Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Amendra Kumar Ray And Ors on 25 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ATUL KRISHNA AGRAWAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI-19 (PC ACT), RADC, NEW DELHI
CC No. 33/2021, CBI No.38/2021
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004
PS CBI/ACB, New Delhi
U/s 120-B IPC & Section 7 of PC Act,
1988 (as amended)
CBI ..... Prosecution
Versus
1)Amendra Kumar Ray
S/o Sh. Inardawan Rai
R/o H. No.1819, Flat No.003
Jain Colony, Part-I
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.
2)Rakesh Rawat
S/o Late Sh. Manbar Singh Rawat
R/o Flat No.73, Panch Mahal Apartment
47, IP Extension, Delhi-92. ..... Accused Persons
CBI No. : 38/2021
CNR No. : DLCT11-000321-2021
Date of institution : 18.09.2021
Date of reserving for orders : 11.08.2025
Date of judgment : 25.08.2025
Final Order : Conviction
Ld. PP for CBI: Sh. Tajvinder Singh
Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 : Sh. Sanjay Mani Tripathi
Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 : Sh. Anil Kumar
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 1 of 149
JUDGMENT
Table of contents Sl. Particulars Page No. No. 1 Introductory facts 2 2 Detailed prosecution case 4 3 Prosecution Evidence 18 4 Statement of accused u/S 313 Cr.PC 57 5 Defence Evidence 58 6 Final Arguments 59 7 Legal Position 72 8 Appreciation of Evidence 75 9 Decision 147
1. Introductory facts 1.1 The present case FIR was registered on the basis of complaint dated 19.01.2021 of one Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta against Amendra Kumar Ray (for short "A.K. Ray"), the then LDC/Licensing Inspector, Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi, for demand of bribe and commission of offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended) (hereinafter to be referred as the "PC Act"), on 20.01.2021, pursuant to the verification of complaint on 19.01.2021, by the CBI officials. After registration of FIR, a trap was set up by CBI on 20.01.2021 and the accused A.K. Ray was caught red handed, having accepted the bribe amount (trap money) of Rs.40,000/- from complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta. On interrogation, accused A.K. Ray voluntarily disclosed that after verification of each license application, he had to give a share of Rs.6,000/- per file, to Rakesh Rawat, the then Administrative Officer, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 2 of 149 posted in the General Branch of the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi.
1.1.1 On the instructions of TLO, accused A.K. Ray talked to accused Rakesh Rawat and went to his office to hand over the share of bribe money. At the office, accused Rakesh Rawat was apprehended red- handed, after he had received the trap money of Rs.40,000/- from accused A.K. Ray. Further Rs.38,000/- was recovered from accused Rakesh Rawat, which money was handed over to accused Rakesh Rawat by accused A.K. Ray in the morning, as also confirmed by him. Both the accused persons were arrested and were subsequently, granted bail. Further investigation, such as recording of statement of witnesses, obtaining of CFSL reports qua the seized exhibits and collection of documents was conducted. In the meanwhile. Sanction for prosecution u/S 19 of PC Act qua both the accused persons was also obtained from the competent authority.
1.1.2 Ultimately, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against both accused A.K. Ray and Rakesh Rawat, before the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue, Delhi, on 08.09.2021. The same was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 14.0.09.2021 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge Cum Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue. The accused persons were then summoned vide order dated 22.06.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of this court and upon their appearance on 12.07.2022, they were supplied with the copies of the charge sheet alongwith the relied upon documents u/S 207 Cr.PC.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 3 of 149 1.2 Charge was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 19.01.2023 of the Ld. Predecessor, for the offences punishable u/S 7 of PC Act & Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The matter was thereafter listed for prosecution evidence, which was led. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons u/S 313 CrPC was recorded. The accused A.K. Ray preferred not to lead defence evidence whereas one defence witness was examined on behalf of accused Rakesh Rawat. Then, final arguments were heard from both sides and upon careful perusal of the material on record, now the present judgment is being passed.
2. Detailed Prosecution case 2.1 The case of the prosecution is that on 19.01.2021, the complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishore Gupta, approached the office of CBI. He gave a hand written complaint dated 19.01.2021 to CBI stating that he had applied for five licenses for Gharelu Udyog for himself and his family member's factories, which were being looked after by him. On 15.01.2021, in the afternoon, one EDMC employee A.K. Ray (accused herein) came to him and made a demand for bribe of Rs.12,000/- per license (Total Rs.60,000/-). Accused A.K. Ray also told the complainant that he (accused) alone would not be keeping the entire bribe money but he had to also give share from the same to AC and AO and others. Only on payment of their share to them, more forms would be marked to him for verification. When complainant expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount, accused A. K. Ray asked for total sum of Rs.50,000/- by lowering his demand. Accused A. CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 4 of 149 K. Ray further asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- immediately and make the balance payment of Rs.20,000/- after the licenses were issued. On request of complainant, accused A.K. Ray told the complainant to pay the amount after three days. Since, the complainant did not wanted to pay the bribe amount demanded by accused A.K. Ray and desired legal action to be taken against the accused, so, he approached CBI.
2.2 It is further the case of prosecution that on receipt of the aforesaid written complaint on 19.01.2021 from complainant Sh.Vinod Kumar Gupta, a verification of his complaint was conducted by Sub Inspector Pawan Kumar, ACB, to whom the complaint was marked for verification by SP, CBI, ACB. The verification proceedings were carried out in the presence of independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba (who was posted as Sr. Assistant, Non PDS Cell, F&S, Third Floor, Vikas Bhawan, M-Block, I.P. Estate, New Delhi), to find out whether there was an actual demand of bribe on the part of accused A.K. Ray or not. Before that, the purpose of assembly, was also explained to the independent witness and the the handwritten complaint of complainant was read over and explained to him.
2.3 During verification proceedings, a new and empty memory card and DVR were arranged and introductory voice of independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba was recorded in the memory card through the DVR. Soon afterwards, the complainant received two calls on his mobile phone no.9871220820 from no.8595665977, at about 2.19 pm. Those calls were made by accused A.K. Ray from his mobile phone, on CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 5 of 149 the mobile phone of complainant. These calls were not answered by the complainant and so, the complainant was asked to call back on the same number.
2.4 During the call made at about 2.49 pm, accused A.K. Ray told the complainant that he would come to meet him at the factory premises of complainant, at about 3.30pm. Thereafter, the verification team left CBI office and reached Sai Mandir, Kailash Nagar, at about 3.45 pm and parked their vehicle at a safe distance. At 3.49pm, one call was made by accused A.K. Ray on the mobile phone of complainant, which was not answered by him. So, it was decided to make call to accused A.K. Ray. In this manner, several calls were exchanged on each other's mobile phone by the complainant and the accused and they were recorded in the memory card through the DVR.
2.5 Finally when accused A.K. Ray was about to reach the factory premises of complainant, independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba was asked to remain close to the complainant to see and over hear the likely conversation to be held between accused A.K. Ray and the complainant. DVR was also given to complainant in switched On and hold mode, which he kept in the left pocket of his jacket, which he was wearing. The other members of CBI verification team i.e. Verification Officer Sub Insp. Pawan Kumar and SI Vikrant Tomar, proceeded to the second floor of the factory while the complainant and independent witness Horessh Ajay Ba remained at the first floor of the factory premises, so as to meet accused A.K. Ray. When complainant met accused A.K. Ray, he was told by A.K. Ray that his license files had CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 6 of 149 been put up before DC after getting the signature of AC and the accused A.K. Ray then demanded Rs.40,000/- to be paid to him immediately, by the complainant and the rest Rs.20,000/- to be given after the files were handed over to the complainant. The accused also told the complainant that the prevailing bribe rate was Rs.15,000/-per license which even reached Rs.20,000/- in some cases and so, he could not lower the bribe amount from Rs.60,000/- (Rs.12,000/- X 5). Accused A.K. Ray also told the complainant that he was posted as LDC/License Inspector with MCD. It was then decided that the part bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- was to be given at the office address of accused A.K. Ray i.e. Room No.11, General Branch, Shahdara, South Zone, between 12noon to 1pm, on 20.01.2021 and thereafter, accused A. K. Ray left. All the above conversation was got recorded in the memory card through the DVR and was also confirmed and corroborated by the complainant and independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba.
2.6 A memo of the verification proceedings was prepared and memory card was sealed after preparing an investigation copy. The DVR and CBI seal were handed over to Horesh Ajay Ba, independent witness, for its safe custody. Thereafter, since the demand of bribe, was verified, the instant case was registered u/S 7 of PC Act against accused A.K. Ray and it was decided to lay a trap upon him.
2.7 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, Inspector Dharmendra Kumar Singh, CBI, ACB was deputed as Trap Laying Officer (TLO) for laying a trap. A trap team was constituted by TLO Insp. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, on 20.01.2021. Complainant produced CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 7 of 149 a sum of Rs.40,000/- comprising of 80 GC notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each, which was to be used as trap money. The numbers/details of GC notes alongwith their denomination were recorded. Thereafter, the said GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration was also given to all the trap team members to show the reaction of phenolphthalein powder, in a solution of sodium carbonate and water.
2.8 The tainted bribe amount (trap money) of Rs.40,000/- was put by Sh. Parveen, another independent witness (who was also joined in Trap proceedings), in the left side pocket of the pant worn by complainant. Horesh Ajay Ba, independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness. After explaining the function of DVR to complainant and independent witnesses, the introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in a new memory card. The same DVR alongwith the said memory card was to be given to the complainant on reaching the spot, in a switched On mode, to record the likely conversation which may take place between him and the accused A. K. Ray. The shadow witness as well as the complainant were further directed to give a signal by either rubbing their face with both hands or by giving a missed call on the mobile phone of TLO bearing no.9013485816, after the transaction of the bribe was over. All the above proceedings were recorded in a handing over memo.
2.9 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, the trap team alongwith independent witnesses and complainant left the CBI office at about 12.20 pm and reached near the Office of Dy.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 8 of 149 Commissioner, Shahdara South Zone, EDMC, near Karkardooma court, Delhi, at about 12.45 pm. After parking the vehicle on the road side near Karkardooma court, complainant told that he had received three missed calls on his another mobile no.9871220820 from the mobile of accused A.K. Ray but he did not notice the same as it was on the silent mode. Then on the asking of CBI officials, complainant made a call from his mobile no.9560566966 on the mobile phone of accused at about 12.49 pm but the phone of accused was busy. Another call was made by complainant on the mobile phone of accused at about 12.53 pm and this time, the call got connected. In the said call, complainant informed accused A.K. Ray that he had reached his Office of EDMC, Shahadara South Zone, and enquired from the accused regarding his whereabouts. The accused told that he had reached Nirman Vihar Metro Station after leaving his office and asked the complainant to meet him at Nirman Vihar Metro Station. So, the trap team alongwith the complainant and independent witnesses proceeded to Nirman Vihar Metro Station.
2.10 It is further the case of prosecution that at about 13.05 pm while the CBI team was enroute, a call was received on the mobile phone of the complainant from the accused who asked about the location of complainant and also told him that he (accused) was standing under the Nirman Vihar Metro Station. Thereafter, all the vehicles including two CBI vehicles and car of complainant reached near Nirman Vihar Metro Station at about 1.10 pm. The vehicles were parked at a safe distance before Nirman Vihar Metro Station at the road side, on the road leading towards Laxmi Nagar. The complainant informed that accused A.K. Ray will probably meet him in his car itself and so it will be better CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 9 of 149 that he meets the accused alone. Accordingly, the complainant was instructed that as and when the transaction of bribe takes place inside the car of complainant, he was to give signal by lighting the parking lights of his vehicle. Thereafter, the complainant alone proceeded to meet the accused A.K. Ray, in his car and the CBI team members and independent witnesses were directed by the TLO to take their position in obscure manner, before movement of complainant towards accused. The complainant was also instructed to hand over the bribe amount only on the specific demand of accused A.K. Ray and not otherwise. Independent witness Horesh Ajay Ba was instructed to remain close to the complainant to see / overhear the transaction/ conversation which was likely to take place between complainant and accused A.K. Ray. The DVR was kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant in recording and hold mode, by Sub Insp. Pawan Kumar.
2.11 The complainant moved his car and stopped it near the stairs of Nirman Vihar Metro Station where accused A.K. Ray met him and entered in the car of complainant. Thereafter, complainant moved his car few meters away and parked it just under the Metro Station. Both of them had some conversation with each other and after some time, complainant gave the pre-decided signal by switching on the parking lights. The TLO alerted the trap team members and they all rushed towards the car of complainant. Accused A.K. Ray was asked to come out of the car by Sub Insp. Vikrant, who opened the front door of the car and the DVR was taken back from complainant and switched off by Sub Insp. Pawan Kumar.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 10 of 149 2.12 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, accused A.K. Ray was challenged by TLO as to whether he had demanded and accepted the bribe amount, after giving his introduction. The accused got perplexed and accepted having taken the bribe money from the complainant. Accused was apprehended. The complainant narrated the entire incident which had taken place at that time. Thereafter independent witness Sh. Praveen was instructed to recover the tainted bribe money, which he got recovered from the left side shirt pocket of accused A.K. Ray. The tainted bribe / trap money was tallied with the details of the currency notes mentioned in the handing over memo and it was found to be the same. The bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- was given to Sh. Praveen, independent witness for safe custody and a rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also prepared.
2.13 It is further the case of prosecution that in the meantime, the hand wash of the left hand fingers and right hand fingers of accused A.K. Ray were taken separately in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate and both the solutions turned pink in colour. Rough site plan was also prepared at the spot.
2.14 It is further the case of prosecution that upon interrogation accused A.K. Ray voluntarily disclosed that after verification of each license application, he had to give Rs.6,000/- per file to Rakesh Rawat (co-accused), the then Administrative Officer, posted in the General Branch of the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi. Accused A.K. Ray further disclosed that he had already handed over Rs.38,000/- to Rakesh Rawat in the morning that day, for CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 11 of 149 the files of license recently verified by him and had also to pay total Rs. One Lac to Rakesh Rawat for the license applications marked to him, for verification.
2.15 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, TLO instructed accused A.K. Ray to make a call from his mobile phone on the mobile phone of accused Rakesh Rawat bearing no.9871194949. Accordingly, call was made by accused A.K. Ray at about 1.40 pm during which accused A.K. Ray informed Rakesh Rawat that he had received some money from the verification of some files and if he (Rakesh Rawat) was available in his office, he (A.K. Ray) can come and hand over the same to him. Accused Rakesh Rawat expressed his interest and told accused A.K. Ray that he was available in his office and accused A.K. Ray could come to meet him in the office. All the above phone calls between the complainant and accused A.K. Ray & accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat were recorded in the memory card with the help of DVR.
2.16 It is further the case of prosecution that the trap team alongwith accused A.K. Ray, then reached the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi, at about 2 pm. Accused A.K. Ray informed that accused Rakesh Rawat will not accept bribe money in the presence of any other person, hence, it would be better if he met accused Rakesh Rawat alone. In view of the same, it was decided to send accused A.K. Ray alone with the DVR and tainted bribe / trap amount of Rs.40,000/-, with direction to hand over the tainted bribe amount to accused Rakesh Rawat. For this purpose, a new CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 12 of 149 memory card was arranged wherein the introductory voices of both independent witnesses were recorded through the DVR and the DVR was kept in the left side shirt pocket of accused A.K. Ray, by keeping it on recording mode. The recovered tainted bribe / trap money of Rs.40,000/- was also kept in the right side pant pocket of accused A.K. Ray by independent witness Sh. Praveen. Accused A.K. Ray was instructed to meet Rakesh Rawat and hand over the tainted bribe amount and to come out of the office after delivery.
2.17 It is further the case of prosecution that accused A.K. Ray went inside the office of accused Rakesh Rawat, Administrative Officer (for short "AO"), located at the first floor inside the General Branch of Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi and all the CBI team members including independent witnesses, took their positions outside the General Branch, in obscure manner. After sometime, accused A.K. Ray came out from the office of accused Rakesh Rawat and nodded his head in confirmation of acceptance of bribe money by accused Rakesh Rawat. The CBI team rushed towards the office of accused Rakesh Rawat while the DVR was taken back from accused A.K. Ray by SI Pawan Kumar and switched off. After giving their introductions, the CBI trap team challenged accused Rakesh Rawat for accepting bribe of Rs.40,000/- from his subordinate accused A.K. Ray, for processing the license applications of the applicants. Accused Rakesh Rawat got perplexed and accepted having taken the bribe money from accused A.K. Ray. Accused Rakesh Rawat was apprehended. Accused A.K. Ray as well as the recorded conversation between A.K. Ray and Rakesh Rawat, confirmed about the connivance of accused Rakesh Rawat in the commission of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 13 of 149 crime and that Rakesh Rawat had accepted bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- from accused A.K. Ray.
2.18 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, the hand wash of the left hand fingers and right hand fingers of accused Rakesh Rawat were taken separately in colourless solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink on doing so. The tainted bribe money of Rs.40,000/- was recovered by independent witness Sh. Praveen from the shirt pocket of accused Rakesh Rawat. The currency notes recovered, tallied with the description of the notes mentioned in the handing over memo.
2.19 It is further the case of prosecution that from the same pocket of accused Rakesh Rawat, a further amount of Rs.38,000/- wrapped in a white piece of paper, was also recovered. Accused A.K. Ray confirmed that this was the same amount which was handed over by him to accused Rakesh Rawat in the morning.
2.20 It is further the case of prosecution that the recovered tainted bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- and the amount of Rs.38,000/- both recovered from accused Rakesh Rawat were kept in separate brown colour envelopes and sealed with CBI brass seal. Similarly, the memory cards which contained the conversation recorded during trap proceedings, was seized and sealed. The pocket wash of the blue red check shirt of accused A.K. Ray and blue shirt of accused Rakesh Rawat were taken separately, by dipping them in a solution of sodium carbonate with water and the solution turned pink. Both the shirts were seized and sealed. A rough site plan of the place of occurrence was also CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 14 of 149 prepared.
2.21 It is further the case of prosecution that upon interrogation, accused Rakesh Rawat disclosed that he had forwarded the licence applications of complainant and his relatives, to the Assistant Commissioner Sh. R. C. Sahu. The relevant license application files were seized through separate production cum seizure memo dated 20.01.2021, from Assistant Commissioner R. C. Sahu. The accused A.K. Ray and Rakesh Rawat were arrested on 20.01.2021 vide separate arrest cum personal search memos. A recovery memo of all the aforesaid proceedings was prepared and got signed by all the trap team members including complainant and independent witnesses.
2.22 It is further the case of prosecution that thereafter, the specimen voices of both the accused persons (which they agreed to give voluntarily) and that of complainant, were recorded separately in separate blank memory cards, in the presence of two aforesaid independent witnesses. The memory cards and DVR were also seized and sealed. The CBI brass seal was handed over to Sh. Praveen, independent witness to keep the same in safe custody and to produce it before the court as and when directed. All the exhibits including the documents recovered from the possession of accused A.K. Ray, were taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 20-21.01.2021.
2.23 It is further the case of prosecution that during investigation, it was established that complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta had submitted applications for issuance of five gharelu licenses CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 15 of 149 alongwith supporting documents, in the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Delhi. These license files i.e. one in the name of complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, another in the name of his wife Ms. Nidhi Gupta and others in the name of Ms. Munni Devi Jain, Sh. Akshay Gupta and Ms. Sunita Gupta, were all dealt by accused A.K. Ray, LDC/Licensing Inspector, who had submitted his inspection report on 15.01.2021 and had demanded Rs.12,000/- per file for verification and issuance of licenses. The recommendation for issuance of license was given by accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, for forwarding the same to the Screening Committee. Then Sh. R.C. Sahu, Assistant Commissioner, recommended these five files on 15.01.2021 and marked them to Dy. Commissioner, NDMC, Delhi but were not sent. These files were seized by CBI during investigation.
2.24 It is further the case of prosecution that during course of investigation, transcripts of conversations between complainant and accused persons which took place during verification and trap proceedings, were made. The voices of accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat were identified by Sh. Love Kumar, the then Administrative Officer, Municipal Corporation, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. CFSL report dated 10.02.2021 & 19.03.2021 were also received from PSO, Chemistry, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, which confirmed about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the washes (taken during trap proceedings) contained in the bottles sent to CFSL for examination.
2.25 It is further the case of prosecution that the investigation had proved that accused A.K. Ray in his capacity of LDC/Licensing CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 16 of 149 Inspector, posted in the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, had demanded undue advantage of Rs.40,000/- and was caught red handed while demanding and accepting the said amount from the complainant. Similarly, it was proved that accused Rakesh Rawat, AO, posted in the Office of Dy. Commissioner, Shahdara, South Zone, EDMC, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, had demanded undue advantage from co-accused A.K. Ray and was caught red handed while demanding and accepting Rs.40,000/- from accused A.K. Ray. In this manner, the demand, acceptance, recovery and motive on the part of accused persons, had been established. Further amount of Rs.38,000/- which was recovered from accused Rakesh Rawat was confirmed by accused A.K. Ray to be the same amount which he had handed over to accused Rakesh Rawat in the morning. In view of the same, the accused persons were found to have committed offence punishable u/S 7 of PC Act as well as Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act. The sanction for prosecution u/S 19 of PC Act was also obtained against the accused persons.
2.26 Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against both the accused for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, CFSL report dated 29.09.2022 was received, in which it was was opined that the questioned voices recorded in the memory cards were the probable voices of accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, upon comparison with their specimen voices. Similar was the opinion with respect to the voice of complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta. It was further opined that the audio recordings were continuous and no form of tampering was detected in the audio recordings. Cognizance of offences were taken and accused persons CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 17 of 149 were summoned.
2.27 Charge was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 19.01.2023 of the Ld. Predecessor, for the offences punishable u/S 7 of PC Act & Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution Evidence 3.1 Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses in order to prove its case. PW1 is Sh. Vikas Anand, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, (the then Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation), who accorded sanction vide order dated 31.03.2021, to prosecute accused Rakesh Rawat (then Administrative Officer) and vide order dated 27.08.2021, to prosecute accused Amendra Kumar Ray (LDC/ LI Contractual JSA/ Ex Serviceman), who were both working in EDMC, in the year 2021.
3.1.1 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1 A. K. Ray, the witness stated that before according sanction, he had gone through the reports and materials which were produced before him by CBI and this included complaint, statement of witnesses, transcripts and other documents. He denied that sanction order was passed by him without any application of mind.
3.1.2 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat, the witness admitted that except his signature, there was no note in the sanction file produced before the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 18 of 149 court, wherein he had narrated the facts of the case and the fact of having gone through the documents and giving justification for grant of sanction against accused Rakesh Rawat. He denied that he had simply signed the already prepared sanction order without going through any document.
3.1.3 During cross-examination of this witness, the court observed that there were two separate draft sanction orders pertaining to both the accused persons, present in the sanction file, produced before the court during testimony of this witness.
3.2 PW2 is Sh. Pawan Singh, Alternate Circle Nodal Officer from Vodafone Idea Ltd. He produced the certified copy of e-KYC pre- paid customer application form (CAF) of mobile no.9891076850 in the name of one Ajit Singh. He also produced the certified copy of call detail record (CDR) for the period 15.01.2021 to 20.01.2021, cell ID chart/ location chart of the aforesaid mobile number alongwith supporting certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
3.2.1 He was cross-examined only on behalf of accused no.1 wherein he admitted that he had not given certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to the IO, which was produced by him in the court during his testimony.
3.3 PW3 is Sh. Kamal Kumar, the then Alternate Nodal Officer from Reliance Jio. He produced the certified copy of d-KYC (document based) pre-paid customer application form (CAF) of mobile CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 19 of 149 no.8595665977 in the name of Amendra Kumar Ray (accused no.1). He also proved the certified copy of call detail record (CDR) for the period 15.01.2021 to 20.01.2021, cell ID chart/ location chart of the aforesaid mobile number alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
3.3.1 He also proved the certified copy of e-KYC pre-paid customer application form (CAF) of mobile no.9871194949 in the name of Rakesh Rawat (co-accused no.2). He also proved the certified copy of call detail record (CDR) for the period 15.01.2021 to 20.01.2021, cell ID chart/ location chart of the aforesaid mobile number alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
3.3.2 He further proved the certified copy of e-KYC pre-paid customer application form (CAF) of mobile no.9560566966 in the name of Vinod Kumar Gupta (complainant). He also proved the certified copy of call detail record (CDR) for the period 15.01.2021 to 20.01.2021, cell ID chart/ location chart of the aforesaid mobile number alongwith certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which certificates were filed later on during his testimony.
3.3.3 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1, the witness admitted that certificates u/S 65B pertaining to cell ID chart of the aforesaid mobile numbers, neither bear the date nor the official stamp of Reliance Jio. He further stated that even though he had left the job with Reliance Jio on 28.02.2023 but he took permission of Sh. Sanjay Goel, Head, Delhi Circle, for accessing the computer system at the office of Reliance Jio at Vikas Puri, for preparation of the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 20 of 149 aforesaid certificates u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which was produced by him during his testimony.
3.3.4 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.2, the witness stated that CBI had given a letter to them (his company) to make available the required records of this case. He further admitted that the details of the computers i.e. their make or serial number, etc. from which the documents were extracted, were not mentioned in certificates u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He further admitted that it was not mentioned in the earlier certificates as to who had accessed the server and when it was accessed. He further stated that he had taken the print outs of documents submitted to CBI through the official desktop, by using his login and password. He denied the suggestion that he was not competent to issue certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that the CDRs handed over to CBI, were manipulated documents.
3.3.5 He was re-examined by Ld. PP, CBI wherein he stated that the fresh certificates brought by him wherein the computer system i.e. system make and service tag number, was the same computer system which was used for taking the computer print outs of documents mentioned in earlier certificate u/S 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. In his re-cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 ( adopted by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1) witness stated that he could not produce any document to show that the same computer system was used to take print outs of the aforesaid documents, as is mentioned in his fresh certificates u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. He further stated that there were six CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 21 of 149 computers in his office for the last about six years and there had been no addition in the same. He further stated that on his visit to Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. pursuant to summons issued by the court, one Sh. Praveen had accessed the computer system, on his oral request. He further admitted that there was no instruction/ direction to him in the summons of the court, to access the computer system in Vikaspuri Office of Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd. to issue fresh certificates.
3.4 PW4 is Inspector Pawan Kumar, who is the verification officer in the present case. He deposed that complaint dated 19.01.2021 from complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar was marked to him for verification on the same day, by SP, ACB, CBI, Delhi. He joined independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba, Senior Assistant, Food & Supply Department. During verification proceedings, SI Vikrant Tomar had assisted him. On his asking, the complainant had called accused A.K. Ray whereupon accused A.K. Ray told complainant that he would be coming to his factory situated at Kailash Nagar, at about 3.30 pm on 19.01.2021. Accordingly, they proceeded to the factory of the complainant where after some time, accused A.K. Ray reached and had a talk with complainant. The accused had first demanded bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- which was negotiated by complainant and it was finally decided that Rs.40,000/- would be paid by complainant first and remaining Rs.20,000/-, after the work was done. Independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba had listened to all the conversation and the same was also got recorded in a memory card, through the DVR. The verification team returned back to CBI office at 5.30pm and at the CBI office, verification memo was prepared which was signed by all the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 22 of 149 witnesses.
3.4.1 Since the verification proceedings had confirmed the demand of bribe by accused A. K. Ray, so on the recommendation of PW4, a regular case FIR was registered by CBI against accused A. K. Ray and the same was marked to Inspector Dharmender Kumar for the purpose of laying trap. PW4 also participated in the trap proceedings as one of the team members.
3.4.2 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.1, the witness stated that he had not verified any prior demand on the part of accused, before making of complaint by the complainant. He further admitted that he had not verified as to whether the work of complainant was pending with accused A.K. Ray or not or it was pending with some senior officer or it was already decided.
3.4.3 During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.2, the witness admitted that the complaint of the complainant did not bear the signatures and endorsement of SP CBI. He further stated that the trap was not laid on the same day of verification as it was already 7:00 p.m. by the time verification was concluded and so it was decided by senior officers to lay the trap, on the next day. Witness further stated that only one DVR was used in the proceedings of the present case. He further stated that the conversation of CBI officials at the time of challenging accused A.K. Ray, could not be recorded in the DVR as it was already taken back by the CBI officials.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 23 of 149 3.4.4 The witness further deposed in his cross-examination that when accused A.K. Ray was interrogated, he had disclosed that he had to give Rs.1 lac to Rakesh Rawat and for that reason, Rs.40,000/- were carried by him even though as per accused A.K. Ray, accused Rakesh Rawat used to take Rs.6,000/- per file, which amounted to Rs.30,000/- in this case as there were five licenses, for which complainant had applied. He further admitted that when the specimen voice of accused Rakesh Rawat was taken, he was in CBI custody. The witness also admitted that there were no allegations against accused Rakesh Rawat, either in the complaint or in the verification memo.
3.5 PW5 is Sh. Ramesh Chandra Sahoo, who was working as Assistant Commissioner, EDMC in the year 2021. He deposed that he was assigned the work of Sanitation Department and General Branch in Shahdara South, EDMC. In the General Branch of EDMC, his work profile inter alia included the removal of encroachment, sealing, de- sealing of factories. At that time, Administrative Officers namely Sh. Prashant Bhardwaj and Sh. Rakesh Rawat (accused herein) were assisting him. The Administrative Officers were assisted by Sanitary Inspectors and Sanitary Inspectors were working under Sanitation Department. He further stated that JSA/ Ex servicemen were engaged by Central Establishment (CED), EDMC Headquarter on contractual basis and were assigned the work by CED. At that time, accused A.K. Ray alongwith other Inspectors/ LDC used to assist accused Rakesh Rawat, Administrative Officer.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 24 of 149 3.5.1 He further deposed that for issuance of household license (gharelu udyog license), an applicant applies through application alongwith fee of Rs.1,000/- and other necessary documents, like electricity connection, property details, rent agreement, if any, NOC from owner, identity details, etc. Thereafter the department sends the same for field verification and upon field verification, report is submitted to the department by the authorized staff and on that basis, the Administrative Officer processes the application further. The application was then put up before Assistant Commissioner, who with his recommendations, sends the same to Dy. Commissioner. The Dy. Commissioner, then sends the same with his recommendation, to EDMC Headquarter for approval by the Screening Committee, headed by the Commissioner EDMC. If approved by the Screening Committee, the applicant is then issued household license on deposit of requisite fee.
3.5.2 The witness further deposed that he had handed over the files pertaining to household license of complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta with supporting documents and household license file of Sh. Akshay Gupta, household license file of Smt. Nidhi Gupta, household license file of Smt. Munni Devi Jain and household license file of Smt. Sunita Gupta, all with their supporting documents, to the IO. He further stated that as per the status of inspection report, a recommendation for issuance of household license by accused A. K. Ray was made and the case was further recommended by accused Rakesh Rawat, who then forwarded it to him (PW5) as PW5 was Assistant Commissioner at that time. The said license files were pending with PW5 for forwarding the same to Dy. Commissioner after his recommendation and on 15.01.2021, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 25 of 149 he recommended the issuance of household license and marked the files to Dy. Commissioner and the same was seized by CBI on 20.01.2021 as it was lying with him on that day.
3.5.3 During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, the witness admitted that as on 15.01.2021, accused A. K. Ray had submitted his report and complied with all his official duties with regard to the files of complainant. He further admitted that the said license files were not recovered from the possession of accused A. K. Ray.
3.5.4 In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2, the witness stated that the Screening Committee of EDMC consisted of representatives of EDMC, BSES, Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Delhi Jal Board. He further admitted that more than 2500 applications for issue of household licenses, were received in Shahdara South Zone from December 2019 to March 2020 and these applications could not be processed timely, due to nationwide lock down on account of Covid-19 pandemic. He further admitted that accused A. K. Ray was also working as Bill Clerk besides Licensing Inspector and he used to collect fees & penalties at the counter in the department, which later on used to be deposited by him in the bank. He further stated that he had not come across any complaint against accused Rakesh Rawat during his tenure.
3.6 PW6 is Sh. Luv Kumar, Section Officer, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi, the then Section Officer in the Commission of Air Quality Management in CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 26 of 149 Delhi NCR. He deposed that while he was posted in the aforesaid office, he received a letter from MCD with direction to attend CBI office in respect of one case which was State Vs A. K. Ray & Ors (this case). Accordingly, he visited CBI office on 24.02.2021 at 12 noon. At the CBI office, he met Inspector Anil Kumar, who apprised him about the aforesaid trap case and told him that he had been called to identify one voice. He was made to hear one voice being played on the computer system and he identified the voice to be that of A.K. Ray, with whose voice he was acquainted since about 2019 as he (PW6) was his senior in EDMC and accused was LDC in Licensing Department. He also matched a transcript of conversation given to him, while he was listening the voice of accused A. K. Ray. During court proceedings, he correctly identified the voice of accused A.K. Ray after hearing the audio recordings in the original memory card and also identified accused Rakesh Rawat present in the court.
3.6.1 During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, the witness stated that the transcript was not prepared in his presence when he was hearing the audio recording of accused A. K. Ray. He also gave a brief account of what was heard by him in the audio recording. Witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused no.2.
3.7 PW7 is Sh. V.B. Ramteke, the then Principal Scientific Officer (Chemistry), CFSL, New Delhi. He as CFSL expert, had examined the six sealed glass bottles (containing the washes taken in this case) and two sealed envelopes (containing the shirts of the accused persons) regarding the presence of phenolphthalein and gave a positive CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 27 of 149 report. His report was also exhibited during his testimony.
3.7.1 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused no.2, the witness admitted that the details of physio chemical methods, chemical tests, UV visible spectrophotometry & thin layer chromatography techniques were not mentioned in his report but denied the suggestion that he had not mentioned the details of the above said techniques as no such analysis was done by him. He also admitted that CFSL has the format of chemical examination report and his reports were prepared in the same format by making necessary changes.
3.7.2 The witness admitted in the cross examination on behalf of accused no.1 that neither the bribe amount nor the envelope in which the recovered bribe amount was kept, was sent for chemical examination. Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 adopted the other cross examination done on behalf of accused no.2.
3.8 PW8 is Sh. Ravinder Kumar, the then Senior Scientific Assistant in CFSL, Delhi. He deposed that he had examined the articles/ exhibits (for comparison of specimen voices with questioned voices of the recorded conversation contained in memory cards), sent by CBI, through auditory and spectrographic analysis and after examination, he prepared his report which was sent to Director, CFSL. As per his report, the questioned voices were matching with the specimen voices, i.e the accused persons and the complainant.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 28 of 149 3.8.1 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no.2, the witness stated that he did not possess any educational qualification in the field of linguistic and phonetic but denied the suggestion that he was not competent for comparison of the voices due to him not having the requisite educational qualification. He further admitted that details of allegations against the accused persons by name and as to which specimen voice and questioned voice belonged to which person, were mentioned in the requisition of CBI which was sent to CFSL. He further admitted that the details of method of segregation of voices were not mentioned in his report. He further admitted that the voices in the recorded conversation can be edited or erased. He further admitted that CFSL, New Delhi was not notified u/S 79(A) of IT Act as examiner of electronic evidence. He further admitted that the details of acoustic features namely formant frequency distribution, intonation pattern, frequency time co-ordination distribution of questioned and sample voices, were not mentioned in his report. He also admitted that printed formats were available in his lab and during examination, the blank columns were filled by hand, by the expert. He denied the suggestion that his report was given without any scientific analysis or without any application of mind or without any sound reasoning.
3.8.2 Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 adopted the cross examination done on behalf of accused no.2.
3.9 PW9 is Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, the then Licensing Inspector, MCD, Shahdara South Zone, Delhi at General Branch. He participated in the proceedings as an independent witness. He deposed CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 29 of 149 that he was informed by the then Assistant Commissioner Sh. R. C. Sahoo that he had to attend CBI office on 01.03.2021 with respect to the present case. When he reached CBI office at about 11.15 am, Inspector Anil Kumar met him and told him that he (PW-9) had been called to identify the voice of accused Rakesh Rawat and then he was made to hear some audio files in which he identified the voice of Rakesh Rawat. He further stated that he was acquainted with the voice of Rakesh Rawat since 2013-2014 as he was and still was, his senior in MCD and he had talked to Rakesh Rawat several times on phone.
3.9.1 Witness further stated that while he was listening to the voice of accused Rakesh Rawat, he was also given transcript of conversation which he matched and found that there were some corrections made in the transcript later on, as some portion were not matching. He also identified the voice of Rakesh Rawat in court, when the audio files were played.
3.9.2 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel of accused no.2, the witness stated that the correction in the transcript was made in his presence and probably his signatures were also obtained. He further stated that he had identified the voice to be that of Rakesh Rawat in the audio recording but he did not know who was the person speaking at that time.
3.9.3 Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 adopted the cross examination done on behalf of accused no.2.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 30 of 149 3.10 PW10 is Inspector Dharmender Kumar Singh, who was the trap laying officer (TLO) in this case. He deposed that on 20.01.2021, the copy of the present FIR was handed over to him by the then SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi for laying a trap on accused A. K. Ray, who was posted as Inspector Licence, EDMC, Shahdara, Delhi. He constituted a trap team consisting of Inspector Harnam, Inspector Hukumveer Atri, Inspector Bahadur Singh, Inspector Mukesh Mishra, Inspector Rajkumar, SI Pawan, SI Vikrant and SI Sumit, on the directions of SP, CBI, ACB. Two independent witnesses namely Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba and Sh. Praveen were also made part of the trap team. The trap team was acquainted with the complaint, facts of the case and were shown the relevant documents. Thereafter he took the DVR used in verification proceedings from SI Pawan and the CBI brass seal from independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba. The complainant had brought a sum of Rs.40,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/-, comprising of 80 GC Notes. The details of notes were noted down and a demonstration of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate powder and water was given to all the trap team members. The trap money was then smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The personal search of complainant was carried out by independent witness Sh. Praveen Kumar and thereafter, on his (PW10) instructions, independent witness Sh. Praveen Kumar kept the tainted money in the left pant pocket of complainant. After making necessary arrangements for trap proceedings, the trap team left the CBI office.
3.10.1 At about 12:45 p.m, the trap team reached at EDMC Office, Shahdara South Zone, where after talking to accused A.K. Ray, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 31 of 149 complainant came to know that the accused had left the office and reached Nirman Vihar Metro Station. The trap team then reached at Nirman Vihar Metro Station and complainant met the accused in his car and bribe transaction took place in the car. After the transaction of bribe, the complainant gave the pre-decided signal by blinking the parking lights of his car. The accused A.K. Ray was apprehended by the trap team and he admitted having accepted the bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. The washes of his fingers were taken and other proceedings were done.
3.10.2 Accused A.K. Ray thereafter voluntarily disclosed that he had to give Rs.6,000/- per license to his senior officers, for verification and that he had already handed over Rs.38,000/- to co-accused Rakesh Rawat, on the morning of that day and that he had to give a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rakesh Rawat, as share of bribe, which he (accused A.K. Ray) had received from various license applicants. Accordingly, it was decided by PW10 to lay a second trap on accused Rakesh Rawat.
3.10.3 On the instructions of PW10, accused A.K. Ray called Rakesh Rawat on his mobile and sought his permission to meet him, to hand over the part of remaining bribe amount. Accused Rakesh Rawat told accused A.K. Ray to meet him at his office. Thereafter, the trap team along with accused A.K. Ray proceeded to the office of accused Rakesh Rawat. Accused A.K. Ray went to meet accused Rakesh Rawat alone along with bribe amount of Rs.40,000/-. After some time, accused A.K. Ray came out and informed the trap team about accepting of bribe amount by Rakesh Rawat by nodding his head in confirmation. Accused CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 32 of 149 Rakesh Rawat was also apprehended and he also accepted about receiving bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- from accused A.K. Ray. Besides above Rs.40,000/-, further amount of Rs.38,000/- was recovered from accused Rakesh Rawat. Thereafter, other proceedings were conducted by PW10 such as taking washes, sealing of the DVR and the memory cards and carrying out the search of the office of accused Rakesh Rawat, etc. He also took specimen voices of accused persons and complainant. He correctly identified both the accused persons as well as the exhibits shown to him besides identifying the voices in the audio files.
3.10.4 In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1, the witness stated that as TLO, it was not his work to verify the genuineness of the complainant and that he had not verified whether the files regarding issuance of Gharelu Udyog License was with accused A.K. Ray or not. He further stated that he had kept the bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- recovered from accused A.K. Ray in a brown colour envelope and sealed it with the CBI brass seal. He further admitted that no separate disclosure statement of accused A.K. Ray was recorded with respect to the allegations made against accused Rakesh Rawat. He further admitted that the recovery memo was prepared at around midnight of the intervening night of 20/21.01.2021 and no separate memo for any proceeding related to the trap of accused A. K. Ray, was made on that day.
3.10.5 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused no. 2, the witness denied the suggestion that no authorization of SP CBI for registration of FIR, was on record. He further admitted that the name of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 33 of 149 accused Rakesh Rawat did not figure either in the complaint, verification memo, FIR and/or in the handing over memo of pre-trap proceedings. He further admitted that no video recording of the trap proceedings was conducted. He further admitted that it was not mentioned in the recovery memo that in the call made by accused A.K. Ray to accused Rakesh Rawat, accused A. K. Ray informed him that he had received bribe money for the verification of license application. He further stated that only one DVR was used during the entire proceedings. He also stated that sample voice was taken from the portions of rough transcript of the questioned conversations but the said rough transcript was not part of the record. He further admitted that no official from EDMC, Shahadara South Zone was joined in the proceedings against accused Rakesh Rawat.
3.11 PW11 is the complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta, who deposed that on 25.02.2020, he had applied for five Gharelu Udyog Licences for his own factory as well as four of his other family members. He further alleged that on 15.01.2021, accused A.K. Ray came to his factory premises and demanded a sum of Rs.12,000/- for issuance of each license, totaling Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. 12,000 x 5). On the inability shown by PW11 to pay such high amount, accused A.K. Ray lowered the amount to Rs.50,000/- and asked him to pay the same within a short time. Since PW-11 did not want to pay the aforesaid bribe, he made a complaint against accused A.K. Ray with CBI.
3.11.1 PW11 further stated that verification of his complaint was conducted by the Verification Officer Sh. Pawan Kumar Lamba and one CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 34 of 149 another CBI official namely Vikrant and one independent witness Horesh Ajay Ba were also joined in the proceedings. Since verification proceedings confirmed the demand of bribe by accused, the present FIR was registered. It was also decided to conduct a trap on accused A.K. Ray on 20.01.2021.
3.11.2 PW11 further deposed about the formation of trap team, proceedings which were conducted by TLO Sh. Dharmender Kumar Singh, during pre-trap. PW11 had also brought amount of Rs.40,000/- comprising of 80 GC notes in denomination of Rs.500/-, which was to be used as trap money. He further stated that the GC notes were smeared with one powder and he was directed by the TLO, to give signal by rubbing his face with his both hands or to give missed call from his mobile number to the mobile phone of TLO, immediately after the transaction of bribe was over. Independent witness Horesh Ajay Ba was asked to become shadow witness and remain close to PW11. Initially, the trap team went to the EDMC office and from there to Nirman Vihar Metro Station, where accused A.K. Ray was waiting for the complainant. Accused A.K. Ray sat in the car of PW11 and after some talks, received the bribe amount from PW-11. Thereafter, the complainant gave the pre-decided signal by switching on the parking light of his car, as was decided later on.
3.11.3 Witness further deposed that thereafter, the trap team rushed to the Car and apprehended accused A.K. Ray. The trap team along with accused A.K. Ray, then left Nirman Vihar Metro Station and reached near the office of EDMC, South Shahdara Zone. He further stated that CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 35 of 149 the CBI officials, both the independent witnesses and accused A.K. Ray went towards the office of EDMC at first floor but he (PW11) along with one CBI official, remained in his Etios Car. He remained in the car for about two hours. Thereafter, CBI officials took him to the first floor of the EDMC office, where some proceedings against the senior Officer of accused A.K. Ray was going on.
3.11.4 Witness further deposed that some additional amount of Rs.35,000/- - Rs.40,000/- were recovered from the senior Officer of the accused A.K. Ray. The search of the office of accused A.K. Ray and his senior Officer was taken by the CBI officials but he was informed that nothing incriminating was found in the said search. Specimen voices of accused A.K. Ray, his senior officer and that of PW11 were also taken. From enquiry of both the accused, it transpired that the five license applications of PW11, had been forwarded to the then Assistant Commissioner Sh. Sahu. Various documents and memos were prepared by the CBI officials and after completion of proceedings, the CBI brass seal was handed over to independent Sh. Praveen, for its safe custody.
3.11.5 The witness did not remember the name of the senior officer of accused A.K. Ray but pointing towards accused Rakesh Rawat present in the Court, he stated that he was probably the said senior officer of accused A.K. Ray. The entire proceedings were completed at around 1:00-1:30 a.m. in the intervening night of 20/21.01.2021. The witness correctly identified accused A.K. Ray, the voice of accused A.K. Ray but could not identify the voice of accused Rakesh Rawat.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 36 of 149 3.11.6 The witness was cross-examined by Ld. PP for CBI as he was allegedly not disclosing the true facts of the case, as per prosecution. During his cross examination by Ld. PP, CBI, the witness deposed that he did not recollect whether the name of senior officer of accused A. K. Ray was Rakesh Rawat or not, however, accused A. K. Ray was referring to him as his senior officer. He denied the suggestion that accused A. K. Ray had voluntarily disclosed in his presence that he had already handed over Rs.38,000/- to Rakesh Rawat for the files of licenses recently verified by him and that he had also to pay total Rs. One Lac approx. to Rakesh Rawat, for the license applications marked to him for verification or any other fact as the prosecution was contending to have been said by accused A. K. Ray to CBI officials, in respect of accused Rakesh Rawat and further stated that these facts may have been told by accused A. K. Ray, to the IO.
3.11.7 PW11 further stated that he had not seen accused A. K. Ray making call to Rakesh Rawat. He further stated that he did not recollect the proceedings done by CBI at the office of accused Rakesh Rawat, both during the trap or after the trap. On court query, witness stated that he was not recollecting the entire facts due to lapse of time and he might have recollected the facts of the case better, if his evidence had been recorded 2-3 months after the date of the incident. He denied the suggestion given by Ld. PP, CBI that he was intentionally giving evasive reply as he has been won over by accused Rakesh Rawat.
3.11.8 The witness was cross examined by both the accused persons. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 37 of 149 witness admitted that he had no license to run his earlier readymade garments factory, which he had started ten years before 2021. He further stated that he had met accused A. K. Ray 2-3 times and in every such meeting, they had met alone. He had brought already written complaint to CBI office. He further stated that he did not know as to who had smeared the currency notes (trap money) with the powder used during demonstration. He further stated that at Nirman Vihar Metro Station, accused A. K. Ray had blown horn of his car, so he could see him and thereafter, he got into the car of PW11. He also stated that after delivery of money, he blew horn of his car as pre-decided signal and thereafter, CBI officials came and caught hold of the accused.
3.11.9 He further stated that out of the five licenses, one license was for his factory, another one was for factory of his bhabhi (sister in law), third one was in the name of one family member, whose name he did not recollect and the remaining two licenses were of his two friends. He further stated in his cross-examination that those two people had become his friends only 15-20 days back of his applying for the license and presently, he was not in touch with those persons. He also admitted that he did not have any written authority in his favour, issued by those persons, to apply for licenses on their behalf. He further stated that he was not aware whether accused A. K. Ray had cleared the files of all the above five licenses, even before 15.01.2021.
3.11.10 During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2, he stated that he had never met accused Rakesh Rawat prior to his apprehension by CBI in this case nor he had made any complaint against CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 38 of 149 Rakesh Rawat at any point of time. He further admitted that there was no demand of bribe by accused Rakesh Rawat from him, at any point of time, for any purpose nor accused A. K. Ray had taken the name of accused Rakesh Rawat at any point of time, during his interaction with him (accused A. K. Ray). He further admitted that nothing was recovered from accused Rakesh Rawat in his presence. He further stated that no such proceeding of recording of conversation between accused A.K. Ray and his senior officer, had taken place in his presence. He further stated that when he was brought by CBI officials from outside the office of EDMC, to first floor of EDMC office, the CBI officials had already apprehended the senior officer of accused A.K. Ray.
3.12 PW12 is Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba, then Senior Assistant in Food & Supply Department, GNCTD, one of the two independent witnesses, of the proceedings done by CBI. His testimony is mostly on similar lines as that of PW4 (verification officer Inspector Pawan Kumar) and PW10 (TLO Inspector Dharmender Kumar Singh). Hence, that part is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, as far as similarity in their testimonies are concerned.
3.12.1 Besides the witness stated that on 18.01.2021, he had received a written order from Vigilance Branch of Food & Supply Department for reporting at CBI office on 19.01.2021 at 9.30 am and so, he had gone to CBI office on 19.01.2021. There he met CBI official Pawan Kumar, who then introduced him to complainant Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta. In his presence, the verification proceedings were conducted by PW4 and he was present in an obscure manner, with CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 39 of 149 complainant, at the first floor of factory of complainant, on 19.01.2021 and saw and heard accused A. K. Ray meeting the complainant. He had left the CBI office at around 7.30 pm on 19.01.2021 but he was directed to report back to CBI office at 9.30 am on 20.01.2021 alongwith CBI brass seal, which was handed over to him after completion of verification proceedings.
3.12.2 Witness further deposed that on 20.01.2021, he was introduced to a team of CBI officials at the CBI office. One another independent witness Sh. Praveen, Junior Assistant from his department i.e. Food & Supply Department and complainant were also present alongwith SI Pawan, Inspector Dharmender, SI Vikarant, Inspector Harpal and some other CBI officials, whose name he did not remember. Demonstration of tainted notes was given. He was further directed by CBI officials to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to complainant in order to hear or see the transaction of bribe which may take place between accused A. K. Ray and complainant. PW12 witnessed the transaction of bribe money between complainant and accused A. K. Ray at Nirman Vihar Metro Station.
3.12.3 He further stated that accused A. K. Ray had disclosed upon interrogation by Inspector Dharmender Kumar Singh that after verification of each license, he had to give Rs.6000/- per file to his senior officer i.e. accused Rakesh Rawat and that he had already handed over Rs.38,000/- to accused Rakesh Rawat for the files of licenses verified by him and that accused A.K. Ray had to pay a total amount of Rs. One Lac approx. to accused Rakesh Rawat, for the license CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 40 of 149 applications marked to him by accused Rakesh Rawat. PW12 also mentioned about the trap proceedings done by CBI at the EDMC office, where accused Rakesh Rawat worked. As per witness, he had seen accused A.K. Ray going inside the office of accused Rakesh Rawat alongwith trap money and coming out after some time and nodding his head about confirmation of having given the bribe money to Rakesh Rawat. He further deposed about the CBI proceedings done in this case and sealing of the exhibits of the case, taking of the specimen voice samples of accused persons and complainant, their hand washes, etc. He correctly identified the accused persons as well the exhibits shown to him and the voices in the audio recordings.
3.12.4 In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, witness stated that he does not remember the exact time when the complainant had received the call back from accused A. K. Ray after accused A. K. Ray had not picked the two calls made by complainant to him, on 19.01.2021. He further stated that during verification proceedings, he was standing behind some goods kept in the room (on the first floor of the factory premises of complainant) and the accused and complainant were having their back towards him, so he (PW12) could see them but they could not see him. He further stated that he was standing about two meters from complainant at the time of trap proceedings. The trap amount which was recovered, was in open condition and was handed over to independent witness Sh. Praveen in open condition itself. No memo was prepared at the spot regarding the recovery of said amount. Further, no memo was prepared at the spot regarding the interrogation of accused A. K. Ray. Witness further stated CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 41 of 149 that one recovery memo was prepared later on, regarding the entire proceedings.
3.12.5 During his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.2, the witness stated that he did not know the functioning of DVR and the process of recording in the memory card through the DVR, before this case. He also did not know as to how the blankness of DVR or blankness of memory card was ascertained. He further deposed that no disclosure of accused A. K. Ray was recorded by CBI wherein he disclosed certain facts about accused Rakesh Rawat. He further stated that in his presence, the TLO had not made any enquiry from accused A.K. Ray to ascertain the details of file in respect of which he had made allegations of Rs.38,000/- given to accused Rakesh Rawat or in respect of the files for which he had to pay a total amount of Rs.One Lac to Rakesh Rawat. He further admitted that accused Rakesh Rawat had not accepted any money from accused A. K. Ray, in his presence nor he had any personal knowledge as to what transpired between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, in the room of Rakesh Rawat.
3.12.6 The witness further admitted that he had never heard the voices of accused A.K. Ray and Rakesh Rawat before this case but denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified the voice of accused Rakesh Rawat. He further stated that no court permission had been shown to him for taking specimen voice of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that recovery memo contained false facts regarding accused Rakesh Rawat. He further denied the suggestion that upon his apprehension, accused Rakesh Rawat had disclosed to CBI that CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 42 of 149 the Inspectors including accused A.K. Ray, used to keep money collected by them as fees, penalty, fine, etc. with Administrative Officers/Assistant Commissioners as the said Inspectors did not have proper almirah for safe custody of cash, which was collected after the treasury hours and on the next day, after collecting the same from Administrative Officers/Assistant Commissioners, the said amount used to be deposited in treasury by way of challans, by the said Inspectors.
3.13 PW13 Sh. Praveen, another independent witness who was joined in trap proceedings by the IO, is the then Junior Assistant in the Food & Supply Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He deposed that on 18.01.2021, he received an order from the Vigilance Department of Food & Supply Department to remain present at CBI Office from 19.01.2021 till 25.01.2021, as a witness for CBI proceedings, if any. He further deposed that on 19.01.2021, when he reached at CBI Office, after necessary formalities, he was taken to first floor and made to sit in a room till evening. However, when he again went to CBI office on 20.01.2021, he was joined in the trap proceedings of the present case by Insp Dharmender Kumar Singh. He was made aware of the facts of the present case and the allegations against the accused. Thereafter, the witness deposed about pre-trap proceedings such as introduction to other trap team members, procedure of laying trap, demonstration of phenolphthalein powder in the solution of water and sodium carbonate, etc. 3.13.1 The witness further deposed that on the directions of TLO D.K. Singh, he conducted the personal search of the complainant, who CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 43 of 149 was not allowed to keep anything incriminating except his mobile phone and keys of the car. Thereafter, he (PW13), put the tainted bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- in the left side pocket of the pant of the complainant. They left the CBI office along with trap kit. Thereafter, trap was conducted on accused A.K. Ray at the Nirman Vihar Metro Station. After successful conclusion of trap and apprehension of accused A.K. Ray, he (PW13) was asked to recover the trap money from the left side shirt pocket of accused, which he did and the money recovered was counted and tallied with the currency notes mentioned in the annexure. He further deposed about other proceedings that took place at Nirman Vihar Metro Station.
3.13.2 The witness further deposed that accused A.K. Ray had voluntarily disclosed to the IO that accused Rakesh Rawat also used to take his share from the bribe amount and he (A.K. Ray) had to give Rs.1,00,000/- to accused Rakesh Rawat out of which Rs.38,000/- was already given to him, in the morning. Thereafter, on instructions of TLO, accused A.K. Ray made a call to Rakesh Rawat, to handover further Rs.40,000/- to him. Since accused Rakesh Rawat agreed to meet accused A.K. Ray at his office, so the trap team went to the office of accused Rakesh Rawat at EDMC, Shahdara South Zone. At the office of accused Rakesh Rawat, accused A.K. Ray went inside alone and handed over the trap money of Rs.40,000/- to accused Rakesh Rawat. On the signal of accused A.K. Ray, CBI team entered the office of accused Rakesh Rawat and apprehended him with the trap money. Further Rs.38,000/- (given earlier in the morning by accused A.K. Ray) was also found from the pocket of accused Rakesh Rawat. Thereafter, post trap proceedings were CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 44 of 149 conducted by the TLO wherein both the accused persons were arrested, their washes were obtained, the sample voices were taken, rough site plan was prepared at the spot, etc. The witness correctly identified the accused persons, exhibits as well as the voices in the audio file.
3.13.3 In his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, the witness stated that he had received a call from CBI and pursuant to that, he had visited CBI office again on 18.02.2021 and at that time, he only met CBI Officer Anil Kumar. He further stated that on 20.01.2021 (the day of trap), accused A.K. Ray was already present at Nirman Vihar Metro Station, when they had reached and this fact was also told by accused to complainant during his talk with complainant. He further stated that at the time of trap when accused A.K. sat in the car of complainant, he (PW13) was on the left side of the car of complainant but he was not in a position to hear the conversation between accused A.K. Ray and complainant, from the place where he was standing. He further stated that he did not remember if any document/memo was prepared at Nirman Vihar Metro Station regarding the proceedings done there. He also did not remember whether the currency notes (trap money) were lying in envelope or were in open condition, when it was given to him (PW13), for safe custody. He further admitted that no written directions were given to him by TLO to keep the CBI brass seal with him.
3.13.4 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused no.2, witness stated that he had visited CBI office only two times regarding this case i.e. 20.01.2021 and 18.02.2021. He further stated that he had no CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 45 of 149 knowledge regarding the functioning of DVR and the process of recording in the memory card, through DVR. He further stated that only one DVR was used in this case, in his presence. Witness further stated that no enquiry/investigation was done by the CBI in his presence with regard to Rs.38,000/- (which accused A.K. Ray claimed to have given to accused Rakesh Rawat in the morning of that day) or total Rs.1 lac which accused A.K. Ray had to pay to accused Rakesh Rawat. The witness further admitted that he had not seen accused Rakesh Rawat prior to his challenge by CBI. He further stated that before entering the room of accused Rakesh Rawat, instructions were given by TLO to accused A.K. Ray to give the signal by way of nodding his head, after the completion of transaction.
3.13.5 The witness denied the suggestion given to him by Ld. Defence Counsel that when accused Rakesh Rawat was apprehended by CBI, he had told them that he had never demanded or accepted any bribe and further that the MCD Inspectors including accused A.K. Ray, used to keep the money collected by them as fees, penalty, fine, etc. with their Administrative Officer (AO)/Assistant Commissioner (AC), including Rakesh Rawat, since the said Inspectors were not having proper almirah for safe custody of cash collected as official fees by them, after treasury hours and the same was kept with Rakesh Rawat and other officers and on the next day, after collecting the same from AO/AC, the said amount used to be deposited in the treasury by way of challan, by the said inspectors including accused A.K. Ray and further that accused A.K. Ray had come to meet accused Rakesh Rawat on 20.01.2021 to keep such money with him, for safe custody or that it was not the bribe CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 46 of 149 amount.
3.13.6 The witness further stated that the specimen voice of accused Rakesh Rawat was obtained in the room of Rakesh Rawat. Further he had identified the voices of accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat in the audio recording since complainant Vinod Kumar had told them after talking to the accused that he had talked to accused A.K. Ray and similarly, accused A.K. Ray had told them that he had talked to accused Rakesh Rawat, after talking to him. He further stated that the transcriptions were already typed when it was given to him for signature but he did not remember when it was typed. The witness admitted that he had no knowledge as to what had transpired between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, in the room of accused Rakesh Rawat, since he (PW13) was not present in the room.
3.14 PW14 is Inspector Anil Kumar Singh is the IO of this case. He submitted that the present FIR was marked to him for further investigation, on 23.01.2021. During the course of further investigation, he collected several documents/articles, statement of witnesses, sent the documents/ articles to CFSL for the purpose of obtaining expert opinion, prepared transcript of the conversation recorded during verification and trap proceedings. After completion of the investigation, the sanction for prosecution of both the accused persons was obtained from the competent authority and thereafter, he filed the charge-sheet against both the accused persons. He correctly identified the exhibits and other documents.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 47 of 149 3.14.1 During his cross-examination on behalf of accused no.1, the witness stated that he did not remember whether he had investigated that the five applications for license were already cleared by the accused A.K. Ray before filing of complaint by the complainant. He further stated that he had not seized the CBI brass seal. He further admitted that he had not sent the trap money seized in the present case to CFSL.
3.14.2 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused no.2, the witness admitted that there was no allegation of any demand against accused Rakesh Rawat in the complaint filed by the complainant and verification of complaint conducted by the CBI. Though he further stated that it was mentioned in the handing over memo that accused A.K. Ray told the complainant that the demanded money, was to be divided among AC, AO and other officials of EDMC. He further stated that no formal memo regarding handing over and taking over of documents prepared/ collected, was prepared when the documents were handed over to him. He further stated that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to other license files recommended by accused A.K. Ray to find out whether any demand for bribe in those cases, was made or not. He further stated that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to Rs.1 lac, allegedly to be handed over to accused Rakesh Rawat.
3.14.3 He further stated that he was not aware whether DVR was having any recording in it or not since he had received a sealed DVR from the previous IO. He further stated that he had not conducted any investigation with respect to the presence of those unknown persons CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 48 of 149 whose voices can be heard, at the time, the conversation between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat took place. He further stated that he did not remember whether any road certificate was used in the present case to forward articles to CFSL for seeking their opinion thereon. He further admitted that besides the present case, no complaint or case against accused Rakesh Rawat was found during investigation. He further admitted that no incriminating material was found during the house search of accused Rakesh Rawat.
3.15 No other witness was examined by prosecution. During the prosecution evidence, following documents were exhibited / marked in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
3.16 List of Exhibited/Marked Documents Note : The sorting of the below mentioned documents is in the order as they were produced/referred and marked or exhibited in the testimony of a particular witness for the first time, even though many of those documents have been referred and proved during testimony of other witnesses as well.
Exhibited Documents (Prosecution)
S. Witness Exhibits Part / File No. Remarks
No.
1. Vikas Anand Ex.PW1/A-1 D-23 Sanction Order dated
31.03.2021 against
accused Rakesh Rawat
Ex.PW1/A-2 D-23 Forwarding Letter of
above Sanction Order
Ex.PW1/A-3 D-24 Sanction Order dated
27.08.2021 against
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 49 of 149
accused A. K. Ray
Ex.PW1/A-4 D-24 Forwarding Letter of
above Sanction Order
2. Pawan Singh Ex. PW2/A1 D-19 Seizure memo dated
12.03.2021
Ex. PW2/A2 D-19 Covering Letter dated
09.03.2021
Ex. PW2/A3 D-19 Postpaid customer Re-
verification eKYC of
mobile no.9891076850
of Ajit Singh
Ex. PW2/A4 D-19 Call details record of
above mobile no. for
the period 15.01.2021
to 20.01.2021
Ex. PW2/A5 D-19 Cell ID chart/location
chart of above mobile
number
Ex. PW2/A6 D-19 Certificate U/s 65-B
IEA qua CDR
Ex. PW2/A7 Filed during Certificate U/s 65-B
evidence of IEA qua e-KYC/CAF
witness
Ex. PW2/A8 Filed during Certificate U/s 65-B
evidence of qua cell ID chart
witness
3. Kamal Kumar Ex. PW3/A1 D-21 Covering Letter dated
15.03.2021 of PW3 to
IO
Ex. PW3/A2 D-21 Prepaid customer
application (CAF)
Form of mobile no.
8595665977 of
Accused A.K. Ray
Ex. PW3/A3 D-21 CDR of above mobile
number no. for the
period 15.01.2021 to
20.01.2021
Ex. PW3/A4 D-21 Cell ID chart/location
of above mobile
number
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 50 of 149
Ex. PW3/A5 D-21 Certificate U/s 65-B (4)
(c) IEA qua CDR and
CAF
Ex. PW3/A6 D-22 Covering Letter dated
25.03.2021 by PW3 to
IO
Ex. PW3/A7 D-22 Prepaid customer
application form of
mobile no.9871194949
of Rakesh Rawat
Ex. PW3/A8 D-22 Prepaid CAF of mobile
no. 9560566966 of
complainant Vinod
Kumar Gupta
Ex. PW3/A9 D-22 CDR of above mobile
no. for the period
15.01.2021 to
20.01.2021
Ex. PW3/A10 D-22 Do
Ex. PW3/A11 D-22 Cell ID chart/location
of above mobile
number
Ex. PW3/A12 D-22 Certificate U/s 65 B (4)
(c) of IEA w.r.t. above
documents
Ex. PW3/A13 Filed during Certificate U/s 65B
evidence of this IEA w.r.t. Cell ID chart
witness of mobile
no.8595665977 &
9871194949
Ex. PW3/A14 Filed during Certificate U/s 65B of
evidence of this IEA w.r.t. Cell ID chart
witness of mobile no.
9560566966
4. Pawan Kumar Ex. PW4/A1 D-1 Handwritten complaint
dated 19.01.2021
Ex. PW4/A2 D-1 Verification Memo
dated 19.01.2021
Ex. PW4/A3 D-2 Handing over memo
dated 20.01.2021
Ex. PW4/A4 D-3 Recovery memo dated
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 51 of 149
21.01.2021
Ex. PW4/A5 D-4 Site plan of Nirman
Vihar Metro Station
dated 20.01.2021
Ex. PW4/A6 Retained at the Envelope containing
(Colly.) malkhana of 8GB memory card
CBI w.r.t. verification
proceedings dated
19.01.2021
5. Ramesh Ex. PW5/P1 D-6 Production cum seizure
Chandra Sahoo memo dated
20.01.2021
Ex. PW5/P2 D-6 Original licence file
(Colly.) bearing number
DR-82671
Ex. PW5/P3 D-6 Original licence file
(Colly.) bearing number
DR-82668
Ex. PW5/P4 D-6 Original licence file
(Colly.) bearing number
DR-82672
Ex. PW5/P5 D-6 Original licence file
(Colly.) bearing number
DR-82670
Ex. PW5/P6 D-6 Original licence file
(Colly.) bearing number
DR-82669
Ex. PW5/P7 D-20 Forwarding Letter
(Colly.) dated 19.03.2021
6. Love Kumar Ex. PW6/A D-17 Voice Identification
Memo of A.K.Ray
Ex.PW6/B Retained at the Envelope containing
(Colly.) malkhana of 8GB memory card
CBI (Q-2) w.r.t. trap
proceedings qua
accused A. K. Ray
Ex.PW6/C Retained at the Envelope containing
(Colly.) malkhana of 8GB memory card
CBI (Q-3) w.r.t. trap
proceedings qua
accused Rakesh Rawat
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 52 of 149
7. V.B. Ramteke Ex.PW7/A-1 D-11 Forwarding Letter
(Colly.) dated 03.02.2021
alongwith CFSL
acknowledgement
Ex. PW7/A-2 D-12 Chemical Examination
Report dated
10.02.2021
Ex. PW7/A-3 Filed during the Copy of CFSL letter
evidence of dated 12.02.2021
PW7
Ex. PW7/A-4 D-13 Forwarding Letter
(Colly.) dated 15.03.2021
alongwith CFSL
acknowledgment
receipt
Ex. PW7/A-5 D-14 Chemical Examination
Report dated
19.03.2021
Ex. PW7/A-6 Filed during the Forwarding letter of
evidence of CFSL dated 23.03.2021
PW7
Ex. PW7/A-7 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle
malkhana of containing left hand
CBI wash (LHW) of A. K.
Ray
Ex. PW7/A-8 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle
malkhana of containing right hand
CBI wash (RHW) of A. K.
Ray
Ex. PW7/A-9 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle
malkhana of containing shirt pocket
CBI wash of A.K.Ray
Ex. PW7/A-10 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle malkhana of containing left hand CBI wash (LHW) of Rakesh Rawat Ex. PW7/A-11 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle malkhana of containing right hand CBI wash (RHW) of Rakesh Rawat Ex. PW7/A-12 Retained at the One Sealed Glass bottle malkhana of containing shirt pocket CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 53 of 149 CBI wash of Rakesh Rawat Ex.PW7/A-13 Retained at the Yellow colour envelope (Colly.) malkhana of containing six cloth CBI wrappers of the above bottles Ex.PW7/A-14 Retained at the Yellow colour envelope (Colly.) malkhana of containing the shirt of CBI A. K. Ray Ex.PW7/A-15 Retained at the Yellow colour envelope (Colly.) malkhana of containing the shirt of CBI Rakesh Rawat
8. Ravinder Ex. PW8/A-1 D-15 Forwarding Letter Kumar (Colly.) dated 04.02.2021 of CBI for voice expert opinion Ex. PW8/A-2 Filed on record CFSL voice expert later report dated 29.09.2022 Ex. PW8/A-3 Filed on record Copies of original later specimen seal impression of CBI brass seal Ex. PW8/A-4 Filed on record Copies of original later specimen seal impression of CBI brass seal Ex.PW8/A-5 Retained at the Original memory card (Colly.) malkhana of sent to CFSL for voice CBI examination Ex.PW8/A-6 Retained at the Original memory card (Colly.) malkhana of sent to CFSL for voice CBI examination Ex.PW8/A-7 Retained at the Original memory card (Colly.) malkhana of sent to CFSL for voice CBI examination Ex.PW8/A-8 Retained at the Original DVR of black (Colly.) malkhana of colour sent to CFSL for CBI examination
9. Mukesh Ex. PW9/A D-18 Voice identification Kumar Sharma memo dated 01.03.2021 qua Rakesh Rawat CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 54 of 149
10. Dharmendra Ex. PW10/P1 D-1 FIR dated 20.01.2021 Kumar Singh (Colly.) Ex. PW10/P2 D-5 Rough site plan dated (Colly.) 20.01.2021 of the office of Rakesh Rawat Ex. PW10/P3 D-7 Arrest cum personal search memo of accused Rakesh Rawat Ex. PW10/P4 D-8 Arrest cum personal search memo of accused A.K.Ray Ex. PW10/P5 Retained at the Brown colour envelope (Colly.) malkhana of containing trap money CBI of Rs. 40,000/-
Brown colour envelope Ex. PW10/P6 Retained at the containing Rs.38,000/-
(Colly.) malkhana of recovered from accused
CBI Rakesh Rawat
Ex.PW10/MO-1 Retained at the Mobile phone of
malkhana of accused Rakesh Rawat
CBI
Ex.PW10/MO-2 Retained at the Mobile phone of
malkhana of accused A.K.Ray
CBI
11. Vinod Kumar Mark PW11/PX Statement u/S 161
Gupta CrPC of Sh. Vinod
Kumar
12. Horesh Ajay Ex. PW12/P1 D-16 Transcription cum
Ba voice identification
memo dated
18.02.2021
Ex. PW12/P2 D-16 Transcription of
recorded conversation
dated 19.01.2021
Ex. PW12/P3 D-16 Transcription of
recorded conversation
dated 20.01.2021
Ex. PW12/P4 D-16 Transcription of
recorded conversation
dated 20.01.2021
13. Praveen Ex. PW13/P1 Produced by CBI Brass seal
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 55 of 149
PW13 during
his evidence
14. Anil Kumar Ex. PW14/P1 Statement u/S 161
Singh CrPC of complainant
Vinod Kumar Gupta (re
exhibited)
Ex.PW14/P2 D-9 Search list of the house
(Colly.) of accused Rakesh
Rawat dated
20.01.2021
Ex. PW14/P3 D-10 Search list of the house
(Colly.) of accused A. K. Ray
dated 20.01.2021
Documents exhibited during cross examination of PWs S. Exhibits Particulars Remarks No.
1. Vikas Anand Ex.PW1/ Filed during the evidence Copy of Draft DX1 of PW1 Sanction Order qua A. K. Ray Ex.PW1/ Filed during the evidence Copy of the Note D-1 of PW1 sheet portions of the Sanction file qua Rakesh Rawat Ex.PW1/ Filed during the evidence Copy of Draft D-2 of PW1 Sanction Order qua Rakesh Rawat Ex. Filed during the evidence Copy of Auditory PW8/D-1 of PW8 & Spectrographic (Colly.) Analysis Ex. PW Filed during the evidence Letter dated 12/A1D1 of PW12 18.01.2021 vide which PW12 was directed to report to CBI office from 19.01.2021 to 25.01.2021 3.17 Thereafter, P.E. was closed and statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of both the accused persons was recorded by putting the entire CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 56 of 149 prosecution evidence before them.
4. Statement of accused persons u/S 313 Cr.P.C.
4.1 Accused no.1 A.K. Ray stated in his defence that he had no role in grant of license. He was appointed as contractual LDC and in the meantime, he was given work for verifying the site for issuance of license. Moreover, he had already completed and forwarded the files of the complainant on 15.01.2021 and thereafter, he had no concern with the said files. He stated that he had no conversation with complainant Vinod Gupta on 19.01.2021 and he never demanded any amount from him either on 19.01.2021 or 20.01.2021, nor any amount was accepted by him.
4.1.1 He alleged that the sanction for prosecution was granted illegally. The witnesses deposed against him falsely, at the behest of CBI. He once again reiterated he had already cleared the files on the date when he inspected the factory/premises of the complainant on 15.01.2021. The files were pending for disposal at the level of higher authority. The alleged formalities were done by CBI in their own way, illegally and his signatures and specimen voice were obtained under pressure. He chose not lead any defence evidence.
4.2 On the other hand, accused no.2 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had not demanded any money from anyone nor he had authorized anyone to accept illegal money on his behalf. He denied that there was any conspiracy between him and co- accused A.K. Ray. He further stated that the Sanctioning Officer granted CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 57 of 149 sanction against him without due application of his independent mind. He further stated that the tainted bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- was not recovered from him nor he had demanded or accepted any such bribe amount. He further stated that the money recovered from him was not the bribe amount. He further stated that interested witnesses have falsely deposed against him and that he was falsely implicated in this case without their being any incriminating evidence of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe from him. He chose to lead defence evidence.
5.0 Defence Evidence 5.1 As DW1, accused no. 2 examined Sh. Devender Kumar, LDC with Veterinary Services Department, MCD South Zone, who deposed that in January, 2021, he was posted as LDC with General Branch, Shahdara South Zone and was working as Ward Incharge. He further stated that he knew accused A.K. Ray who was also posted in the same Zone as Bill Clerk. The duty of Bill Clerk was to collect and deposit daily fines with respect to challans and seized properties and to deposit the fees received from Kiosks. The amount received was deposited with the Treasury on the same day, however, since Bill Clerks were not having any almirah provided to them by MCD, they used to deposit the amount received after 2:00 p.m., with the higher officers of MCD, whoever was available i.e. Assistant Commissioner or Administrative Officer. On the next day, Bill Clerks used to collect the amount from the Office of higher officers of MCD and deposit the same with the Treasury, before 12:00 p.m. 5.1.1 During his cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he stated CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 58 of 149 that accused A.K. Ray was working as Junior Secretariat Assistant in his Department but further stated that he was not aware what accused A.K. Ray was doing besides the work of Bill Clerk. He further stated that the Bill Clerk had to deposit the collected fine and fees in the Treasury in the morning and he ought not hand it over to his Senior Officers, in the morning. He further stated that he did not have any personal knowledge about the facts of this case but denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the behest of accused Rakesh Rawat, so as to cause undue favour to him. Thereafter, D.E. was closed.
6. Final Arguments 6.1 Ld. PP, CBI has argued that the case against accused persons namely Amendra Kumar Ray and Rakesh Rawat stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had applied for five gharelu udyog licenses for himself and his family members and the said applications were marked to accused A. K. Ray, who was LDC/Inspector EDMC for verification. However, accused A. K. Ray, though carried out the verification of license applications but he also demanded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per file i.e. total Rs. 60,000/- from complainant, as a reward being undue advantage, for the aforesaid performance of verification work even though, it was part of his public duty. Further, accused Rakesh Rawat also asked for a share in the bribe money from accused A.K. Ray, in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy between them even though, it was their duty to process the license applications. He further submitted that even though, the bribe was not demanded for performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly however, as per explanation 1 appended CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 59 of 149 to Section 7, a public servant is liable to be prosecuted for obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage even if, the performance of public duty by the public servant, had not been improper and the case of accused A.K. Ray & Rakesh Rawat squarely falls under the above explanation.
6.2 He further submitted that as far as accused A.K. Ray is concerned, after receipt of complaint of complainant, the factum of demand of bribe by accused A.K. Ray was established during the verification proceedings conducted by Inspector Pawan Kumar, who was examined as PW4 and only thereafter, the present complaint was registered against accused A.K. Ray. After registration of FIR, the trap proceedings were conducted upon accused A. K. Ray by TLO Dharmendra Kumar Singh, who was examined as PW10 and during the trap proceedings, accused A. K. Ray was caught red handed after having accepted the bribe from complainant. The sanctity of verification proceedings and trap proceedings is further fortified by the presence of independent witnesses PW12 Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba (participated in both verification proceedings as well as trap proceedings) and PW13 Sh. Praveen (participant in trap proceedings).
6.3 He further argued that handwashes of the accused A.K. Ray which was taken after he was apprehended with the tainted money, showed the presence of phenolphthalein powder which was smeared on the currency notes brought by the complainant, before it was handed over to the accused A.K. Ray, as per the report of CFSL Expert examined as PW7 V.B. Ramteke, which further proved the involvement CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 60 of 149 of accused A.K. Ray. He further argued that the audio recordings of verification proceedings and trap proceedings, which were made with the help of DVR kept secretly in the pocket of complainant, reveals that the voices were that of complainant and accused A.K. Ray (also confirmed from the report of CFSL Expert Sh. Ravinder Kumar examined as PW8) and accused A.K. Ray can be clearly heard demanding bribe and thereafter accepting bribe from the complainant, hence, the case against accused A.K. Ray stands proved.
6.4 As far as accused Rakesh Rawat is concerned, though it was admitted by Ld. PP that neither in the complaint of complainant, verification proceedings conducted by PW4 or in the pre-trap proceedings, the name of accused Rakesh Rawat had crept up, however, in the complaint Ex.PW4/A1, the complainant has indeed mentioned that accused A.K. Ray, while asking for bribe, had told the complainant that he (A.K. Ray) had to give share of the bribe to AO (Administrative Officer) and AC (Assistant Commissioner). The reference to AO was in respect of Rakesh Rawat, who was working as AO at the relevant point of time. Even during verification proceedings, accused A.K. Ray had mentioned about giving share from bribe to AO and AC. Furthermore, when accused A.K. Ray was apprehended by CBI official pursuant to successful trap on him, accused A.K. Ray had voluntarily told the CBI officials that he had to give share from the bribe amount to Rakesh Rawat. The said statement of accused A.K. Ray was not only heard by CBI officials but also by the independent public witnesses present there.
6.5 He further argued that the CBI instead of straight away CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 61 of 149 apprehending accused Rakesh Rawat, made accused A.K. Ray to talk to accused Rakesh Rawat to confirm the allegations of A.K. Ray made against accused Rakesh Rawat, in a controlled call, without accused Rakesh Rawat being aware about the apprehension of accused A.K. Ray. Thereafter, only upon confirmation of demand by accused Rakesh Rawat, a trap was laid on accused Rakesh Rawat.
6.6 He further argued that during trap proceedings, accused Rakesh Rawat accepted the same trap money of Rs.40,000/- from accused A.K. Ray, which amount was earlier used as trap money to apprehend accused A.K. Ray. The trap money was recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh Rawat and his handwashes confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder, as per the report of CFSL Expert examined as PW7. Further, as per report of CFSL Expert PW8, the questioned audio recordings contained the voice of accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, which further confirms the allegations against accused Rakesh Rawat. It is further argued that accused A.K. Ray had also disclosed that he had given Rs.38,000/- to accused Rakesh Rawat in the morning as share of bribe amount, collected from other applicants and this amount of Rs.38,000/- was also recovered from the possession of accused Rakesh Rawat. The trap proceedings pertaining to accused Rakesh Rawat were admissible u/S 8 of Evidence Act, as subsequent conduct of accused A. K. Ray. Hence, it was sufficiently proved that accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat were acting under a criminal conspiracy, whereby accused A.K. Ray used to demand bribe from license applicants, both for himself as well as accused Rakesh Rawat and accused Rakesh Rawat having demanded his share of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 62 of 149 bribe amount from accused A.K. Ray, was also liable to be convicted for offence under Section 7 of PC Act. Accordingly, he prayed for conviction of both the accused persons for offence under Section 7 of PC Act as well as for offence under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act.
6.7 On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of accused A.K. Ray by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that as per the prosecution, accused A.K. Ray had demanded bribe for processing the license applications of the complainant. However, it is on record that even before the date of making complaint by the complainant with CBI, accused A.K. Ray had already performed his part of the work in processing the license applications of complainant, so, there was no question of demand of bribe after having already done the work. He further argued that as per prosecution. the trap money was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the same was kept in envelope after alleged recovery, however, the prosecution has failed to prove that the money allegedly recovered from the accused A.K. Ray was having phenolphthalein powder smeared on it, since there is no evidence to that effect nor the money or the said envelope were sent for CFSL examination. He further argued that the complainant had failed to produce any witness to support his allegations.
6.8 It was further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that after alleged recovery of tainted amount from accused A.K. Ray on completion of trap, no recovery or seizure memo was prepared on the spot nor any memo was prepared regarding the handwash proceedings CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 63 of 149 allegedly conducted at the spot at Nirmal Vihar Metro Station. In fact, none of the memos have been prepared at the spot but were prepared later on at the CBI office by manipulating facts. He further argued that as per the prosecution case, the complainant had to switch on the parking lights of his car after completion of transaction of bribe, which was the pre-decided signal, however, the complainant has deposed in his cross- examination that after delivery of money, he had blown the horn of his car as pre-decided signal, which is a major contradiction. He further argued that the complainant claims to have applied for five licenses, one for himself and four for other persons including two friends, who were not his old friends but he came to know those persons only 15-20 days back from the date of applications of license nor he was in contact of those persons at present, which shows that this story is a manipulated story.
6.9 He further argued that the story of the prosecution that accused A.K. Ray had taken the name of accused Rakesh Rawat, was also false since no memo was prepared after interrogation of accused A.K. Ray nor his alleged disclosure statement was recorded at the spot. As per Ld. Defence Counsel, accused A. K. Ray had not met complainant on any date after 15.01.2021 and no such meeting dated 19.01.2021 or 20.01.2021 took place. He further pointed out towards other discrepancy in the prosecution case as well as in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and urged for acquittal for accused A.K. Ray, in view of the same.
6.10 On his part, Ld. Counsel for accused Rakesh Rawat besides CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 64 of 149 addressing oral arguments, also filed written arguments. It was argued that in the complaint Ex.PW4/A1 and verification memo Ex.PW4/A2, there is not even an iota of evidence indicating demand of illegal gratification on the part of accused no. 2, from the complainant. He further argued that even the complainant examined as PW11 specifically deposed that there is no demand of illegal gratification by accused no. 2 nor he had made any complaint against accused no. 2. Complainant had further deposed that accused A.K. Ray had not taken the name of accused Rakesh Rawat at any point of time.
6.11 It was further argued that the case in question related to demand of illegal gratification by accused A.K. Ray from the complainant, so, once the recovery of trap money was effected, the matter ended there since there was no allegation against accused no. 2 Rakesh Rawat. So, the CBI had illegally proceeded against accused no.
2. It was further argued that there was admittedly no witness to the alleged event which happened between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, inside the room of accused Rakesh Rawat. Moreover, complainant stated that he along with some CBI officials had remained in the office of EDMC for about two hours and hence, nobody knows what had transpired between the accused persons when the accused A.K. Ray had entered in the room of accused Rakesh Rawat. In fact, complainant examined as PW11, had not deposed anything incriminating against accused Rakesh Rawat.
6.12 He further argued that the prosecution was relying on vague audio recordings regarding the alleged conversation between the accused CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 65 of 149 persons, which appear manipulated since there was no concluding voice of independent witnesses after the alleged conversation. Moreover, even as per those audio recordings, there was no demand of bribe by accused Rakesh Rawat which the prosecution was duty bound to prove. As per the prosecution case and also admitted by IO A.K. Singh examined as PW14, accused A.K. Ray had been directed to handover the bribe amount only on the specific demand of accused Rakesh Rawat, but there was no such specific demand as evident from the audio recordings. He further argued that since the prosecution had failed to prove initial demand on the part of accused Rakesh Rawat, the statutory presumption u/S 20 of PC Act was also not available, to the prosecution.
6.13 It was further argued that even otherwise, the reliability and admissibility of recorded conversation alleged to have taken place between accused persons was questionable as it is a very weak piece of evidence and an accused cannot be convicted purely on the evidence of voice identification, with no supporting credible evidence to substantiate the allegations. It was further argued that no hash value in respect of those audio recordings contained in memory cards or supporting certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act had been furnished, which are per-requisites for the admissibility and reliability of any digital evidence. He further argued that PW8, who was examined as expert witness to identify the voices in the audio recordings, did not possess any educational qualification in the field of linguistic and phonetic nor he had any degree, diploma or certificate in the field of psychology, science of linguistic, etc., but only had some training. So, he was not competent to give opinion as an expert witness. Further, he had CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 66 of 149 not given any detailed reasoning in support of his opinion in his report.
6.14 It was further argued that there was no investigation was conducted by CBI with respect to the alleged Rs.38,000/- which accused A. K. Ray claims to have given it to accused Rakesh Rawat in the morning. Infact, the amount was received by accused Rakesh Rawat not as bribe but as per the practice prevalent, the cashiers of MCD used to deposit the amount collected towards penalty, fine, fees of licenses, etc., with their senior officers such as AO/ AC for safe custody, if the amount was received after 2 pm by which time, the treasury would be closed and then, on the next morning, the cashiers used to collect the amount from their senior officers and deposit it with the govt. treasury. Accused A.K. Ray was also working as one of the cashiers in MCD and the said amount was given by accused A.K. Ray to accused Rakesh Rawat, for the said purpose only.
6.15 It was further argued that there was no evidence collected against accused Rakesh Rawat regarding him being part of any criminal conspiracy with accused A.K. Ray as the prosecution has not led any evidence to prove any prior meeting of mind between them. It was further argued that even the sanction order passed against accused Rakesh Rawat by his sanctioning authority was invalid since, many material documents such as CFSL reports pertaining to voice examination, chemical examination, etc., were not placed before him, for his perusal as they were yet to be prepared. Moreover, the sanction order was replica of draft sanction order forwarded by CBI alongwith request letter for grant of sanction and the sanctioning authority i.e. PW1 CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 67 of 149 accorded sanction in a mechanical manner, without going through the records. Furthermore, there was no sanction for prosecution u/S 197 CrPC for IPC offence u/S 120B IPC.
6.16 It was further argued that the DVR was not in switched ON mode and was in hold mode, as deposed by PW4 & PW10, at the time of alleged audio recording, which shows that the recordings are manipulated. No permission was sought from the court for obtaining the voice sample of accused Rakesh Rawat. The three bottles containing the washes of the accused Rakesh Rawat were in white colour when they were produced before the court and not in pink colour, which further shows that no phenolphthalein powder was present therein. It was further argued that as per PW10 the TLO, the trap money of Rs.40,000/- recovered from accused A. K. Ray was sealed at the spot after apprehension of accused A. K. Ray, then how was it possible that the same trap money was taken by accused A. K. Ray to hand over to accused Rakesh Rawat. Further, infirmities and contradictions were cited and a prayer was made for acquittal of accused Rakesh Rawat.
6.17 Ld. PP for the CBI has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
S. No. Judgment Name On the point of
1. Banda Nageshwar Rao Vs. Two different explanations of the same act, State, Crl. Appeal given by accused was discarded.
No.655/2006 passed by
Hon'ble Telangana High
Court
2. Faquira Vs. State of UP, AIR Minor discrepancies guarantee that the
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 68 of 149
1976 SC 915 witnesses are not tutored.
3. Sri C. I. Emden Vs. The State Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme of UP, AIR 1960 SC 548 Court re-affirmed the rejection of explanation of the accused by Ld. Trial Court.
4. State of Maharashtra Vs. Explanation of accused discarded by the Ld. Rashid B. Mulani, 2006 AIR Trial Court and also confirmed by Hon'ble SC 825 Supreme Court.
5. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. Where the complainant is hostile still conviction of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC can be held on the basis of other evidence.
Online SC 1724 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 15.12.2022 6 H.P. Administration Vs Om The disclosure statement of accused may not be Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 recorded in writing as it is only an information.
7 Prakash Chand Vs State The subsequent conduct of accused is relevant (Delhi Administration), AIR even if his disclosure is hit by Section 27 of 1979 SC 400 Indian Evidence Act.
8 A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. Vs Do State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3809 6.18 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 has relied upon the following judgment in support of his arguments :-
S. Judgment Name On the point of No.
1. Raja Khan Vs. State of Non preparation of memo at the time of alleged Chattisgarh, Criminal Appeal recovery of incriminating material, is fatal. No.70 of 2025, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6.19 Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 69 of 149 S. Judgment Name On the point of No.
1. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. (a) On the allegation of demand of illegal of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC gratification Online SC 1724 (Crl.Appeal No.1669 of 2009) decided by (b) No case/ cause for invoking presumption Hon'ble Supreme Court of u/S 20 PC Act India on 15.12.2022
2. N. Sunkanna Vs. State of A.P., Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non (Crl.Appeal No.1335 of 2015) to constitute offence u/S 7 PC Act decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 14.10.2015
3. State of Lokayuktha Police, On the allegation of demand of illegal Davanagera Vs. C. B. Nagaraj, gratification (Crl. Appeal No.1157 of 2015) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 19.05.2025
4. P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Demand and acceptance are sine qua non and The Dist. Inspector of Police mere recovery of tainted money is not enough and Ors., [2015 (10) SCC 152]
5. Krishan Chander Vs. State of Do Delhi, [ 2016(3) SCC 108]
6. B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., Do [2014 (13) SCC 55]
7. Rajesh Gupta Vs State through CBI, [2022(2) SCR 864] Do
8. Krishan Chander Vs. State of Failure of shadow witness to overhear Delhi, [ 2016(3) SCC 108] conversation
9. K. Shanthamma Vs. The State Do of Telangana, [2022 (4) SCC 574]
10. A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, The fact of illegal gratification cannot be [2009 (6) SCC 587] inferred and has to be proved like any other fact in criminal trial with credible evidence
11. Selvaraj Vs. State of Do Karnataka, [ 2015 (10) SCC 230]
12. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. Regarding reliability and admissibility of State of Maharashtra, 2011 recorded conversations STPL (LE) 44905 SC
13. Ram Singh & Others Vs. Col. Do Ram Singh, (1985 (Supp.) SCC 611) CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 70 of 149
14. Mahabir Prasad Verms Vs. Dr. Do Surinder Kaur, (1982 (2) SCC
258)
15. State Vs. Ravi @ Munna Do (Murder Reference No.4 of 1997 with Crl. Appeal Nos.309 and 320 of 1997) decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.10.1999.
16. Anvar P. V. Vs. P. K. Basheer Do & Ors., [2014 (10) SCC 473}
17. Mukut Bihari & Anr. Vs. State No case/ cause for invoking presumption u/S 20 of Rajasthan [ (2012) 6 SCR of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 710] of Hon'ble Supreme Court
18. B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., Do (2014 13 SCC 55)
19. T. K. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State Do [2015 (15) SCC 629]
20. Soudarajan Vs. State rep. By Do The Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti - corruption, [2023 CR.L.J 2123]
21. Darshan Lal Vs. The Delhi Independent witnesses were interested and Administration, AIR 1974 SC partisan witness and were concerned with the 2018 success of trap.
22. K.R. Purushothaman Vs. State No evidence against the accused being part of of Kerala, [Crl.Appeal any criminal conspiracy 495/2004] (2005) 12 SCC 631
23. Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. Do The State of Madhya Pradesh (Crl.Appeal No.1066 of 2010)
24. CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Law relating to grant of sanction Aggarwal, Crl. Appeal No.1838 of 2013 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
25. Shri Anand Murlidhar Salvi Do Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No.1107/2004 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court
26. State of Maharashtra through Do Deputy Superintendent of Police ACP Nagpur Vs. Devidas s/o Narayanrao CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 71 of 149 Bobde, of Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Crl.Appeal No.345/2002
27. Prof. N. K. Ganguly Vs. CBI Non availability of Sanction for prosecution u/S New Delhi, Crl. Appeal 197 CrPC for IPC offence.
No.798 of 2015 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided on 19.11.2015
28. Judgment dated 15.06.2023 Do passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Crl. Appeal No.2417/2010 in case titled as "A. Srinivasulu Vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police".
29. Judgment dated 23.07.2021 of Do Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Crl. Appeal No.593 of 2021 [ Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1605 of 2018] titled Indra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. with Crl.Appeal No.594 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5015 of 2021 D. No.7196 of 2019] titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Yogesh Acharya
7. Legal Position 7.1 As far as the legal position on the subject in hand is concerned, it would be appropriate to firstly set out the relevant provisions of Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988, with which both the accused persons are charged:-
"7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed Any public servant who,-
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 72 of 149 improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1 : For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration: A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2 : For the purpose of this section,-
(i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."
7.2 As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, Section 7 (b) and Explanation 1 of Sec 7 are relevant, since the work for CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 73 of 149 which illegal gratification was sought/obtained, had already been performed and it was also not an improper performance of public duty. Hence, in order to prove its case herein, qua offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act 1988, prosecution is required to prove that :-
1) the accused persons are public servants,
2) they had obtained, accepted or attempted to obtain an undue advantage from complainant;
3) as a reward for the performance of a public duty;
4) for themselves or for any other person;
5) further, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage, even if the performance of said public duty was not improper.
7.3 The accused persons are further charged for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC for entering into a criminal conspiracy whereby both of them acted in unison, in demanding bribe from complainant i.e. A-1 A.K. Ray directly asking for bribe from complainant and accused Rakesh Rawat obtaining his share of bribe from complainant, through accused A.K. Ray.
7.4 As far as offence of indulging in criminal conspiracy is concerned, the same has been defined in Section 120-A of IPC, which reads as follows: -
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.-- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 74 of 149 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely inciden- tal to that object."
7.5 Hence in order to establish criminal conspiracy between the accused persons, the prosecution is required to prove that: -
1) there was a meeting of mind between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat;
2) prior to the commission of the act;
3) the act for which the accused persons entered into an agreement, was an illegal act i.e. demand of bribe from complainant.
Having enunciated the law on the aspect, I shall now proceed to evaluate and appreciate the evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
8. Appreciation of Evidence 8.1 At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the accused persons have not taken the objection that they were not public servants during the relevant time or the fact that complainant had applied for five licences with MCD or even the fact that during the course of their official work/duty, they had not verified/processed the licence applications of the complainant, so in the present case, the following points arise for consideration of this court as far as accused no.1 Amendra Kumar Ray is concerned:-
A. Whether the accused A.K. Ray had demanded an undue advantage of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.12,000/- X 5 licences) from the complainant, as reward for verifying his licence CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 75 of 149 applications or not, both before and during the verification proceedings ?
B. Whether the accused A.K. Ray thereafter again demanded an undue advantage/illegal gratification from complainant during trap proceedings and received Rs.40,000/- (part bribe amount out of Rs.60,000/-) from the complainant on 20.01.2021, as reward or not?
The following points arise for consideration of this court as far as accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat is concerned:-
C. Whether the accused Rakesh Rawat had demanded his share @ Rs.6,000/- per licence from accused A.K. Ray, out of the bribe amount which was collected by him and received the said share from the amount of undue advantage received by accused A.K. Ray, or not? D. Whether the sanction order for prosecution of accused Rakesh Rawat, is valid or not?
E. Whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not, while considering the inconsistencies, contradictions and infirmities, cited by Ld. Defence counsel ?
Lastly, a common point for consideration qua both the accused :-
F. Whether the accused A.K. Ray had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Rakesh Rawat, to share the bribe amount, collected by accused A.K. Ray from the applicants including the complainant, as reward for CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 76 of 149 processing their licence applications or not?
8.2 Points of consideration:-
8.2.1 A. Whether the accused A.K. Ray had demanded an undue advantage of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.12,000/- X 5 licences) from the complainant, as reward for verifying his licence applications or not, both before and during the verification proceedings ?
8.2.1.1 As far as Section 7 of PC Act is concerned, there are catenas of judgment on the aspect that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence under Section 7 of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail.
Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. So, the prosecution is also required to prove both the demand as well as the acceptance to bring home the guilt of accused. (Refer:- P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 152) 8.2.1.2 As already stated above, it has not been disputed by the ac- cused that the complainant had applied for five licenses in different names. Though, in his cross examination, PW11 the complainant was not able to mention the names of all the persons for whom he had ap-
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 77 of 149 plied for license and stated only 2-3 names, however, the same does not in any way affect the prosecution case as the factum of five licenses ap- plied on the part of complainant is admitted especially in view of testi- mony of PW5, the Assistant Commissioner of MCD, from whom five original licence application files Ex.PW5/P2 to Ex.PW5/P6 of com- plainant and his family, were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/P1. Rather, the plea taken on behalf of accused no.1 A.K. Ray is that by 15.01.2021 itself, he had already processed the license applications at his end, after verification and forwarded it to accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat for further action. So, the fact that the five license applications moved by complainant were processed by accused no.1, is not in dispute. The question before the court is whether accused no.1 had demanded any il- legal gratification as reward from complainant for processing his license applications or not ?
8.2.1.3 From the material and evidence on record, it appears that accused no.1 had asked for illegal gratification from complainant, at least three times. The first instance was on 15.01.2021 that is before the date, the complainant had approached CBI for making complaint against accused no.1 regarding demand of bribe. The second instance was after the receipt of complaint by CBI and its verification on 19.01.2021, in the presence of independent witness PW12 Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba. The third instance was during the trap proceedings on 20.01.2021, when accused A.K. Ray once again demanded illegal gratification from complainant as reward, for processing the license applications of complainant. These facts clearly transpire from the testimony of PW11, and his complaint Ex.PW4/A1 and other prosecution witnesses.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 78 of 149 8.2.1.4 As far as the first instance of 15.01.2021 is concerned, there is no other evidence on record except the oral testimony of PW11, the complainant. However, an important factor which needs to be kept in consideration is that there is no cross examination of PW11 on the aspect that accused no.1 had not met or demanded sum of Rs.60,000/- i.e. Rs.12,000/- per license application, for verifying five such applications on 15.01.2021. So, to that extent the testimony of PW11 has remained unrebutted, even though a general suggestion had been given to the witness that accused no.1 had not demanded any bribe from him, which was denied by PW11. It is also pertinent to mention that the accused no.1 has admitted having met the complainant on 15.01.2021 for physical inspection of the premises of complainant. So, in view of the fact that PW11 was not cross examined on the aspect that no demand of illegal gratification was made by accused no.1 on 15.01.2021, this allegation has remained uncontroverted.
8.2.1.5 Now, coming to the second demand made by accused no.1 to the complainant on 19.01.2021 is concerned, the prosecution has relied not only on the testimony of PW11, PW12 Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba and PW 4 Inspector Pawan Kumar (verification officer) but also on the audio recordings of the conversation, which took place between accused no.1 and complainant, at the factory premises of complainant. All the above witnesses in their testimonies, have corroborated that accused no.1 had demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- from complainant which was later on reduced to Rs.50,000/- upon negotiations done by the complainant. Again, there appears to be little effective cross examination on the part of accused no.1 on the aspect that no demand was made by CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 79 of 149 accused no.1 from complainant on 19.01.2021 except 2 or 3 questions, here and there.
8.2.1.6 It is the plea of the accused no.1 that he had not met the complainant after 15.01.2021 or had talked to him. Moreover on 15.01.2021 itself, accused no.1 had processed the files at his end after visiting the premises of the complainant. Hence, there was no question of any demand for illegal gratification being made by him. The calls exchanged between complainant and accused no.1 were heard by other witnesses present, such as PW12 and PW4, as the call was attended by complainant, in loud speaker mode. There are also audio recordings on record, in support of those calls having been made by accused no.1. Of course PW4 and PW12 could not have identified the voice of accused no.1 from the mobile calls but it was the accused himself talking to complainant, was proved from the fact that accused no.1 did meet complainant on 19.01.2021 after informing complainant of his arrival, as is established from the succeeding paras.
8.2.1.7 As far as meeting between accused no.1 and complainant on 19.01.2021 is concerned, this fact is proved not only from the testimony of PW11, PW12 and PW4, who state that accused no.1 had come to the factory premises of complainant but also by audio recordings of the conversation between them. Moreover, PW12 who was an independent witness, has clearly stated that both of them had met each other, in his presence, at the first floor of the premises of complainant. He also deposed that even though he had hidden himself behind some goods lying there but he could clearly hear the conversation CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 80 of 149 between the complainant and accused no.1, wherein the accused no.1 demanded illegal gratification from the complainant.
8.2.1.8 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the contents of the audio recordings between complainant and accused no.1, the transcript of which is Ex.PW12/P2. But before getting into this exercise, it would be pertinent to refer to the objections taken by accused no.2 with respect to reliability and genuineness of audio recordings, since the audio recordings are relevant even in the case of accused no.2 besides accused no.1.
8.2.1.9 It was argued that the reliability and admissibility of recorded conversation in memory card Q-2 and Q-3 concerning accused no. 2 was doubtful. The same assertion is applicable in the case of accused no.1 qua memory card Q-1. It was argued that as per law laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the recorded coversation is a very weak piece of evidence which can be used only as corroborating piece of evidence. Reliance was placed on Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 STPL (LE) 44905 SC, Ram Singh & Others Vs. Col. Ram Singh, (1985 (Supp.) SCC 611), Mahabir Prasad Verms Vs. Dr. Surinder Kaur, (1982 (2) SCC 258), State Vs. Ravi @ Munna (Murder Reference No.4 of 1997 with Crl. Appeal Nos.309 and 320 of 1997) decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.10.1999.
8.2.1.10 In the case of Nilesh Dinkar (Supra), it has been held that evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not, wholly unreliable. It has been further held that such evidence is prone to such CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 81 of 149 extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring, and editing that the reality can be completely replaced by fiction. Therefore, the Courts have to be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely on the evidence of voice identification.
8.2.1.11 In the present case, as per the report of PW8, there was no tampering found in the audio recordings. It appears to be only an apprehension on the part of accused no. 2 to assert that the audio recordings may have been tampered or doctored with, without any substantial basis. It is further pertinent to mention that the judgments as quoted by Ld. Defence Counsel are distinguishable on facts, as they were passed under peculiar circumstances of those case and not like the present case, where all the conversation took place in front of prosecution witnesses and recorded directly in the memory cards through a DVR and the said memory cards were immediately seized and sealed after the conversation got completed. This leaves almost no chance of tampering with them.
8.2.1.12 Further, in the case titled as Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Handa Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it has been held as follows:
"9.Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the law laid down in regard to the admissibility of recorded conversation and allowing the application for taking voice samples of the parties. As early as 1956, in Rup Chand vs. Mahabir Prasad AIR 1956 Punj. 173 it has been categorically held that a tape recorded version of a former statement of a witness is admissible in Evidence to shake the credit of the witness. Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Pratap Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 held that the tape recorded version of a conversation was admissible in evidence to CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 82 of 149 corroborate the evidence of witness who had stated that such a conversation had taken place."
8.2.1.13 In R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 157 , their Lordships observed:
"23. Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape-record. A contemporaneous tape- record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae.
29. It was said that the admissibility of the tape recorded evidence offended Arts. 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The submission was that the manner of acquiring the tape recorded conversation was not procedure established by law and the appellant was incriminated. The appellant's conversation was voluntary. There was no compulsion. The attaching of the tape recording instrument was unknown to the appellant. That fact does not render the evidence of conversation inadmissible. The appellant's conversation was not extracted under duress or compulsion. If the conversation was recorded on the tape it was a mechanical contrivance to play the role of an eavesdropper. In R.V.Leatham, (1861) 8 Cox C.C. 198 it was said "It matters not how you get it if you steal it even, it would be admissible in evidence" as long as it is not tainted by an inadmissible confession of guilt:
evidence even if it is illegally obtained is admissible."
Though the above judgment has been recently overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was on different grounds and not on the ground of tampering or inadmissibility of audio recordings. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it is clear that if an accurate tape- recorded version of the statement is produced in evidence, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence in case CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 83 of 149 the recording is not tempered with and the voice is properly identified.
8.2.1.14 Even in a recent case titled as Rajesh Gupta vs State through Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 SCC Online SC 1107 , it has been held as follows :-
"12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well settled in the case of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Suppl) SCC 611, wherein this Court held that tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record and other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape -
recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.
(emphasis supplied)"
8.2.1.15 In my considered view, there is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the audio recordings herein, contained in memory cards Ex.PW8/A5 to Ex.PW8/A7 are tampered with. The CFSL expert examined as PW8, had opined as per his report Ex.PW8/A2, that the audio recordings sent in the original Memory Card for examination, were not tampered with. He has specifically mentioned in his report Ex.PW8/2 in response to query 2 that " Critical auditory examination, waveform and spectrographic examination of exhibits 'Q-1' 'Q-2', 'Q-3' 'S-1', 'S-2' & 'S-3' reveal that the audio recordings are continuous and CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 84 of 149 no form of tampering is detected in the audio recordings" . There is nothing to suggest otherwise. He further reported that the voices in the audio recordings were that of accused no.1, accused no.2 and the complainant themselves. Of course, PW8 admitted in his cross- examination that he did not had any degree, diploma or certificate in the field of psychology, science of linguistics, science of sound engineering and science of phonetics but he also stated that he had undergone training on tape authentication and speaker identification, from FSL, Rohini and had done induction course in forensic science from NICFS, Delhi. He also deposed that he had personally examined and assisted senior officers with respect to voice examination of exhibits forwarded, in about 260 cases, which assertion has not been disputed. So, one may say that he had gained expertise in the subject on the basis of long experience and on the basis of his training. This witness was not even cross-examined on behalf of accused no.1 nor his testimony was referred to, during final arguments by his counsel, however since the cross- examination of this witness was adopted by counsel for accused no.1, so the above observations are required to be made, in this case.
8.2.1.16 Hence, it is quite clear that audio recordings in a given case are admissible piece of evidence if they are authentic, relevant, accurate, un-tampered with and the voice of the speaker is clearly identifiable which happens to be the case in the present matter. So, the audio recordings in this case are held to be reliable.
8.2.1.17 Furthermore, the voice of accused no.1 in the audio recordings, was even identified vide voice identification memo Ex.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 85 of 149 PW6/A, even by PW6, who was an official of the same EDMC office, where accused no.1 was working at that time. Similarly, the voice of accused Rakesh Rawat was also identified by PW9, who was Licensing Inspector posted at MCD office, Shahdara Zone. So, the voice of accused no.1 and accused no.2 in the audio recordings, was even otherwise sufficiently identified and proved.
8.2.1.18 Now coming to the facts of this case, in the audio file no.200119_1449, recorded during verification proceedings on 19.01.2021 in memory card Ex.PW8/A6, accused no.1 had told the complainant that he will come to meet him at 3.30 pm at the factory of complainant. The relevant transcript as recorded in transcript Ex.PW12/P2 is as follows:-
AKR -- क्योंकि सर मैं आपका फाईल बना कर के ए.ओ. साईन कर दिया एसीस्टेंट कमीशनर साईन कर दिया, अस्पष्ट.......आगे भी सब चला गया है। ठीक है C -- ठीक हैं AKR मै तो सर मै अभी बज रहा है ढाई बज रहा है - - है ना C- -- हां AKR -- तो मैं आपको साढे तीन बजे आपका फै क्ट्री में मिलू C -- मिल जाओं AKR -- ठीक है सर ठीक है सर, तो मै आपके फै क्ट्री में आ रहा हूं साढे तीन बजें हां (Here, "AKR" stands for accused Amendra Kumar Ray and "C" stands for complainant and the more relevant portion has been highlighted in bold letters. It is clarified that the same method has been adopted in the other relevant transcripts, which will be reproduced below.) 8.2.1.19 Thereafter several calls were exchanged between them CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 86 of 149 wherein accused no.1 and complainant talked about the place where accused no.1 had reached, while on his way to the factory premises of complainant. The audio file no.200119_1647 is of the audio recording when complainant met accused no.1 at his factory premises. In the said talk, accused no.1 again informed complainant that he had already processed the files and even got it signed from the AC (Assistant Commissioner) and it was pending approval with DC (Deputy Commissioner). Accused no.1 further told complainant that Assistant Commissioner himself goes to Deputy Commissioner to obtain his signature since, they ask (money) for each file. The relevant portion of the transcript Ex.PW12/P2 is as follows:-
AKR -- आप का फाइल हमने करके आगे ए.सी. को साइन करा दिया डी.सी. के पास पहुंच गया C -- हो गया अपरूवल हो गया AKR -- नही, डी.सी. अभी साइन नही किया C -- अच्छा AKR -- इकट्ठे ए.सी.ए. साहब खुद जाते है डी.सी. से साइन कराने C -- अच्छा AKR -- क्योंकि हर फाइल पर मांगना है C -- अच्छा AKR -- हो जायेगा होपफु ली हो जाएगा C -- क्या है, क्या है कितना AKR -- वही करा दो मैक्सीमम अस्पष्ट............मेरी बात नही हुई C -- नही गरीब आदमी हूँ AKR -- और बताओं C -- अरे 8.2.1.20 When complainant showed his apprehension that what will happen if he is harassed by some other (MCD official), the accused no.1 CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 87 of 149 assured him that it was not only him (accused no.1) who was taking the money but rather, four officers were signing it and taking Rs.2500/- - Rs.
3,000/- for the same and whenever any file was processed, the entire money was given in one go. The accused no.1 also asked complainant to give the money on the same day. The relevant portion of the transcript is as follows:-
C -- कोई दूसरा तो न आये, कोई और दूसरा आ गया तो तंग ना करें AKR -- नही आयेगा, नही आयेगा और अस्पष्ट...........असीस्टेन्ट कमीशनर का गेट पर फोटो कॉपी लगा देना किसी की हिम्मत नही होगी उंगली उठा दें, ठीक है, देखिए ये पैसा हम नही खा रहे है, ठीक है चार अफसर साइन कर रहे है इसी साइन के लिए ढाई-तीन हजार रूपया ले रहे है ठीक है जब ये फाईल निकलता है इक्ट्ठा पकडा देते है हम लोग अलग से नही देते है। ठीक है तो हमारी हिम्मत कहां जो आपके पैसे लेकर हम खाए।
C -- देखो में सीधा बाहर से आ रहा हूं AKR -- बाबुजी आप देखिए भगवान सामने है गणेश जी लक्ष्मी जी भगवान
आपको यह करे लेकिन अभी मै बोलता हूं मै झूठा इंसान नही हूं ठीक है आप कभी भी जनरल ब्रांच में आ जाना मै आपको सामने सीढी से चढते ही नजर आने लगूंगा C -- कल सवेरे किस टाईम दे दू बताओं AKR -- नही बाबुजी आज दे दिजिए देखिए C -- कल मै दे दूंगा जहां आप कहोगे वहां दे दूंगा AKR -- अभी क्यों बुलाया ओफिस जाना था, गाडी पकडा था गाडी छु डाने के लिए C -- जहां आप कहोगें वहां हो जाएगा, मैं आऊं गा आपको देने आपको नही आना पडेंगा 8.2.1.21 It is also pertinent to mention that when the complainant retorted and told accused no.1 that he had increased the bribe amount from 50 to 60 ( here 50 is Rs.50,000 and 60 is Rs.60,000/-), the accused no.1 told the complainant that people were even giving Rs.One Lac for CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 88 of 149 five properties and the complainant can enquire about the same. The relevant transcript is as follows:-
AKR -- आपकी 5 प्रोपर्टी है, ठीक है आप पता कर लो कोई तो 20-20 भी दे रहे है, ठीक है मैं अपनी जबान आपकी जबान पर में कर चुका हूँ ठीक है।
C -- पहले कितना, पहले AKR -- आप मुझे 40 दे दो अभी, ठीक है और मेरे को 20 बाद में देदेना जब मैं फाइल दूंगा आपको C -- ये ज्यादा हो जाएगा AKR -- बाबुजी आप पता कर लिजिए मै अभी इसी कै लाश नगर में गली नम्बर
15 में अस्पष्ट...........मनचंदा जी है, 14 में मनचंदा है कोई उनकी दो प्रोपर्टी है उन्होंनें कितना दिया ओफिस में दिया चल के आया C -- आपने उस दिन यह कहा था 50 दे देना और 30 पहले 20 बाद में AKR -- नही नही ये तो सिर्फ मैने आपका मन रखने के लिए कह दिया है ना, लेकिन 15 से कम नही कोई आप पता कर लेना 20-20 भी हमने लिया ले रहा है The demand was again re-iterated by accused no.1, in the later part of the same conversation in following words:-
C -- बात करलो एक बारी, क्या फाइनल है अब आपने 50 से 60 कर दिये AKR -- आपका तो 5 प्रोपर्टी है लोग लाख-लाख रूपया ले रहे है ठीक अब आकर के वही पर पुछ लेना C -- कल किस टाईम दे दू बताओं कहां पर आना है आपको नही आना पडेंगा जहा आप बोलोगे वहां दे दूूंगा AKR -- मेरे ऑफिस में आ जाईये 8.2.1.22 The accused no.1 further asked the complainant to meet him at his office on the next day, in the afternoon (around 12.00 pm to 01.00 pm), if he was not carrying any money at that time (at the factory CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 89 of 149 premises, on 19.01.2021). The relevant transcript is as follows:-
AKR -- अस्पष्ट.......... अभी कुु छ नही दस पांच तो दे दो अभी C -- मेरे पे होते तो मै दे देता, अभी बाहर से ही आ रहा हू, मैं सीधा मगर ये ना कहे राय साहब कि मिला नही AKR -- अच्छा 12 से 1 बजे के बीच फाईनल करों 8.2.1.23 These audio recordings, supported by transcript and the oral evidence of PW4, PW11 and PW12 clearly proves demand made on the part of accused no.1, on 19.01.2021.
8.2.2 B. Whether the accused A.K. Ray thereafter again demanded an undue advantage/illegal gratification from complainant during trap proceedings and received Rs.40,000/- (part bribe out of Rs.60,000/-) from the complainant on 20.01.2021, as reward or not?
8.2.2.1 As far as law is concernd, in the case titled as A. Subair v.
State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587, while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Act, it was ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reason- able doubt, like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
8.2.2.2 Further in State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while re-iterating its earlier dictum, vis-a -vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 90 of 149 would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
8.2.2.3 Very recently, the Hon'ble Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, clarifying the law on the aspect of Sec 7 and Sec 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, held in Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Government of GCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online SC 1724 that :
"74. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 91 of 149 In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)
(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 92 of 149
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption."
8.2.2.4 It is now settled proposition of law especially in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case titled as Neeraj Dutta (Supra) that the prosecution is required not only to prove the initial demand on the part of public servant but also the demand by him at the time of acceptance of illegal gratification. Mere recovery of currency notes from the accused upon completion of alleged trap proceedings, will not ipso facto prove that the money was received by public servant as illegal gratification or as bribe. Though at the same time, it is pertinent to mention that the court can raise presumption against the accused as per Section 20 of PC Act that the money found in his possession was received towards illegal gratification, if the initial demand is proved. However, the facts of the present case show that accused no.1 A. K. Ray had made demand of bribe even at the time of accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant on 20.01.2021.
8.2.2.5 A perusal of the testimony of PW11, PW12 & PW13 (all private witnesses) shows that all of them have fully supported the prosecution case, as far as allegation against accused no.1 A.K. Ray is concerned. It is pertinent to mention that PW11 complainant and PW12 Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba, independent witness had deposed that accused no.1 A.K. Ray had asked the complainant to come with money, on the next day i.e. 20.01.2021, in the afternoon and meet him at his office. The evidence on record shows that both PW11 & PW12 had gone to the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 93 of 149 office of accused no.1 A. K. Ray in the afternoon on 20.01.2021, to meet him. The other independent witness PW13 Praveen had also accompanied them at that time. However, since accused no.1 A.K. Ray had left his office by that time, he asked the complainant to meet him at Nirman Vihar Metro Station and so, PW11, PW12 & PW13 went to Nirman Vihar Metro Station, alongwith the CBI trap team. These audio recordings are recorded in the memory card Ex.PW8/A6 , which is on record.
8.2.2.6 With respect to the demand made by accused no.1 A.K. Ray during trap proceedings, the relevant transcripts of Ex.PW12/P3 of the audio recording contained in file namely 210120_1310 in memory card Ex.PW8/A7 is as follows:-
C -- हमारे लिए क्या आदेश है ये बताओ AKR -- बस बाबुजी जो मै आपको बोला था C -- कितना AKR -- 60 आपको बोला था मैं बाबुजी है ना आपका फाईल दिखाई
सबसे पहले विडम्बना है कि की बाबुुजी आप को बोला था ना जबान में आपसे बिना एक पैसा लिए मै फाईल आगे कर दिया इसका देखो दोनो फाइल इधर है गुप्ता साहब आप मुझ पर डाउट कर रहे है इसी बात का मुझे दुख है।
8.2.2.7 Later on, in the same conversation, accused A.K. Ray stated to complainant as follows :-
C -- मैं कितना दू
AKR -- 60 हजार दे दिजिए
C -- बेलेंस भी तो करना था थोडा सा
AKR -- नही बेलेंस बेलेंस मत कीजिए आपको फाइल में आर्डर दे दुंगा
ठीक है ना 60 हजार रूपये मुझे दे दिजिए ठीक है।
C -- आपने तो कहा था कु छ बेलेंस हो जाये आज 40 के लिए बोला था
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal
RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC
Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 94 of 149
आपने
AKR -- आज मेरे को आप 50 दे दो अगले हफ्ते जब मै आपको लेटर दुंगा
तब आप 10 दे देना
C -- 40 बोला था मै तो अभी 40 ही लाया हुं 50 तो नही लाया
AKR -- अच्छा चलो आपकी मर्जी जो आप बडे भाई समझ कर मै आपको
बडा भाई समझता हुं आप 40 ही कर दो जब मैं लेटर लेकर आऊ तो 20 कर देना C -- हां लो AKR -- बाबुजी दुनिया में धोखा हो सकता है ऐ.के . राय धोखा नही देगा ठीक है।
C -- यह लो गिन लो एक बारी इसलिए मै गाडी लाया हुं AKR -- गिन्ना जरूरी हैै C -- गिन लो एक बारी अच्छा रहेगा अच्छा गिन लोगे तो AKR -- नही नही मै नही गिनुंगा C -- गिन लो एक बार फिर भी तसल्ली हो जायेगी AKR -- नही सर अगर कम भी होगा तो मेरे लिय ज्यादा होगा तो मेरे लिए चलिए
मै उतर जाता हुं फिर गुप्ता जी आपने 40 दिया में जब लेटर दुंगा मुझे 20 देना ठीक है डाउट करना किसी पर देखो में आज आपको जबान देता हुं 8.2.2.8 A bare perusal of the relevant transcripts of the conversation which took place between complainant and accused no.1 A.K. Ray as reproduced above, clearly shows that accused no.1 A.K. Ray had once again demanded the bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant. He also ultimately settled to receive Rs.40,000/- at that time, on the persistent request of complainant, on the condition that complainant shall pay him the balance Rs.20,000/- later on after handing over the letter of licence approval. This is the same Rs.40,000/- which was being carried by complainant as tainted trap money.
8.2.2.9 Hence, it is also apparent from material on record that at CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 95 of 149 Nirman Vihar Metro Station, accused no.1 A.K. Ray did meet complainant and sat in the car of complainant, during which time, the bribe transaction had taken place. Ofcourse, when the transaction took place, PW11 complainant was alone in the car with accused no.1 A.K. Ray however, immediately after the completion of bribe transaction, the complainant had given the pre-decided signal, pursuant to which the CBI officials including the TLO examined as PW10, had rushed to the car of complainant and apprehended accused no.1 A.K. Ray. It is also on record that when personal search of accused no.1 A.K. Ray was conducted by PW13, the tainted trap money was recovered from his possession, from his left side shirt pocket. The recovered GC notes were tainted with phenolphthalein powder and hence, when the wash of the fingers of accused no.1 A.K. Ray was taken, the same showed presence of phenolphthalein powder as the solution turned pink and was also confirmed by the report Ex.PW7/A2 of FSL expert examined as PW7.
8.2.2.10 I find that there is inherent consistency in the testimony of all the above witnesses including PW10, the TLO with respect to the mode and manner in which trap proceedings were conducted upon accused no.1 A.K. Ray and recovery of tainted trap money was effected from him. The testimony of theses witnesses has largely remained unrebutted on material particulars and strongly support the prosecution case.
8.2.2.11 At this stage, it would be appropriate to discuss the defences taken on the part of accused no.1 A.K. Ray. The first and foremost defence on the part of accused no.1 was that no such CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 96 of 149 proceeding of the nature as is being alleged by prosecution, had taken place either on 19.01.2021 or 20.01.2021. It was also argued that accused no.1 A.K. Ray had never met the complainant after 15.01.2021. However, this contention is belied from the evidence on record.
8.2.2.12 At this stage, I will also discuss the admissibility and relevance of CDR and cell chart location of the mobiles of accused persons. PW3 who is the Nodal Officer from Reliance Jio had produced the CDR as well as Cell ID / Location Chart of the mobile no.8595665977, belonging to accused no.1 A.K. Ray and complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta. A perusal of the CDR Ex. PW3/A3 shows that accused no.1 A.K. Ray had multiple telephonic calls with complainant on 19.01.2021 & 20.01.2021, during the time when verification proceedings & trap proceedings were allegedly conducted. Further, the Cell ID Chart/ Location Chart Ex.PW3/A4, shows the location of the mobile of accused no.1 A.K. Ray during the relevant time, of the area where the factory premises of complainant was situated at Kailash Nagar. Similarly, the CDR Ex.PW3/A9 of the mobile number belonging to the complainant, shows that he had talked to accused no.1 A.K. Ray, multiple times on 19.01.2021 & 20.01.2021.
8.2.2.13 It has been argued on behalf of both accused no.1 A. K. Ray and accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat that PW3 was not working with Reliance Jio at the time of his deposition and hence, had no authority to prove the documents pertaining to Reliance Jio or any authority to file certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW3/A13 and Ex.PW3/A14, later on. However, PW3 clarified that he had himself CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 97 of 149 provided the above documents to the IO of this case in the capacity of the then Alternate Nodal Officer, except the above certificates. Moreover, with respect to the certificates, he deposed that he had taken the permission of Sh. Sanjay Goel, Head Delhi Circle, for accessing the computer system at the office of Reliance Jio.
8.2.2.14 One may definitely argue that the certificates pertained to the data of the period when PW3 was very much working with the Reliance Jio and was retrieved at that time. So, the certificates u/S 65 B Indian Evidence Act has to be read in that context. It is also pertinent to mention that such data of telecom company qua the questioned mobile numbers, are auto generated by the system itself and stored on the server of the telecom company, without interference of any person. So, there is extremely rare chance of them being manipulated or fabricated. Hence there is a strong temptation to consider these documents as admissible.
8.2.2.15 However, the court would hasten to add that the certificates Ex.PW3/A5, Ex.PW3/A12, Ex.PW3/A13 and Ex.PW3/A14 are not in conformity with the law as the details of the computer system used in retrieving the data is not proved and hence, the mobile data sought to be proved with their help, becomes inadmissible in law. PW3 was admittedly not working with Reliance Jio, when he issued Certificates Ex.PW3/A12 and Ex.PW3/A13, so he was not in a position to specify which computer system and printer were used by him earlier, in printing the above information, when he provided the same to the IO. Further there were admittedly six computers installed at the place where he used to work earlier. Hence to say after a period of time that he used to take CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 98 of 149 print outs from a particular computer system, would require stronger piece of evidence. Further, PW3 did not seek written permission of Delhi Head to note down the details of the computer system installed there. Hence, the conclusion is that the CDRs including that of the mobile of accused no.2, are inadmissible.
8.2.2.16 The accused no.1 has basically taken a plea of alibi stating that he was not present with complainant during the verification proceedings or trap proceedings on 19.01.2021 & 20.01.2021. Under such circumstances, it was for accused no.1 to produce cogent and reliable evidence that he was not present at the spot on both the above dates and was at somewhere else. Furthermore, if, the contention of accused no.1 was that he had not called complainant on 19.01.2021 or 20.01.2021, he could have himself summoned the actual record of CDR of his mobile number, by moving an application u/S 91 Cr.PC or lead some other evidence but no such step was taken. It appears that no evidence was lead by accused no.1 in this regard as it is a false plea.
8.2.2.17 Moreover at the same time, in the considered opinion of this court, the fact that complainant and accused no.1 talked to each other on mobile and also met each other both on 19.01.2021 as well as 20.01.2021, is sufficiently proved from the oral testimony of PW4, PW11 and PW12 (for 19.01.2021) and that of PW10, PW11, PW12 and PW13 (for 20.01.2021). Accused no.2 has also admitted both during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC that he had met accused no.1 on 20.01.2021 also tends to support the prosecution case as this meeting between them was after accused CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 99 of 149 no.1 was caught in the trap proceedings. So, this contention on behalf of accused no.1 A.K. Ray is hence, rejected.
8.2.2.18 Another contention on behalf of accused no.1 was that no memo was prepared of the proceedings, on the spot and all the memos being relied upon by prosecution have been allegedly prepared later on at CBI office, after lapse of significant time and so, they lose their sanctity. In this regard, it is correct that all the memos except the Handing over memo Ex.PW4/A3 have been prepared later on, with verification memo Ex.PW4/A2 being prepared at CBI office on 19.01.2021 and recovery memo Ex.PW4/A4 being prepared allegedly at the office of accused Rakesh Rawat.
8.2.2.19 However in the opinion of this court, the mere preparation/non preparation of a memo, will neither prove a case or disprove a genuine case. It is the evidence which is on record, that has to be considered in forming any such opinion, regarding the justification or non-justification of non-preparation of the memos at the spot or immediately, after recovery. In the case titled as Khet Singh vs Union of India AIR 2002 SC 1450, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
"Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the Court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence."
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 100 of 149 8.2.2.20 As already stated above, the verification proceedings were conducted in the presence and hearing of an independent witness Sh. Horesh Ajay Ba, PW12, who has totally supported the prosecution case. It is not as if PW12 is in any manner connected with the complainant or had any personal grudge against accused no.1, that he wanted to teach him any lesson, resulting in making false accusations against accused no.1. Infact, PW12 in his deposition, clearly stated that the verification memo was prepared in his presence and he had signed it only thereafter. Further, his deposition about verification proceedings is on the same lines as that of the contents of verification memo Ex.PW4/A2. So, not only the complainant PW11 and PW4 verification officer, even the independent witness has supported the prosecution case.
8.2.2.21 Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 has relied upon the judgment in the case titled as Raja Khan (Supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court had relied upon two judgments of its own Court in case titled as Varun Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 12 SCC 545 and Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724, observing that if the recovery memos have been prepared in the police station itself or signed by the punch witnesses in the police station, the same would lose their sanctity and cannot be relied upon by the Court to support the conviction.
8.2.2.22 It can be seen that in the aforesaid judgment, non- preparation of recovery memo at the spot was just one of the other glaring discrepancies/infirmities in the prosecution case and there were many other discrepancies pointed out. As has been referred in the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 101 of 149 judgment titled as Khet Singh vs Union of India (Supra), non preparation of the memos at the spot or even later on, is not always fatal to the prosecution case and it can explain the reason for not doing so. Hence, if the reason is just and proper, it will not amount to a fatal shortcoming in the prosecution case.
8.2.2.23 It was also argued that no recovery memo was prepared at the spot after the alleged recovery of tainted money from the possession of accused no.1, which disproves the factum of recovery of tainted trap money from accused. Again, this argument is not sustainable for the reason that accused no.1 had allegedly disclosed about the involvement of even co-accused Rakesh Rawat in the entire matter, after his interrogation by PW10 and so, if the TLO PW10 had proceeded to prepare a recovery memo, it would have resulted in the loss of precious time, to set a trap upon accused Rakesh Rawat. Moreover, the same tainted trap money was to be used for laying trap on co-accused Rakesh Rawat as phenolphthalein powder was already smeared on it. Under such circumstances, the non-preparation of recovery memo at the time of recovery of trap money from accused no.1, was totally justified and probable. Hence, for above reasons, in my considered opinion, non- preparation of verification memo and recovery memo at the time of apprehension of accused no.1, is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially in view of the presence of two independent witnesses during the entire trap proceeding or it in any manner, falsifies the case of the prosecution.
8.2.2.24 It was further argued that the IO, CBI had not sent the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 102 of 149 alleged tainted money or the envelope in which the trap money was kept, before CFSL, in order to prove that the money was having phenolphthalein powder smeared on it. As far as this contention is concerned, it is correct that the trap money as well as the envelope in which it was kept and seized, had not been sent for CFSL examination. However, the reason is obvious. If the currency notes had not been smeared with phenolphthalein powder then the traces of phenolphthalein powder would not have been found in the right hand wash and left hand wash of accused no.1 A.K. Ray, which were taken immediately after he was apprehended with the trap money. Moreover the wash of the pocket of the shirt wherein accused no.1 had kept the tainted trap money was also sent to CFSL, which gave a positive opinion regarding presence of phenolphthalein powder.
8.2.2.25 It was for the accused no.1 to then prove as to how the traces of phenolphthalein powder were found in his fingers and shirt, if he had not received and kept the tainted trap money with him. Infact, the presence of phenolphthalein powder is only a corroborative piece of evidence to further substantiate the allegations of an accused having received the bribe amount. The substantive piece of evidence is the factum of recovery of actual trap money from the possession of an accused, which was brought by complainant and used in the trap proceedings.
8.2.2.26 In the present case, during pre-trap proceedings, the details of the currency notes which were brought by the complainant, had been noted down in the Handing over memo Ex.PW4/A3. Further CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 103 of 149 independent witnesses had signed regarding having verified those details to be correct. Further, the currency notes (trap money) were recovered from the shirt pocket of accused no.1 A.K. Ray not by any CBI official but by an independent witness Sh. Praveen, examined as PW13, as also confirmed by PW12. So, there is no question of planting of the currency notes upon accused no.1 A.K. Ray. Thereafter, the currency notes recovered from the possession of accused no.1 A. K. Ray, were once again tallied with the currency details of the notes as mentioned in Handing over memo Ex.PW4/A-3, which confirmed that the currency notes recovered from the possession of accused no.1 A.K. Ray, were the same currency notes which had been used in the trap proceedings. The independent witnesses PW12 and PW13 had also signed on Handing over memo Ex.PW4/A-3 regarding tallying the notes, after the trap proceedings. Hence, this argument also deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
8.2.2.27 Another contention on behalf of accused no.1 A. K. Ray was that he had already processed the license files of complainant, so, there was no question of him demanding any bribe, after having already done the work of complainant. He also submitted that the complainant failed to prove that he had applied for five licenses as he was not even able to tell the name of some of the persons, for whom he had applied the license besides him. In this regard, the audio recordings of the conversation between complainant and accused no.1 A.K. Ray are relevant, both at the time of verification proceedings and at the time of trap proceedings. The IO has filed written transcripts of the said audio conversations and they are Ex. PW12/P1 to Ex. PW12/P4.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 104 of 149 8.2.2.28 This court had itself heard the audio recordings carefully and found that the written transcripts were correctly recorded except some minor discrepancies here and there. The audio recordings during verification proceedings have already been discussed above and are not being repeated here. However, the audio recording of the trap proceedings, becomes highly relevant. It can be heard at several places that accused no.1 A.K. Ray was aware of the fact that the complainant had applied for five licenses. The fact that the complainant was not able to recollect the name of two other persons for whom he had applied for license, will not in any way harm the prosecution case. Even if the accused had demanded bribe for processing three license applications belonging to the complainant and his family members, he would still be liable to be prosecuted and punished, if the prosecution is able to prove demand and acceptance of bribe.
8.2.2.29 Moreover, it is also important to bring on record that the complainant was a senior citizen aged more than 60 years and when he was examined in court, he was suffering from medical issues due to which on some days, he had even sent his exemption and under such circumstances, the complainant forgetting the name of other persons on whose behalf he had applied for license, will not in any manner affect the prosecution case, especially in the light of testimony of PW5 Sh. R. C.Sahoo.
8.2.2.30 As regards the contention that there was no question of accused no.1 A. K. Ray asking for bribe when he had already processed the license files of complainant, the same is again a superfluous CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 105 of 149 argument. As per Section 7 (2), a public servant who demands illegal gratification/undue advantage, even as a reward for improper exercise of his duty is liable to be convicted. Moreover, it has been further explained in Section 7 that even if the duty performed by the public servant was not improper, he will still be liable under this provision. The fact that the files had been processed on 15.01.2021 itself, by accused no.1 A.K. Ray, is confirmed from the audio recordings in the verification proceedings, wherein the accused no.1 A. K. Ray can be heard telling the complainant that the files had been cleared by him, the Administrative Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, MCD and was pending at the end of Deputy Commissioner to whom Assistant Commissioner will himself visit and get his signatures, after handing over the share of the bribe, to him. This fact is again repeated by him during the trap proceedings. So, it is quite clear that the complainant was made aware of the fact that his files had been processed by the accused no.1 A.K. Ray at his end on 15.01.2021 itself (though PW11 could not recollect this fact during his testimony).
8.2.2.31 Infact accused no.1 still continued to demand bribe from the complainant stating that every MCD official, till the higher level, takes his share in the bribe amount collected from the applicants. This clearly shows that the demand of bribe by accused no.1 A.K. Ray was towards reward for doing complainant's work. Moreover, if accused no.1 had not demanded any bribe on 19.01.2021 during verification proceedings (the first date when complainant was informed by accused no.1 A. K. Ray that his files had been processed at the lower level and was pending with Deputy Commissioner), there was no motive or reason for the complainant to continue with his complaint as it is not even alleged or CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 106 of 149 even remotely whispered on behalf of accused no.1 A.K. Ray that complainant was having any malafide intention and hence, made a false complaint against him and also pursued it. Moreover, the truthfulness of complainant is further apparent from the fact that he did not support the prosecution case against accused Rakesh Rawat, to a large extent or else he would have done so. Hence, even this contention on behalf of accused no.1 A.K. Ray stands rejected.
8.2.2.32 Furthermore, the recovery of the trap money from the possession of accused no.1 A. K. Ray also stands duly proved as elaborated in the above portion of the judgment. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, offence u/S 7 on the part of accused no.1 A.K. Ray stands proved.
Now coming to the allegations against accused Rakesh Rawat.
8.2.3 C. Whether the accused Rakesh Rawat had demanded his share @ Rs.6,000/- per licence from accused A.K. Ray, out of the bribe amount which was collected by him and received the said share from amount of undue advantage received by accused A.K. Ray or not?
8.2.3.1 One of the charges framed against accused Rakesh Rawat is that he being a public servant, had demanded through co-accused A.K. Ray and/or from accused A.K. Ray, an undue advantage/bribe/share in the amount of Rs.60,000/- which was negotiated to Rs.40,000/- to be paid by the complainant then and there with balance Rs.20,000/- to be CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 107 of 149 paid later on, in order to process/verify licences applied by complainant, which bribe was accepted by co-accused A.K. Ray for himself and/or on behalf of accused Rakesh Rawat and the same was handed over to him by accused A.K. Ray, inside his office.
8.2.3.2 As far as the above charge is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence on record regarding any demand made by accused no.2 either from accused no.1 or the complainant. No witness has deposed that he had heard or seen both the accused persons, devising a plan to seek/demand bribe of Rs. 60,000/- from the complainant, through accused A.K. Ray. The complainant examined as PW11 has turned hostile as far as allegations against accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat is concerned, especially with regards to his identity (by name) and the CBI proceedings done against him. Though he has maintained that one senior officer of accused A.K. Ray was also found to be involved in the matter as some amount was recovered from him. He also pointed towards accused Rakesh Rawat in court, stating that he was probably the said senior officer though he was not sure. PW11 further admitted that the name of accused Rakesh Rawat never came up in his talks with accused A.K. Ray. It is also an admitted fact that the name of accused Rakesh Rawat is not mentioned either in his complaint Ex. PW4/A1 or the verification memo Ex. PW4/A2.
8.2.3.3 Even if one assumes that the tainted amount of Rs.40,000/- was recovered from accused no.2 alongwith further Rs.38,000/- which was allegedly handed over to accused no.2, by accused no.1 in the morning, the same is still not sufficient to prove the commission of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 108 of 149 offence u/s 7 PC Act on the part of accused no.2, since the mandatory requirement of prior demand on the part of accused no.2, is missing. Reliance can be placed on the judgments relied upon by accused no.2 in the cases titled as Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), N. Sunkanna Vs. State of A.P, State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagera Vs. C. B. Nagaraj, P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Ors, Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi, B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., and Rajesh Gupta Vs State through CBI , which lay down that there has to be proof of prior demand by accused, even at the time of receipt of bribe, for his conviction u/s 7 of PC Act.
8.2.3.4 It is also pertinent to mention that this alleged understanding between accused no.1 and accused no.2 can at the best, be claimed to be a part of criminal conspiracy between them. Accused no.2 had himself not demanded any bribe/undue advantage from any person or complainant in this case. The prosecution's case is that this demand was made by accused no.2 from accused no.1 but there is no evidence to that effect. Accused no.1 had not entered the witness box nor admitted any such demand by accused no.2, in his examination u/s 313 Cr.PC. So, there is absolutely no evidence to support this allegation.
8.2.3.5 It has also been rightly argued on behalf of accused no.2 that even the statutory presumption under Sec 20 PC Act cannot be raised against accused no.2 as far as offence under Sec 7 PC Act is concerned, simply because alleged tainted trap money had been recovered from his possession. It is only when prior demand is proved, the statutory presumption under Sec 20 PC Act is applicable. Reliance has rightly CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 109 of 149 been placed by Ld. Defence Counsel on judgments in case titled as Mukut Bihari & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P., T. K. Ramesh Kumar Vs. State, Soudarajan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti - corruption, and Darshan Lal Vs. The Delhi Administration. Hence the conclusion is that the prosecution has not been able to prove this offence against accused no.2.
8.2.3.6 Before deciding point no. D and E, I deem it appropriate to first decide this issue of existence of alleged conspiracy between accused no.1 and accused no.2, in sharing the bribe amount received by accused no.1 from the applicants of the licences, in general and complainant of this case, in particular.
8.2.4 F. Whether the accused A.K. Ray had entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Rakesh Rawat, to share the bribe amount, collected by accused A.K. Ray from the applicants including the complainant, as reward for processing their licence applications or not?
8.2.4.1 In order to prove existance of criminal conspiracy, the settled legal position and also enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mohd Naushad vs State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 605, is as follows:-
"35. Conspiracy being a major charge, we take note of the legal position on the point of conspiracy between accused persons, we place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Ad- ministration) (1988) 3 SCC 609 (3-Judge Bench), wherein this Court observed:
"271. Before considering the other matters against Bal- bir Singh, it will be useful to consider the concept of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 110 of 149 criminal conspiracy under Sections 120-A and 120-B of IPC. These provisions have brought the Law of Con- spiracy in India in line with the English law by making the overt act unessential when the conspiracy is to com- mit any punishable offence. The English law on this matter is well settled. The following passage from Rus- sell on Crime (12th Edn., Vol. I, p. 202) may be use- fully noted:
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough."
272. Glanville Williams in the Criminal Law (2nd Edn., p. 382) explains the proposition with an illustra- tion:"The question arose in an Iowa case, but it was dis- cussed in terms of conspiracy rather than of accessory- ship. D, who had a grievance against P, told E that if he would whip P someone would pay his fine. E replied that he did not want anyone to pay his fine, that he had a grievance of his own against P and that he would whip him at the first opportunity. E whipped P. D was acquitted of conspiracy because there was no agree- ment for 'concert of action', no agreement to 'co-oper- ate'."
273. Coleridge, J., while summing up the case to jury in Regina v. Murphy [173 ER 508] (173 Eng. Reports
508) pertinently states:"I am bound to tell you, that al- though the common design is the root of the charge, it is not necessary to prove that these two parties came to- gether and actually agreed in terms to have this com- mon design and to pursue it by common means, and so to carry it into execution. This is not necessary, because in many cases of the most clearly established conspira- cies there are no means of proving any such thing, and neither law nor common sense requires that it should be proved. If you find that these two persons pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing, you will be at liberty to draw the con- clusion that they have been engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object. The question you have to ask your- selves is, 'Had they this common design, and did they CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 111 of 149 pursue it by these common means -- the design being unlawful?' "
274. It will be thus seen that the most important ingre- dient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement be- tween two or more persons to do an illegal act. The ille- gal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agree- ment, but the very agreement is an offence and is pun- ishable. Reference to Sections 120-A and 120-B IPC would make these aspects clear beyond doubt. Entering into an agreement by two or more persons to do an ille- gal act or legal act by illegal means is the very quintes- sence of the offence of conspiracy.
275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evi- dence direct or circumstantial. But the court must en- quire whether the two persons are independently pursu- ing the same end or they have come together in the pur- suit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, es- sential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The ex- press agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor ac- tual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is nec- essary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. Gerald Orchard of University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains the limited nature of this proposition: [1974 Criminal Law Review 297, 299] "Although it is not in doubt that the offence requires some physical manifestation of agree- ment, it is important to note the limited nature of this proposition. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the parties 'actually came together and agreed in terms' to pursue the unlawful object;there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being suffi- cient that there was 'a tacit understanding between con- spirators as to what should be done'."
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 112 of 149
276. I share this opinion, but hasten to add that the rela- tive acts or conduct of the parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an ap- pearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or in- advertent events and incidents should not enter the judi- cial verdict. We must thus be strictly on our guard.
277. It is suggested that in view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the relevancy of evidence in proof of conspiracy in India is wider in scope than that in Eng- lish law. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduced the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissi- ble against the co- conspirators. Section 10 reads:
"10. Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such inten- tion was first entertained by any one of them, is a rele- vant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the ex- istence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it." xxxx
280. The decision of the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar case [AIR 1940 PC 176, 180] has been referred to with approval in Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay [(1958) SCR 161, 193] where Jagannadhadas, J., said:
(SCR p. 193) "The limits of the admissibility of evi- dence in conspiracy cases under Section 10 of the Evi- dence Act have been authoritatively laid down by the Privy Council in Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor [AIR 1940 PC 176, 180] . In that case, Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that Section 10 of the Evidence Act must be construed in accordance with the principle that the thing done, written or spoken, was something done in carrying out the conspiracy and was receivable as a step in the proof of the conspiracy. They notice that evi- dence receivable under Section 10 of the Evidence Act of 'anything said, done, or written, by any one of such persons' (i.e., conspirators) must be 'in reference to their common intention'. But Their Lordships held that in the context (notwithstanding the amplitude of the above phrase) the words therein are not capable of be-
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 113 of 149 ing widely construed having regard to the well known principle above enunciated.
(Emphasis supplied)"
8.2.4.2 Then in the case of Badri Rai & Another vs The State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 953, as follows:-
"Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been deliberately enacted in order to make such acts and statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of the crime. A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Naturally, therefore, it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts or statements of the others, unless there is a common bond linking all of them together. Ordinarily, especially in a criminal case, one person cannot be made responsible for the acts or statements of another. It is only when there is evidence of a concerted action in furtherance of a common intention to commit a crime, that the law has introduced this rule of common responsibility, on the principle that everyone concerned in a conspiracy is acting as the agent of the rest of them. As soon as the court has reasonable grounds to believe that there is identity of interest or community of purpose between a number of persons, any act done, or any statement or declaration made, by any one of the co- conspirators is, naturally, held to be the act or statement of the other conspirators, if the act or the declaration has any relation to the object of the conspiracy. Otherwise, stray acts done in darkness in prosecution of an object hatched in secrecy, may not become intelligible without reference to the common purpose running through the chain of acts or illegal omissions attributable to individual members of the conspiracy."
(emphasis supplied) 8.2.4.3 As already explained above, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness. Naturally, therefore, it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect each isolated act or statement of one CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 114 of 149 accused with the acts or statements of the others, unless there is a common bond linking all of them together. This will be the guiding light which will illuminate my findings on the above aspect of existence of criminal conspiracy.
8.2.4.4 As is clear, the alleged criminal conspiracy to take/accept/share bribe, as per prosecution, was hatched between accused no.1 and accused no.2 and so, there can only be circumstantial evidence available, which can establish the existence of this conspiracy as no direct evidence will be available. Obviously, PW11, the complainant has not named accused Rakesh Rawat in his entire deposition however, it is pertinent to state that he did mention in his complaint Ex. PW4/A1, that accused A.K. Ray had asked for Rs.12,000/- per licence for the five licence applications applied by him. The complainant stated that accused A.K. Ray had further told him that "usne kaha ki main akela nahin hoon. AC aur AO ko aur sabko bhi hissa dena padta hai. Mujhe en sabhi factriyon ke licence banwaane ko diye hain. Jab inke paise doonga tabhi aur form milenge" (He told me that I am not alone. I have to give share to AC and AO and others. I have been given the work of getting licences issued for all these factories. Only when I give their money, I will be given more forms.) Basically through the above statement, the accused No.1 had intended to say to the complainant that he was not taking the bribe all for himself, rather he (accused no.1) had to share the bribe amount with his seniors i.e. AO and AE and other officials of MCD. Infact accused No.1 even went on to state that he would be given more forms for verification of licences (i.e. more work), only if he paid the share of bribe amount to his seniors. This CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 115 of 149 shows how the criminal conspiracy was a quid pro quo arrangement. This further makes it clear that the demand of bribe by accused No.1 was not only for himself but also on behalf of others, who were sharing bribe amount with him.
8.2.4.5 One may argue that this is only an allegation made by complainant and cannot be stated to be duly proved allegation however, if one peruses the transcripts of audio recordings made during the verification proceedings, before the registration of the present FIR, it can be seen that the accused no.1, once again re-iterated the above facts. The relevant transcript in the audio recording contained in file namely 200119_1647 of memory card Ex. PW8/A5, is as follows :-
AKR -- आप का फाइल हमने करके आगे ए.सी. को साइन करा दिया डी.सी. के पास पहुंच गया C -- हो गया अपरूवल हो गया AKR -- नही, डी.सी. अभी साइन नही किया C -- अच्छा AKR -- इकट्ठे ए.सी.ए. साहब खुद जाते है डी.सी. से साइन कराने C -- अच्छा AKR -- क्योंकि हर फाइल पर मांगना है C -- अच्छा Later on, in the same conversation, accused no.1 statedthat :-
C -- कोई दूसरा तो न आये, कोई और दूसरा आ गया तो तंग ना करें AKR -- नही आयेगा, नही आयेगा और अस्पष्ट...........असीस्टेन्ट कमीशनर का गेट पर फोटो कॉपी लगा देना किसी की हिम्मत नही होगी उंगली उठा दें, ठीक है, देखिए ये पैसा हम नही खा रहे है, ठीक है चार अफसर साइन कर रहे है इसी साइन के लिए ढाई-तीन हजार रूपया ले रहे है ठीक है जब ये फाईल निकलता है CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 116 of 149 इक्ट्ठा पकडा देते है हम लोग अलग से नही देते है। ठीक है तो हमारी हिम्मत कहां जो आपके पैसे लेकर हम खाए।
8.2.4.6 So, accused no.1 re-iterated that senior officers of EDMC also used to share bribe amount received from licence applicants.
Though in the verification proceedings, accused no.1 did not specifically take the name of AO, but he did tell the complainant that four officers had to sign for approval of licence and they used to take 2500/- - 3,000/- for each signature. It is once again pertinent to mention that no FIR was registered against accused no.1 till this stage. The factum of accused no.1 repeating the same facts again to the complainant, gives a clear impression regarding existence of some criminal understanding (conspiracy) between accused no.1 and his senior officers, to share the bribe amount.
8.2.4.7 Then again during trap proceedings, accused no.1 re- affirmed this fact one more time. The relevant transcript of the conversation between accused no.1 and complainant as recorded in audio file bearing name 210120_1310 in memory card Ex.PW8/A6, as follows :-
AKR -- हा आपका पूरा आगे हो गये ए.ओ. सर को बाई हेण्ड, एसीस्टेन्ट कमीशनर को बाई हेण्ड, डिप्टी कमीशनर के लिए एसीस्टेन्ट कमीशनर खुद लेकर जाते है साइन कराने के लिए जितना साइन होता है उतना वो C -- क्या AKR -- जितना सर साइन करते है वो उतना पैसा लेते है, पहले फिर साइन करते है C -- पर फाइल कितना लेते है वो AKR -- अब छोडिए ना CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 117 of 149 C -- नही अंदाजा आइडिया AKR -- वह तो उनका हिसाब है, हम नही करते है आप लोग छोडों C -- तो इसमें आपको ज्यादा नही बचता होगा AKR -- बहुत कम C -- कितना AKR -- हजार, पांच सौ, C -- मतलब दो हजार से कम ज्यादा नही बचता सब AO ले लेता है या एसीस्ट्न्ट कमीशनर ले लेता है 8.2.4.8 From the aforesaid transcript Ex.PW12/P3, it is clear that as per accused no.1, almost the entire money received towards bribe by him, used to get shared among the senior officers of MCD like Asst.
Commissioner, Deputy. Commissioner and A.O. and only a small amount of Rs.2,000/- was left with accused no.1. It is also worth mentioning that accused no.1 was not aware about registration of FIR against him, till this time, so whatever he stated, was his volunteered statement.
8.2.4.9 Though even in the trap proceedings, the name of accused Rakesh Rawat did not crop up but accused no.1 specifically stated that except Rs.2,000/- which was left with him, all the other bribe money was taken away by AO and AC. The question is who was this AO being referred by accused no.1, in the complaint Ex. PW4/A1 and in the above transcript ? The said AO was none other that accused Rakesh Rawat himself. This is clear from the cross-examination of PW1 as conducted by accused no.1 wherein the witness stated that "Administrative Officer (AO) was the reporting officer of accused Amendra Kumar Ray. The accused Rakesh Rawat was the reporting officer of accused Amendra CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 118 of 149 Kumar Ray at the relevant time." This witness was not further cross- examined by accused no.2 on this aspect, so this assertion has remained unrebutted. Even in the testimony of PW5 R.C. Sahoo, it has come on record that even though there were two Administrative Officers in EDMC at that time i.e. accused Rakesh Rawat and Prashant Bharadwaj, who were assisted by Sanitary inspectors and accused A.K. Ray alongwith other inspectors/LDC, used to assist accused Rakesh Rawat, Administrative officer. There is no cross-examination of PW-5 on this aspect. It is settled law that facts not disputed are deemed to be proved and so, it proves that accused A.K. Ray was working under accused Rakesh Rawat, Administrative Officer (AO), who was his reporting officer as well. Hence, even though the name of accused Rakesh Rawat had not been disclosed earlier by accused A.K. Ray but accused Rakesh Rawat was the AO being referred to, is clear from the evidence on record.
8.2.4.10 It is also pertinent to mention that the statement of accused no. 1 qua accused no. 2 is relevant in view of Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:
"Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 119 of 149 8.2.4.11 This section applies both in order to prove the existence of conspiracy between the accused persons but also to demonstrate their involvement in the criminal conspiracy. However, this section shall apply only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence and such statement of a co-conspirator has been made in furtherance of the said common intention of the said conspiracy and not incidental or unrelated to it. Furthermore, the statement can be oral or written and can also include the actions taken by one or more conspirators.
8.2.4.12 In the facts and circumstances of the present case as demonstrated above, it is quite clear that accused persons along with certain other senior officers of EDMC, were involved in a criminal conspiracy whereby demand for bribe was made by the lowest rank officer, who happened to be accused no. 1 in the present case and he used to directly deal with license applicants and then the said bribe amount was thereafter, shared by higher rank officers such as accused no. 2 and others. The prosecution has not been able to nail any other senior officer except accused no. 2 stating that by the time of apprehension of accused no. 2, the factum of CBI trap proceedings, had become known to almost all officials of EDMC, so it was not possible to conduct trap on other senior officers but still the involvement of accused no. 2, in this conspiracy stands proved.
8.2.4.13 The statements made by accused no. 1 to the complainant at different stages i.e. pre-complaint stage on 15.01.2021, verification proceedings on 19.01.2021 and trap proceedings on 20.01.2021, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 120 of 149 referring to the involvement of AO i.e. accused no. 2, is clearly admissible to prove the existence of conspiracy and involvement of accused no. 2 with accused no.1, in the aforesaid conspiracy.
8.2.4.14 It is further on record that accused no.1 after his apprehension by the TLO gave a statement alleging that accused no. 2 Rakesh Rawat used to take Rs.6,000/- per license application, from him and total Rs.1 Lakh towards the bribe amount had to be paid by accused no.1 to accused no. 2 and that accused no. 2 had already received Rs.38,000/- as his share of part bribe amount, from him in the morning of that day i.e. 20.01.2021. The said disclosure statement had not been recorded instantaneously by the TLO and the factum of this disclosure by accused no.1 is recorded in the recovery memo Ex.PW4/A4 which was prepared later on at the office of accused no.2. So, question arose whether such disclosure made which is brought on record after the recovery of the disclosed fact, can be admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
8.2.4.15 Ld. PP for CBI has relied upon the judgment in the cases titled as H.P. Administration Vs Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 and Prakash Chand Vs State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 400 and argued that the disclosure u/s 27 need not be written because it is the information, which is relevant. In the case titled as H.P. Administration Vs Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opinied that what needs to be emphasized is the word "information" used in Section 27 of the Evidence Act without any qualifying prefix and it would comprise information either verbal or in writing or by gestures. It CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 121 of 149 is not that only written information which will fulfill the requirements of Section 27.
8.2.4.16 In the above case titled as H.P. Administration Vs Om Prakash(Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had to decide the admissibility of a statement of the accused that he had purchased the weapon from Ganga Singh PW11 and that he would take them to him. The accused did lead the police and witnesses to the "Thari" of PW11 had pointed him out to them. The Supreme Court concluded thus :
"What 'Makes the information leading to the discovery of the witness admissible is the discovery from him of the thing sold to him or hidden or kept with him which the police did not know until the. information was furnished to them by the accused. A witness cannot be said to be discovered if nothing is to be found or recovered from him as a consequence of the information furnished by the accused and the- information which disclosed the identity of the witness will not be admissible. But even apart from- the admissibility of the information under Sec.27, the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to P.W. 11 and pointed him out and as corroborated by P.W. 11 himself would be admissible under Sec.8 'of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused.
(emphasis supplied)"
8.2.4.17 Then in Prakash Chand Vs State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 400, after noticing the distinction between the conduct admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and the statement made to a police officer during investigation which is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C, the Supreme Court proceeded to state the law in these words :
"What is excluded by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 122 of 149 the conduct of an accused person (not amounting to a statement) when confronted or questioned by a police officer during the course of an investigation. For example the evidence of the circumstances, simpliciter that an accused person led a police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence were found hidden, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement of the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act .
(emphasis supplied)"
8.2.4.18 Then in the case of A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2005 SC 3809, the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned the judgment of Prakash Chand (Supra) and then proceeded to hold as follows:-
"Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by accused appellants (Ex- P 14 AND 15 ) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act still it is relevant under Section 8. The evidence of the investigating officer and PWs 1, 2, 7 and 4 the spot mazhar witness that the accused had taken them to the spot and pointed out the place where the dead-body was buried, is an admissible piece of evidence under 7 Section 8 as the conduct of the accused.
(enphasis supplied)"
8.2.4.19 In view of the same, it is clear that the non-recording of disclosure statement made by the accused is not fatal to the prosecution case. Moreover, in the present case not only the TLO examined as PW10 but also the independent witnesses i.e. PW12 and PW13 had deposed in their testimony that accused no.1 had made the above disclosure to the TLO, when he was apprehended and interrogated. They also testified that accused no.1 had carried the same trap amount and took it to the office of accused no.2 and then handed it over to accused no.2 and CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 123 of 149 confirmed the bribe transaction when he came out. Lastly, the recovery of same trap money was effected from accused no.2, upon his apprehension. So u/S 8 of Indian Evidence Act, these acts on the part of accused no.1 are relevant & admissible being his subsequent conduct. The reliance can also be placed on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as Anees Vs State Govt. of NCT, Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015, decided on 03.05.2024, where the above judgment as relied upon by Ld. PP, CBI has been referred with approval though with caution that the Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act should not form the sole basis for conviction.
8.2.4.20 The next question is whether any recovery of incriminating fact/ article/ material/ document had been effected pursuant to the said disclosure statement of accused no.1, for it to be admissible in evidence? The answer to the above question is also in the affirmative. The accused no. 1 had disclosed that he had handed over Rs.38,000/- to accused no. 2 in the morning as part share of the bribe amount. Even if, one excludes the inculpatory part of the above disclosure still the factum of recovery of Rs.38,000/- survives. The accused no. 2 has not denied the factum of recovery of Rs.38,000/- from his possession when he was apprehended by CBI officials. The defence taken on the part of accused no. 2 that it was not the bribe amount and rather collection made by accused no. 1 towards fees penalties, license charges, while performing his duty as cashier, which amount had been handed over by accused no.1 to accused no. 2, for its safe custody. Under such circumstances, the onus was clearly on accused no.2 to prove that the amount recovered from him, was not the bribe amount but duly collected amount, handed over to him CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 124 of 149 by accused no.1 for its safe custody. However, accused no.2 has miserably failed to even prima facie show that the said assertion, was true. Moreover accused no.1 has not taken any such defence that he had handed over the collection amount of fees, penalty, charges, etc of MCD, collected as a cashier, to accused no.2 for its safe custody. So, the prosecution on its part has been able to show that the amount of Rs.38,000/- as recovered from accused no. 2, was part share of the bribe amount collected by accused no. 1.
8.2.4.21 As regards, the handing over of Rs.40,000/- by accused no. 1 to accused no. 2, which was the same trap money used to lay trap on accused no.1 earlier, in the considered opinion of this Court, whatever inculpatory facts which have been stated by accused no.1 against accused no.2 are clearly inadmissible, being against the mandate of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. However, since accused no. 2 was not in custody at that time or was even aware about the registration of the present FIR, he was not under any compulsion, to act in a particular manner or to say a particular thing. So, as far as the trap on accused no.2 is concerned, the portion of audio recording, which consists of statements made by accused no. 2, can be read in evidence besides any further recovery which had been effected from him at the behest of accused no. 1. Further in view of Section 8, the statements made by accused no.1 explaining his own conduct before accused no.2, shall also be relevant.
8.2.4.22 It was further argued on behalf of accused no.2 that even if for the sake of arguments (though not being admitted), it is presumed CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 125 of 149 that any conversation took place between accused A.K. Ray and accused Rakesh Rawat, even then, the transcript of the recorded conversation, does not substantiate the allegation of asking/ demand of bribe, on the part of accused no. 2.
8.2.4.23 Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce sec 8 of Indian Evidence Act, which is as under :-
"8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.
Explanation 1. - The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements; unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act. Explanation 2. - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant."
8.2.4.24 In view of the judgment in A.N. Venkatesh and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka (Supra) and others referred above, it is quite clear that the subsequent conduct of an accused in custody, would be relevant u/S 8 of Indian Evidence Act, even though his statement during his custody as such, may not be admissible. However still that part of the statement which accompanies and/or explains the acts other than CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 126 of 149 statements, will be relevant. So, the fact that accused no.1 admits about taking bribe from complainant will be clearly inadmissible but that part of his statement which explains his subsequent conduct would still be admissible u/S 8 of Indian Evidence Act. What part of statement is admissible and what part is inadmissible, will depend on the facts and circumstances of a case.
8.2.4.25 Coming to the present case, it would be pertinent to reproduce the conversation between accused no.1 and accused no. 2 recorded in audio file namely 210120_1338 in memory card Ex. PW8/A7 and mentioned in transcript Ex. PW12/P3. The same is as follows :-
RR- हां राय AKR- सर मेरे पास कु छ आ गए हैं मैं आकर दे दूं ऑफिस में RR- हां कहां हो तुम अभी AKR- मैं सर यहां पर हूं प्रीत विहार में RR- देख लो अगर तुम्हारे पास दिक्कत नहीं है तो AKR- नहीं सर मेरे पास दिक्कत है सर कहां पर लेकर घूमता रहूंगा RR- चलो आ जाओ AKR- ठीक है सर सर ऑफिस में है RR- हां ऑफिस में ही हूं AKR- ठीक है सर ठीक है (Here, "AKR" stands for accused Amendra Kumar Ray and "RR" stands for accused Rakesh Rawat and the more relevant portion has been highlighted in bold letters. It is clarified that the same method has been adopted in the other relevant transcripts, which will be reproduced in the later part of the judgment.) 8.2.4.26 From the aforesaid conversation as reproduced in transcript CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 127 of 149 Ex.PW12/P3, accused no. 1 can be heard telling accused no. 2 that he had received something and he wanted to give it to accused no.2, in his office. Thereafter, accused no. 2 can be heard telling accused no.1 to see, if he had no problem keeping it, upon which accused no.1 replied that he had difficulty with it and he could not keep it carrying with him, every where. Thereafter, accused no. 2 asked accused no. 1 to meet him in his office. The aforesaid communication shows that both accused were talking about something to be handed over to accused no.2. This statement of accused no.1 is explanatory of his conduct that he wanted to meet accused no.2 for giving him something. Both accused were further aware as to what was to be handed over by accused no.1 to accused no.2 or else, accused no.2 would have asked accused no.1 to explain what he wanted to give. Furthermore, when accused no.1 told accused no.2 that it was difficult for him to carry that thing and roam around, accused Rakesh Rawat asked him to hand it over to him, in his office. This shows that accused no.1 had received something which was valuable, either some precious article/item or cash or any other valuable security/document and he had apprehension that it may be misplaced or lost, if it remained with him.
8.2.4.27 It has been rightly argued on behalf of prosecution that when two persons talk about some illegal work to be done, normally they talk in obscure manner or in code language. There will hardly be any occasion for such persons to talk about giving and taking bribe in a direct manner, especially when they are in a criminal conspiracy with each other. Moreover, that "something" which was handed over to accused Rakesh Rawat, was cash amount itself, can be seen from their CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 128 of 149 later conversation which was recorded in the office of accused no.2. The relevant transcript of the said audio recording as contained in file 210120_1419 is as follows: -
AKR -- सर ये सर फोरटी
RR -- हू...
AKR -- फोरटी फोरटी
RR -- 40
AKR -- विनोद वाला है, जो विनोद गुप्ता था ना एक कै लाश नगर का
RR -- अच्छा
AKR -- सर 5 प्रोपर्टी था, तो 5 तो बोला बाद में करे तो सर मेरा
RR -- तुम भी नोट कर लिया करो ना
AKR -- हा सर, हा मुझे याद है
RR -- 78
AKR -- नही सर
RR -- हा
AKR -- 70 थे ना
RR -- आपने दे दिया ना अभी
AKR -- तो सर
RR -- आप समझे नही
AKR -- हां हां सर 70 बेलेंस था
RR -- अरे भाई मै कह रहा हू ये दिया ये और दे देना
AKR -- हां सर
RR -- 78 हो गये ना
AKR -- हां सर
RR -- इसमे सेवेनटी ऐट कर देता हूं
AKR -- हा अभी सर बच गये 30, 30 बच गये ठीक
8.2.4.28 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that accused no.1 offered
Rs.40,000/- to accused no. 2 in his office and stated that this is the "forty" which was also acknowledged by accused no.2 by stating the CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 129 of 149 word forty. This "forty" was Rs.40,000/- is clear as this money was being carried by accused no.1 to be handed over to accused no.2. Accused no. 1 further clarified to accused no. 2 that the money was of the matter pertaining to one Vinod Gupta of Kailash Nagar and this was also acknowledged by accused Rakesh Rawat by saying "achha". Accused no. 1 further told that the matter of Vinod Gupta was concerning five properties. All these conversations can be clearly related to the case of complainant Vinod Kumar Gupta and are explanatory in nature of the conduct of accused no.1.
8.2.4.29 Even though, accused no. 2 had not specifically admitted having received Rs.40,000/- as part share of the bribe amount, however, this fact stands proved from the recovery of Rs.40,000/- (trap money smeared with phenolphthalein powder) from the possession of accused no. 2, as is established from the hand washes of accused no.2 and his shirt pocket wash, which contained phenolphthalein powder as per the CFSL report of PW7. Moreover, accused no. 2 can be heard in audio recording as mentioned in transcript Ex.PW12/P4 that he will note in his papers about receiving 78 from accused no.1. This 78 is actually Rs.78,000/- which figure is arrived by adding the sum of Rs.38,000/- given to accused no.2 by accused no. 1 in the morning and further Rs.40,000/- received by accused no.2 from accused no.1 during the trap proceedings.
8.2.4.30 In view of my aforesaid observations and findings and the fact that accused no.1 had repeatedly referred to accused no. 2 (by his designation) during the talks with the complainant and the recovery of accused Rs.38,000/- and Rs.40,000/- (trap money) from the possession CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 130 of 149 of accused no. 2, clearly proves that accused no.2 was involved in a criminal conspiracy with accused no. 1 and so the charge of criminal conspiracy against both the accused persons for being involved in demand, receipt and sharing of the bribe amount, stands proved.
8.2.4.31 Now I shall discuss the defences put forth on behalf of accused no.2 which have not been discussed earlier to see whether it creates any doubt on the prosecution case, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
8.2.5 D. Whether the sanction order for prosecution of accused Rakesh Rawat, is defective or not ?
8.2.5.1 As far as the question regarding validity of grant of sanction for prosecution against accused no. 2 Rakesh Rawat is concerned, it was argued on behalf of accused no.2 that the sanction was granted, hurriedly, mechanically, without application of mind and PW1 the sanctioning authority, had merely signed the already prepared sanction order on the basis of draft sanction order sent by the CBI, without going through any document and it was an invalid sanction order, vitiating the trial ab initio. It was further argued that the request letter for grant of sanction was placed before PW1, either on 30.03.2021 or 31.03.2021 as deposed by PW1 in his cross-examination. However, he granted sanction to the prosecution on 31.03.2021 itself, which also shows non- application of mind. Further, no note was written by him in the sanction file, wherein he had narrated the facts of the case and the fact of having gone through the documents and giving justification for grant of sanction against accused no.2, as the note-sheets of sanction file CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 131 of 149 Ex.PW1/D1, reflect.
8.2.5.2 However, Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 has failed to cite any law or rule or established procedure to support the contention that the sanctioning authority was required to write any such note. The facts of the case are already mentioned in the sanction order Ex.PW1/A1 and the reason for grant of sanction, is also clearly mentioned therein. Further, there is no law to the effect that a sanctioning authority has to give any separate justification to anyone, for according sanction when the reasons for granting the sanction, are already mentioned in the sanction order.
8.2.5.3 It is true that a draft sanction order Ex.PW1/D2 pertaining to accused Rakesh Rawat, was found in the sanction file produced by the Department, which fact was also observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court during his testimony. One draft sanction order Ex.PW1/DX1 qua accused A. K. Ray was also found in his sanction file. However, the mere factum of draft sanction order being supplied to sanctioning authority does not by itself, prove that there was no application of mind by the sanctioning authority. In the case titled as Hari Shanker Sharma Vs. CBI (2014) 4 HCC (Del) 577, wherein draft sanction order was provided to the sanctioning authority, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, had held that :-
"17. Also, merely because the order granting sanction repeats the text of the draft sanction order cannot, ipso facto, mean that it is vitiated by non-application of mind. In Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal AIR 1958 SC 1482, the Supreme Court held that if the competent authority, after perusing the material, signed a draft sanction order, it could not be said to be suffering CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 132 of 149 from non-application of mind. Further, in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma AIR 1991 SC 1260, the Supreme Court held that the order of sanction need not contain the detailed reasons in support thereof. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Chopra that the sanction order stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind by PW1 to the relevant materials."
8.2.5.4 Even in the case titled as State of Tamil Nadu vs Damodaran AIR 1992 SC 563, while setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by Hon'ble High Court on the mere ground that draft sanction order was provided to sanctioning authority, it was held as follows:-
"We are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reaching the conclusion that the sanctioning authority granted sanction mechanically and without application of mind. The statement of witnesses recorded under section 162, Criminal Procedure Code were reproduced in detail in the letter dated April 25, 1979. We are satisfied that all the relevant material was before the sanctioning authority and he granted sanction after fully applying his mind. We see no infirmity in the order granting the sanction."
8.2.5.5 PW1 in his examination-in-chief stated that he had applied his mind on the allegations and the circumstances of the case, along with evidences collected by the CBI and upon its consideration, he granted sanction for prosecution against accused Rakesh Rawat and A.K. Ray. Moreover, in his cross-examination on behalf of accused no. 1, the witness stated that before according sanction, he had gone through the reports and materials which were produced before him by the CBI and it included the complaint, statement of witnesses, transcript and there were other documents which he was not able to recall. It appears that the contention that PW1 had not applied his mind before grant of sanction, CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 133 of 149 is being raised only for the reason that the sanction was granted expeditiously and a draft sanction order was provided to the sanctioning authority PW1. However, in my considered opinion, without there being any reasonable cause to assume or presume non-application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority, merely on the above two grounds, it is not possible to conclude non application of mind by PW1, while according sanction for prosecution.
8.2.5.6 It is also to be kept in mind that a sanctioning authority is merely supposed to apply mind to arrive at a prima facie view regarding involvement of a public servant, in a corruption matter and he is not required to evaluate the material placed by CBI, as if he is conducting any judicial proceeding or enquiry. Hence, even this contention on behalf of accused no. 2 stands rejected.
8.2.6 E. Whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt or not, while considering the inconsistencies, contradictions and infirmities, cited by Ld. Defence counsel ?
8.2.6.1 At this stage, I will deal with those defences taken on behalf of accused no. 2, both orally and vide written submissions, which have not been dealt in the earlier portions of this judgment.
8.2.6.2 It was argued that as per prosecution story, the recovery of illegal gratification from accused no. 1 had been effected during the trap proceedings, pursuant to the alleged demand made by him, from the complainant, so the matter had ended there, especially when there was CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 134 of 149 no specific allegation for demand of illegal gratification, made by complainant against accused no.2. Hence, the entire CBI proceedings against accused no. 2 was without any basis or justification.
8.2.6.3 As far as the above contention is concerned, it is difficult to agree to the proposition put forth by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2. It is the duty of the IO to conduct investigation with respect to any new fact which comes in his notice, during investigation of a case. The IO, in the present case, TLO PW10, would have failed in his duty if he had not conducted any further investigation on the disclosure made by accused no.1 alleging the role of accused no. 2 in the present matter. It is also pertinent to mention that the fact as alleged against accused no.2 by accused no.1, was intrinsically connected to the bribe allegations against accused no.1, since the allegation which transpires was that accused no.2 and other officers, also used to share the bribe received from the applicants of the license. Moreover, as has been already discussed above, accused no. 1 had been throughout stating to the complainant even before registration of FIR and also thereafter, before his alleged disclosure made to PW10, that he (accused no. 1) had to share the bribe money with other senior officers of MCD including the AO, AC, etc. It has already been observed above that the AO being referred by accused no.1, was accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat himself, so there is no strength in this argument.
8.2.6.4 It was further argued on behalf of accused no.2 that right from beginning, the plea taken by accused no.2 as also recorded in order sheet dated 21.01.2021 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court was that CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 135 of 149 accused no.1 A.K. Ray had given him money to keep the same in safe custody. Infact a suggestion was also given to PW12 and PW13 that on apprehension of accused Rakesh Rawat by CBI, it was disclosed by him in their presence that the Inspectors including accused A.K. Ray used to keep the money collected by them as fees, penalty, fine, etc. with the Administrative Officers/ Assistant Commissioners including him (accused no.2), as the said Inspectors did not have proper almirah etc. for safe custody of the cash or that the fees, penalty etc. collected by them after the treasury hours, was kept with accused no.2 and other officials and on the next day, after collecting the same from Administrative Officers/ Assistant Commissioners, the said amount used to be deposited in the treasury, by way of challans by the said Inspectors including A.K. Ray, which suggestion was however denied by PW12 and PW13. Even in the written submissions filed on behalf of accused no.2 at point F (iv), this assertion has been re-iterated that accused no.1 had given the amount to accused no.2 for safe custody as accused no.1 being cashier, also used to collect penalty, fine, fees of household licenses, etc. Accused no.2 had also examined DW1 in order to prove that cashiers used to deposit the collected amount from penalty, fines, etc. with their seniors such as Administrative Officer/Assistant Commissioners, if the treasury was closed by that time. Then even in reply to question no.626 in his examination u/S 313 Cr.PC, regarding an additional Rs.38,000/- recovered by PW13 from the shirt pocket of accused no.2 and wrapped in a white piece of paper, accused no.2 had stated that it was not the bribe amount. Hence, it is apparent from aforesaid that accused no.2 is not disputing the factum of recovery of atleast Rs.38,000/- from his possession, if not the entire amount of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 136 of 149 Rs.78,000/- i.e. Rs.38,000/- given in the morning and Rs.40,000/- given by accused no.1 to accused no.2 in the evening.
8.2.6.5 In view of the fact of admitted recovery of Rs.38,000/-, the onus then shifts on accused no.2 to prove this fact that the amount of Rs.38,000/- received by him from accused no.1, was towards the fine, penalty, fees of household licenses, etc. which was collected by accused no.1 while doing the work of cashier. Accused no.2 could have summoned the record from MCD to show that accused no.1 had infact received the amount of Rs.38,000/- towards aforesaid charges on 20.01.2021 while acting as cashier but he did not do so. The reason is obvious since no such collection was done by accused no.1 on that day. Moreover, even from the conversation between accused no.1 and accused no.2, this assertion of the money being collection amount belonging to MCD, is not discernible.
8.2.6.6 The above story of accused no.2 is also false for the reason that he had received Rs.38,000/- from accused no.1 in the morning, that is the time when the Govt. Treasury was open. So, ideally accused no.1 should have deposited Rs.38,000/- in the Govt. Treasury, if it was the collection made by him as cashier, on that day in the morning. There was no reason for accused no.1 to hand over the said cash amount which belonged to the Govt., to accused no.2 and for accused no.2 to receive the same, in the morning itself.
8.2.6.7 Now, if the court presumes for the sake of argument that accused Rakesh Rawat was talking about the tainted trap money of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 137 of 149 Rs.40,000/- which he had received from accused no.1, in the evening, in his office, as the Govt. Treasury would have been closed by that time, still it was incumbent upon accused Rakesh Rawat to have lead evidence to prove that Rs.40,000/- was the collection amount, received by accused no.1 while acting as cashier in the afternoon and evening on that day, which has not been done.
8.2.6.8 Furthermore, the conversation as contained in the audio recording in File No. 210120_1419, does not give any impression that accused no.2 had received Rs.40,000/- or even Rs.38,000/- from accused no.1, which was his cash collection while being on duty as cashier on that day. Rather, the transcript Ex.PW12/P4 suggests that both of them are talking about some kind of balance amount either Rs.70,000/- or Rs. 78,000/- to be given to accused no.2 by accused no.1 and concerning the matter related to Vinod Gupta (complainant). Lastly, accused Rakesh Rawat can be heard saying "isme 78 kar deta hoon" and accused no.1 responding that "haan abhi sir bach gaye tees, tees bach gaye thik". Accused no. 2 can also be heard saying "arrey bhai main keh raha hoon yeh diya, yeh aur de dena" with respect to the balance amount. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be argued on behalf of accused no.2 that the amount either Rs.40,000/- or Rs.38,000/- (total Rs.78,000/-) were given to him by accused no.1 towards cash collection for the day. This contention is accordingly rejected.
8.2.6.9 It had also been argued that after his apprehension, co- accused A.K. Ray had disclosed that he had to pay Rs.6,000/- per license to accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat and then he had given Rs.38,000/- to CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 138 of 149 accused no. 2 for the files of licenses recently verified by him and he also had to pay total of Rs.One Lakh approx, to accused Rakesh Rawat for license application marked to him, for verification. However, accused no.1 is stated to have carried Rs.40,000/- to hand over to accused no.2 instead of Rs.30,000/- i.e. Rs.6000/- per file X 5 license files, with relation to the matter of complainant. This also shows that the contention of the prosecution is false that the amount of Rs.40,000/- was bribe amount for the matter of complainant.
8.2.6.10 I find even this argument to be not tenable for obvious reasons. Even if one discards the alleged disclosure made by accused no.1 before PW10 and other trap team members about Rs.One Lac to be handed over to accused no.2 towards the verification of files, one can see that accused no.1 had told the complainant during verification proceedings as recorded in the audio file bearing no. 200119_1647 as follows:-
--नही आयेगा, नही आयेगा और अस्पष्ट...........असीस्टेन्ट कमीशनर का गेट पर फोटो कॉपी लगा देना किसी की हिम्मत नही होगी उंगली उठा दें, ठीक है, देखिए ये पैसा हम नही खा रहे है, ठीक है चार अफसर साइन कर रहे है इसी साइन के लिए ढाई-तीन हजार रूपया ले रहे है ठीक है जब ये फाईल निकलता है इक्ट्ठा पकडा देते है हम लोग अलग से नही देते है। ठीक है तो हमारी हिम्मत कहां जो आपके पैसे लेकर हम खाए।
8.2.6.11 This audio conversation was recorded before the registration of FIR. In the above conversation, accused no.1 had told to the complainant that he did not used to give share of the bribe amount to CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 139 of 149 his seniors for every file but rather, he used to give them money in entirety. (इक्ट्ठा पकडा देते है हम लोग अलग से नही देते है। ). This means that bribe was shared with accused no.2 and other seniors not for each file individually but for number of files, in one go. This also explains why accused no.1 had stated to PW10 that he had to give Rs.One Lac to accused no.2 towards verification of recent files. This amount of Rs.One Lac was not only for the license files of complainant but even for the license files of other applicants recently verified. This explains why accused no.1 took Rs.40,000/- to hand over to accused no.2 and it was also received by accused no.2 since the handing over of the share of bribe was not on a case to case basis but a collective amount for several such files. Hence, there is no strength even in this argument on behalf of accused no.2.
8.2.6.12 Another defence which was taken by accused no.2 was that there was no motive for accused no.2 to demand illegal gratification since all the five license files of complainant had already been recommended and forwarded by accused no.2, on 15.01.2021 itself. This same contention has been dealt by this court while dealing with the defences on the part of accused no.1. In my view, the illegal gratification received by accused no.1 from complainant was as reward for doing the work of complainant as enumerated in Section 7(ii) of PC Act. This reward or illegal gratification received by accused no.1, used to be shared by accused no.2 and probably even other senior officers of EDMC, since there was already an understanding between them, to function in this manner. Under such circumstances, the question of absence of motive becomes irrelevant.
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 140 of 149 8.2.6.13 Another contention on behalf of accused no.2 was that there was no sanction for prosecution u/S 197 CrPC for IPC offence u/S 120B IPC. He has relied on various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which are on record. A bare perusal of the same shows that in those cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had insisted for sanction for prosecution u/S 197 Cr.PC since the accused persons therein, who were public servants, had faced trial even for the substantive offences of IPC such as Section 420, Section 467, Section 468, Section 471, etc. However, in the present case, the accused no.2 had not faced trial for any substantive offences under IPC. Rather, the offence with which he has been charged with, is Section 120B IPC r/w Section 7 of PC Act and substantive offence u/S 7 PC Act. This shows that the accused no.2 had been charged for hatching a criminal conspiracy for commission of an offence u/S 7 of PC Act and so, it will be the provisions of Section 7 of PC Act, which shall be paramount. In the absence of Section 7 of PC Act being enforced against accused no.2, no charge for entering into criminal conspiracy u/S 120B IPC would survive. In my humble view, the judgments as cited above are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8.2.6.14 It was further argued on behalf of accused no. 2 that complainant had turned hostile as far as the allegations against accused no. 2 is concerned, since he did not depose anything against accused no. 2 Rakesh Rawat. He also did not state about conversation between accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 as contained in memory card Q2 Ex.PW8/A6. In this regard, it has already been observed by this Court in CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 141 of 149 the preceding paras that complainant is not totally hostile as far as allegations against accused no. 2 Rakesh Rawat is concerned, he has stated before the court about some CBI proceedings being conducted against the senior officer of accused no.1 A. K. Ray, at the EDMC office, after apprehension of accused no.1 and also stated pointing towards accused Rakesh Rawat that he was probably the said senior officer, during his deposition. Further, his complaint Ex.PW4/A1 which he admits to have been made by him, also shows that senior officers of accused no.1 were involved in the offence of sharing of bribe. Be that as it may, in the judgment of Neeraj Dutta (Supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court that in the event, the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. There is already sufficient material on record against accused no. 2 as discussed above, to prove allegations against him. So, the mere factum of complainant turning hostile, is not sufficient to doubt the prosecution case.
8.2.6.15 It was also argued that Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PW7/A2 and Ex.PW7/A5 prepared by PW7 were no reports in the eyes of law. It was stated that no details of physio-chemical methods, chemical test and thin layer chromatographic technique was mentioned in the report and the report also does not mention about the presence of CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 142 of 149 sodium carbonate in the washes. Further, the complete discriptions of hand washes were mentioned in the requistion letters of CBI Ex.PW7/A1 and Ex.PW7/A4, which created bias in the mind of Expert.
8.2.6.16 This contention appears to be misplaced for several reasons. Firstly, a public servant is presumed to perform his duty honestly, to the best of his ability and without any fear or favour. Simply because an adverse report has been given against the accused persons by PW7, there is no reason for this Court to doubt the intergrity of PW7. It is further mentioned in para 7 of the report Ex.PW7/A2 and Ex.PW7/A5 that the exhibits were analysed by physio chemical methods, chemical test, UV visible spectrophotometry and thin layer chromatography techniques. It is not possible that the entire process through which the exhibits were analyzed, can be mentioned in Chemical Examiner Report. As regards, non mentioning of presence of sodium carbonate in the exhibits sent to CFSL is concerned, no such opinion was required to be given by PW7 as this opinion had not been sought by CBI. Moreover, the question to be answered by PW7 was regarding the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the exhibits and not the presence of sodium carbonate. Accordingly, this contention is also rejected.
8.2.6.17 It was further argued that the CFSL Lab from where the audio recordings were got examined, was not notified under Section 79- A of Information Technology Act, as examiner of electronic evidence. So, it was not competent to give any such report qua the audio recordings. In so far, the above arguments are concerned, the provision under Section 79-A of IT Act is merely a directory provision and not a CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 143 of 149 mandatory provision meaning thereby, the Forensic Lab who are not notified under Section 79-A of IT Act, are not restrained in any manner from being examiner of electronic evidence. Moreover, it is a known fact that CFSL Lab, New Delhi, is accredited by NABL (National Accreditation Board for Test & Calibration Laboratories). So the experts of CFSL are competent to examine such electronic evidence.
8.2.6.18 It was further argued that no Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act was furnished in support of digital evidence in the form of memory card Q-2 and Q-3 i.e. Ex,PW8/A6 and Ex. PW8/A7 respectively, which are digital documents. In the absence of such certificates, any digital evidence was inadmissible. Reliance was place upon judgment in Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (Supra). Again in the opinion of this Court, the said contention is untenable.
8.2.6.19 During the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the original memory card Q-1 to Q-3, in which the actual audio recording had been stored, were produced from the Malkhana of CBI and the same are also duly exhibited documents Ex.PW8/A5 to Ex.PW8/A7. Further, even the original DVR through which the above recordings were made, was also produced in evidence as Ex.PW8/A8. It is settled preposition of law that when the original electronic device in which the digital evidence was originally recorded, is produced before the Court, there is no requirement to furnish any such certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, since Section 65B is only applicable in case any of the party is relying on secondary evidence i.e. reproduction of original evidence recorded in a device, in either printed CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 144 of 149 form or through any secondary electronic device. So, even this contention is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.
8.2.6.20 It was also argued that there were several discrepancies such as PW4 and PW10 stating that the DVR was in hold mode when accused no. 1 had entered the room of accused no. 2 or that independent witness PW12 stated that he did not remember what accused no. 1 had told after coming out of the room of accused no. 2 or that PW13 deposed that accused no. 1 had stated that he told accused no.2 that he had received the amount of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant for issuance of license, when he called accused no. 2, after his apprehension or that PW13 had stated that he had no knowledge as to what transpired between co-accused and accused no.2, in the room of accused no. 2.
8.2.6.21 These discrepancies or inconsistencies and other such discrepancies, in the testimony of witnesses are not material discrepancies, which in any manner creates doubt on the prosecution case. Rather it gives stamp of genuineness to the prosecution case to show that the witnesses are not tutored witnesses. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant or the independent witnesses had any grudge either against accused no.1 or accused no.2, to falsely implicate them. Moreover, in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses does not affect their credibility. The relevant portion is as follows: -
"The finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court has been challenged mainly CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 145 of 149 on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence. We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation.It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time- sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 146 of 149 sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment.
Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when the all important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses.
(emphasis supplied)"
8.2.6.22 The Hon'ble Court has further emphasized that if the discrepancies in the depositions are minor, what is important is the nature of contradiction. Similarly, in 'Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 3544' it was held that :
"22. A trial Judge in assessing and appreciating the evidence of witnesses appearing before him to prove a crime, cannot overlook the common human conduct and the realities of the life known to him by his experience of the society. Unfortunately, in the criminal justice delivery system, the victim has a minimum role to play and can assist the Court in reaching the truth only through the agency of the State i.e. the prosecution. The trial Judge, therefore, has to give due allowance to minor lapses and omissions of the prosecution agency. He should assess the intrinsic worth of the evidence, oral and documentary, produced before him. No full-proof and perfect system in law courts can be evolved because of the human limitations, but the job of the Judge is to search from mass of falsity the truth hidden in the evidence before him. This difficult job, to a great extent, can be successfully accomplished by him if he looks to the substance of the evidence brought before him and is not way-laid or influenced by forensic art. It is a matter of common experience in criminal trials that a truthful witness is many times subjected to such a scathing and gruelling cross-examination that he is made to look less confident and shaky."
(emphasis supplied)"
CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 147 of 149 8.2.6.23 The above appreciation of evidence, unerringly points towards the guilt of the accused persons.
9. Decision
9.1 In view of aforesaid findings and discussions, I am of the considered opinion the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. The conspectus of evidence on record and its appreciation thereof, suggests that the complainant had given money to accused no.1 A.K. Ray, in view of the demand made by accused no.1 to give him bribe/illegal gratification as a reward for verifying his licence files. The evidence also clearly suggests that both accused no.1 A.K. Ray as well as accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat had arrived at a mutual criminal understanding before hand that they shall share the bribe amount/illegal gratification among themselves, which amount had to be demanded by accused no.1, from the applicants of licences. Evidence on record further points out that accused no.1 had received Rs.40,000/- from complainant on 20.01.2021 and on the same day, he had handed over the said trap amount to accused no.2, in furthereance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy between them. Both of them were also caught red-handed in the process of doing so. However at the same time, the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused no.2 had made a separate demand of bribe money from accused no.1, by asking accused no.1 to obtain bribe from complainant, for himself as well as on behalf of accused no.2.
9.2 Accordingly, the outcome is that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case qua commission of offence punishable CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 148 of 149 U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Sec 120 B IPC r/w Sec 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, beyond reasonable doubt against accused no.1 Amendra Kumar Ray and he stands convicted for both the offences. As regards accused no.2 Rakesh Rawat, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case qua commission of offence punishable under Sec 120 B IPC r/w Sec 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, beyond reasonable doubt and he also stands convicted for this offence. As regards the commission of substantive offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has been unable to prove the same, in view of lack of evidence in that regard. Accordingly, accused no.2 is acquitted from the aforesaid offence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to both the convicts. They be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL KRISHNA
Announced in open court KRISHNA AGRAWAL
on 25.08.2025 AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.25
16:01:01 +0530
(Atul Krishna Agrawal)
Special Judge, CBI-19 (PC Act)
RADC/New Delhi/25.08.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 149 pages and each page bears my signatures, at the end. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL KRISHNA KRISHNA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2025.08.25 16:01:12 +0530 (Atul Krishna Agrawal) Special Judge, CBI-19 (PC Act) RADC/New Delhi/25.08.2025 CBI Vs. Amendra Kumar Ray & Anr. Atul Krishna Agrawal RC No. DAI/2021/A-0004 Special Judge, CBI-19, RADC Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 Page No. 149 of 149