution of accused Gulshan Kumar. He had admitted that the sanction was not bearing any date and does not mention date, time and place of the trap and there is no mention of the recovery of any GC notes, from the possession of the accused. This witness has also failed to disclose the number of memos or the documents perused by him. He had further stated that his substantive satisfaction for grant of sanction for prosecution was based only on the CBI report. Perusal of the sanction order also indicates that even the details of the present case or the details of the recovered GC notes, recording of alleged conversations and transcripts etc., has not been mentioned. The sanction order indicates that the original audio cassettes were never produced before him for his perusal. The sanction order does not even mention any date on it. The sanction order Ex.PW2/A, and the deposition of PW Rakesh Mehta, in the court, indicates that the sanction for prosecution of accused Gulshan Kumar, has been granted by PW2 Rakesh Mehta, in a routine and mechanical manner, without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without perusal of the entire record. Therefore, in the considered opinion of CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 51 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 52 this court, the sanction order Ex.PW2/A, cannot be held to be a valid sanction.
Defence Evidence
60. During the course of trial, the accused has examined Sh. Ramkesh as DW1, in his defence, who has deposed that on 09.05.08, he was working as personal assistant to PW4 Sh. R.K. Chauhan, Asstt. Commissioner, Food & Supply Department and at about 4.45 p.m., he went to the room adjacent to the Assistant Commissioner's office for copying some documents, as a photocopy machines was installed there and at that time, he saw accused Gulshan Kumar standing there with one Vijay kumar Gupta, who was having a fair price shop. He has further deposed that the said Vijay Kumar Gupta, was known to him as he used to visit their office. At that time 34 other persons were also present there and he saw the currency notes lying on the ground and one of those persons, out of the said 34 unknown persons, lifted the said notes and tried to hand over the same to Gulshna Kumar. But, accused Gulshan Kumar refused to accept the said notes and raised his hands while refusing to accept the said notes. Thereafter, one of those persons , caught hold of Gulshan Kumar with his hands and told that they were from CBI and also directed Gulshan Kumar to do as per his directions. This witness has further stated that at his instance, under fear, accused Gulshan Kumar took the said GC notes and put the same in CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 52 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 53 his pocket. This witness has further stated that one of those persons also threatened him and asked the reason for his presence there and asked him to leave the place, as it was a CBI case and therefore, on their threat, he left the spot and returned to his office and told the above facts to Sh. R.K. Chauhan in his office. In the meantime, the said persons had also come to the room of Sh. R.K. Chauhan and disclosed their identity to him as CBI officers. Thereafter, he obtained signatures of Sh. R.K. Chauhan, on 23 papers. This witness was crossexamined by Sh. Praneet Sharma, Ld. PP for the CBI, but, no material discrepancy has come on record, in his crossexamination, to discard his testimony.
61. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as Krishna Janardhan Bhatt vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (Supra), as under:
34. Furthermore, whereas prosecution must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is "preponderance of probabilities". Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.
(emphasis supplied)
62. It is also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Punjab (Supra), as under: CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 53 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 54
20. We cannot lose sight of the principle that while the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of the accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution in all criminal trial, tough the onus may shift to the accused in given circumstances, and if so provided by law. Therefore, the evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the applicant is probable and true.
23. It has been observed that defence witnesses are often untruthful, but that is not to say that in all cases defence witnesses must be held to be untruthful, merely because they support the case of the accused. The right given to the appellant to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him serves a purpose, and cannot be ignored outright. In every case the court has to see whether the defence set up by the accused is probable, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. If the defence appears to be probable, the court may accept such defence. This is primarily a matter of appreciation of evidence on record and no straitjacket formula can be enunciated in this regard.
(emphasis supplied)
63. It has already come on record, during the examination of complainant Vijay Kumar Gupta (PW1) that while handing over the alleged bribe amount to accused Gulshan Kumar, the currency notes fell down from his hands. In his crossexamination, on 17.10.2011, he had denied the suggestion that the currency note had not fallen down on the ground and Gulshan Kumar had himself thrown the currency notes on the floor. This witness has further deposed that, in fact, the currency notes had fallen from his hand while giving the same to Gulshan Kumar and it was he who picked up the notes. He has admitted that this fact was not disclosed by him to the CBI, in his CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 54 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 55 statement. He has further stated that both of us went down to pick up the currency notes and in this process our heads collided. He has further admitted that this fact was also told by him, in the court, for the first time. He had further stated that in his statement to the CBI, he had not told that he felt a bit giddy and in the mean while Gulshan Kumar picked up the currency notes. This witness has admitted that these facts were deposed by him, for the first time, in the court. The above admissions by the complainant, corroborates the testimony of DW1, to some extent and therefore, casts a further doubt on the prosecution story.
64. In view of the large number of material contradictions and the discrepancies on record, as discussed above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a shadow of doubt and accordingly, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused and he is hereby acquitted, for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
65. The bail bond, submitted by the accused on 16.06.2008, is extended for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437(A) of the Cr.PC. The accused is further directed to appear before the Appellate Court, as and when, any notice is issued CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 55 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 56 to him by the Appellate Court, in any appeal, if preferred by the prosecution/ CBI, against his acquittal.
It is ordered accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court
on September 29, 2014 BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
Special Judge:CBI01
Central District. Delhi
CBI Vs. Gulshan Kumar pg 56 of 56 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi