Delhi District Court
3 vs State on 28 September, 2016
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-05, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 65/12
RC No. : RC-DAI-2012-A-0008/ACB/ND
Unique Case ID No.: 02403R0063142012
In re:-
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Versus
Prittam Lal Garg
s/o Sh. Har Vilas Gargl
Public Servant/ Junior Engineer, DDA
WD-12, Kirti Nagar, Delhi
R/o : C-7/42, Sector-7, Rohini
Delhi-110085
.....Accused
Date of institution : 20.09.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 28.09.2016
Date of pronouncement : 28.09.2016
Appearances:
For CBI : Sh. K.P. Singh, learned PP.
For accused : Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
..............................
1. This is trap a case, filed under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'PC Act') for offences punishable u/s 7 and CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 1 of 74 -2- 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) PC Act, 1988 against accused Pritam Lal Garg (P. L. Garg), a public servant for demand and accept illegal gratification.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present case was registered on 06.03.2012 u/s 7 of PC Act against accused Pritam Lal Garg, Junior Engineer, DDA, WD-12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi on the basis of written complaint of Sh. Dharamvir, contractor, alleging that accused who was dealing with the preparation of the bill in respect of the construction work executed by the complainant, was demanding an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for preparing the bill. Since the complainant did not want to pay bribe, he submitted a written complaint on 02.03.2012 to the CBI, which was duly verified by recording the conversation of the complainant.
3. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the complainant Sh.
Dharamvir was awarded the construction work for the construction of boundary wall along Trunk Drain at Dwarka for an estimated amount of Rs.35,12,293/- and the work was undertaken by the complainant and was completed on 16.01.2012 and after completion of the work, the complainant approached the accused for preparation of the bill for the work which he had executed as the accused was dealing with the matter relating to preparation of the bill, however, the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant. On 02.03.2012, the complainant submitted written complaint to CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 2 of 74 -3- CBI alleging demand of bribe by accused and the complaint was verified by recording the conversation taken place between accused and the complainant in the presence of independent witness Sh. Ranbir Singh. The CD containing the conversation was sealed and marked as Q-1. The verification proceedings were recorded under a verification memo dated 02.03.2012 and the complainant informed that he has to arrange Rs.1.5 lacs and date and time of delivering bribe amount was not fixed. As such further verification was required. Further verification regarding fixing the date and time for transaction of bribe was conducted on 06.03.2012 in CBI office in the presence of independent witness Sh. Ranbir Singh. Verification revealed that the accused agreed to receive the bribe money at DDA office at Rohini, New Delhi on the same date. The CD containing the conversation was sealed and marked as Q-2 and verification proceedings were also recorded in verification memo dated 06.03.2012.
4. Thereafter the instant case was registered on 06.03.2012 and a CBI team consisting of Trap Lying Officer (TLO) Inspector Kailash Sahu, independent witnesses Ranbir Singh and Braham Prakash and the complainant was constituted. The complainant produced Rs.1.50 lacs consisting of 150 number of genuine currency (GC) notes in the denomination of Rs.1000/- each and their numbers were noted and annexed with handing over memo and all pre-trap formalities were CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 3 of 74 -4- recorded in handing over memo. After the completion of pre- trap formalities, the trap team members left for the spot and complainant was given a digital voice recorder (DVR) with the direction to 'switch on' the same after arrival of accused and he was directed to park his Gypsy vehicle near the DDA Office and rest of the team members remain present near the DDA Office where the gypsy was parked. The accused came in a Hyndai i10 car and approached the vehicle of the complainant and parked his car there and came out of the car and boarded the gypsy as the complainant was already inside his vehicle. The accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant in two bundles, out of which, he put one bundle into his left pant pocket and the other was in his hand. The complainant gave pre-decided signal by giving miss call to the mobile phone of Inspector Kailash Sahu. As soon as CBI team members approached the accused and challanged, he threw one bundle of GC notes on the floor of the vehicle and the other bundle was found in his pant pocket and the accused was caught red handed with tainted money. The conversation was also recorded and heard which confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused. Chemical analysis of phenolphthalein power was conducted which gave positive reaction. Money was also recovered from the accused. The relevant documents were also collected. Exhibits were sent to CFSL for examination and CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 4 of 74 -5- results filed. Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was obtained from competent authority. After completion of the investigation, the accused was chargesheeted for offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) PC Act, 1988.
5. The accused was summoned and vide order dated 31.10.2012 he was charged for offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) PC Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. The prosecution in support of their case, examined as many as 14 witnesses.
7. PW-01 Sh. M. K. Gupta, Commissioner, DDA proved the sanction for prosecution of accused as Ex.PW-1/A.
8. PW-2 Ms. Manju Sehgal, who is witness of preparation of transcription of recordings in CD and proved the transcription Ex.PW-2/A.
9. PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir, the complainant, proved his written complaint as Ex.PW-4/A (D-2), verification memo dated 02.03.2012 Ex.PW-4/B (it is wrongly typed as Ex.PW-4/D) (D-3), handing over memo Ex.PW-4/C (D-5), recovery memo Ex.PW-4/D (D-6), Voice Identification - cum - Transcription Memo Ex.PW-4/E (D-16), two other Voice Identification - cum - Transcription Memos dated 29.5.2012 as Ex.PW-4/F (D-16) and Ex.PW-4/G (D-16), verification memo dated 06.3.2012 Ex.PW-4/H (D-4) in addition to other. He also proved CD marked Q1/2 as Ex.PW-4/Q1 in addition to other CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 5 of 74 -6- CDs and also proved the trouser of accused.
10. PW-6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, independent witness of trap, however he did not support the prosecution and turned hostile towards the prosecution on some aspects.
11. PW-7 Sh. Brahm Prakash, Assistant is also independent witness of trap. He also did not support the prosecution and turned hostile towards the prosecution.
12. PW-3 Sh. Rajeev Sharda, Nodal Officer, Reliance Communication Ltd. identified the signature of Sh. Sanjeev Lakra, Alternate Nodal Officer, on the letters and certificates and proved the letter dated 04.05.2012 as Ex.PW-3/A, certificates u/s 65 A and 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-3/B and Ex.PW-3/D and CDR of MDN 9312268100 as Ex.PW-3/C, forwarding letter dated 26.03.2012 as Ex.PW-3/E and call details as Ex.PW-3/F.
13. PW-5 Sh. V. B. Ramteke, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I (Chemistry), CFSL, New Delhi has examined the exhibits and gave positive result for the presence of phenolphthalein. He proved the letter dated 13.4.2012 Ex.PW-5/A, his report as Ex.PW-5/B, bottles exhibits LWH, RHW and LPPW as Ex.PW-5/C, Ex.PW-5/D and Ex.PW-5/E respectively and cloth wrappers as Ex.PW-5/F, Ex.PW-5/G and Ex.PW-5/H.
14. PW-8 Sh. Bhagwan Das Arora, retired from DDA, was Assistant Engineer (AE) at the relevant time. He proved master register (D-11) issued to accused as Ex.PW-8/A and CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 6 of 74 -7- entries made therein at pages 7 to 10, 36, 57, 127, 158 to 161, 203, 224, 203 and 304 by the accused, measurement book (D-10) as Ex.PW-8/B and measurements taken by the accused from page no.1 to 22 and his signature, production cum receipt dated 10.03.2012 as Ex.PW-8/C.
15. PW-9 Sh. Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd is witness in respect of mobile no.9811720785 and who issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of CDR of the aforesaid mobile number. He proved letter dated 30.05.2012 alongwith CDR, CAF alongwith its enclosures as Ex.PW-9/A (Colly) (D-19) and seizure memo Ex.PW-9/B (D-18) having signature of Sh. Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer
16. PW-10 Sh. Arjun Kumar Maurya, Sub-Inspector, CBI is the verifying officer, who verified the complaint. In addition to other, he proved the endorsement on the complaint which is in the handwriting of Sh. D. K. Barik, SP, CBI as Ex.PW-10/A. After recalling u/s 311 Cr.PC, he also proved, separate certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to CD Q1 and CD Q2 as Ex.PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C respectively.
17. PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu is the trap laying officer. In addition to other, he proved the FIR as Ex.PW-11/A, Production-cum-Seizure Memo dated 06.03.2012 (D-8) Ex.PW-11/B. After recalling u/s 311 Cr.PC, he also proved, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to CD CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 7 of 74 -8- Q3 as Ex.PW-11/C.
18. PW-12 Inspector P. Shadang, is the investigating officer (IO).
In addition to other, he proved letter dated 13.04.2012 (D-22) as Ex.PW-12/A and seizure memo (D-21) Ex.PW-12/B.
19. PW-13 Sh. Ram Charan Gangwal is the mallkhana incharge who proved the photocopy of first page of Mallkhana Register- 1, CBI/ACB as Ex.PW-12/A, photocopy of the entry at page 62 regarding deposit of trap money amounting to Rs.1.50 lacs on 07.03.2012 as Ex.PW-12/B and receipt dated 13.09.2012 as Ex.PW-12/C vide which the trap money was deposited with the Corporation Bank by Sh. K. Mamchain, Assistant.
20. PW-14 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Retired Director CFSL New Delhi who examined the compact discs (CDs) for voice identification and proved his report as Ex.PW-14/A, envelops as Ex.PW-14/Article-1, Ex.PW-14/Article-2, Ex.PW-14/Article-3, Ex.PW-14/Article-4 besides CD and report dated 28.03.2013 regarding compact discs marked Q- 1/1, Q-1/2, Q-1/3 and Q-1/4 and Q-1/5 are genuine and authentic as Ex.PW-14/B.
21. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC recorded wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent. He also also filed written statement u/s 313 (5) Cr.PC. He chose to lead evidence in his defence and examined DW-1 HC Hanram Meena who proved the FIR against the complainant as CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 8 of 74 -9- Ex.DW-1/A,
22. DW-02 Sh. M. S. Hasan XEN, who proved the proforma for extension of time as Ex.DW-2/A (Colly), his report regarding misbehaviour of complainant as Ex.DW-2/B, bill Ex.DW-2/C, letter Ex.PW-2/D and copy of the award passed by arbitrator as Ex.DW-2/E and copy of order in respect of accused to lookafter the work at Rohini in addition to his work at Dwarka as Ex.DW-2/F.
23. DW-3 Sh. J. P. Sharma proved the manipulation regarding rate change in the schedule of quantity of the agreement as Ex.PW-3/A, copy of the measurement book as Ex.DW-3/B wherein complainant had accepted the bill and scrubled the same and on the back page he wrote 'under protest', also proved reply to the claim as Ex.DW-3/C and copy of rejoinder as Ex.DW-3/D.
24. DW-4 Sh. Surinder Gupta, Secretary to DDA Contractor Association (Regd.) proved his complaint as Ex.DW-4/A against the complainant Dharamvir, which he made on the representation of the other contractors that Sh. Dharamvir used to blackmail the contractors as well as DDA staff regarding tenders.
25. I have heard Sh. K.P. Singh, learned PP for CBI and Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for accused. I have also gone through the record.
CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 9 of 74 -10- SANCTION
26. Firstly, I shall deal with the issue of sanction for prosecution of government servants. Accused Pritam Lal Garg is a public servant and therefore prior sanction u/s 19 P. C. Act is required to prosecute a public servant under P. C. Act. The prosecution examined PW-01 Sh. M. K. Gupta who proved the sanction as Ex.PW-1/A. He testified that on 17.09.2012 he was posted as Commissioner (Personnel). In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not remember at present the exact details of documents which he had received from CBI for grant of sanction. As far as he remembers the complaint in this case was regarding demand of money for preparation of a bill. He does not recollect as to whether the bill had already been prepared on the date when the trap was laid by CBI. He does not remember as to whether the CFSL, report regarding the intercepted conversation was placed before him while granting sanction or not. He stated that he had seen the file in this case. Vice Chairman, DDA had appointed the accused Pritam Lal Garg as J.E. and voluntarily stated however, in DDA regulations which were framed the appointing authority of all Group C staff is Commissioner (Personnel), DDA and J.E. is a Group C staff. He stated that therefore he was competent to remove him. He denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind. He admitted that he had received a typed draft sanction order from the Vigilance Department and after going CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 10 of 74 -11- through the relevant documents and applying his mind, he had made correction in the said draft sanction order and thereafter he had signed the said sanction order Ex.PW-1/A. He also admitted that the sanction order finds mention of the vigilance department on the top of the order and the same had been received from Vigilance Department. In reply to question that Sanction Order Ex.PW-1/A is verbatim reproduction of the draft sanction Ex.PW-1/DA sent by CBI, after going through both the documents, he stated that both appear to be the same.
27. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the sanctioning authority without applying its mind has accorded the sanction, which is clear from the statement of PW-1. In his cross- examination, PW-1 has admitted that he has received draft sanction alongwith the material and sanction order and draft order were verbatim the same.
28. The law on the subject is well settled now. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has culled out the principles on the subject, in case titled as State of Maharashtra Through CBI v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119, as follows :-
(a) It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
(b) The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 11 of 74 -12- prosecution.
(c) The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
(d) Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
(e) The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
(f) If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
(g) The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity.
29. It is also worthwhile to note the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
17. At this stage, we think it apposite to state that while sanctity attached to an order of sanction should never be forgotten but simultaneously the rampant corruption in society has to be kept in view. It has come to the notice of this Court how adjournments are sought in a maladroit manner to linger the trial and how at every stage ingenious efforts are made to assail every interim order. It is the duty of the court CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 12 of 74 -13- that the matters are appropriately dealt with on proper understanding of law of the land. Minor irregularities or technicalities are not to be given Everestine status. It should be borne in mind that historically corruption is a disquiet disease for healthy governance. It has the potentiality to stifle the progress of a civilized society. It ushers in an atmosphere of distrust. Corruption fundamentally is perversion and infectious and an individual perversity can become a social evil. We have said so as we are of the convinced view that in these kind of matters there has to be reflection of promptitude, abhorrence for procrastination, real understanding of the law and to further remain alive to differentiate between hyper-
technical contentions and the acceptable legal proponements.
30. As regards the submission that the draft sanction was made available to the sanctioning authority and therefore the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind. The law is now also well settled by our own Hon'ble High Court in case of Suresh Kr. Duggal v. State (NCT of Delhi) CBI, 2013 (6) AD (Delhi) 329. To quote:-
6. The sanction for prosecution was granted by PW1 Rakesh Mohan who was then working as the Additional Commissioner (Water), MCD Delhi and was competent to appoint and terminate the Appellant who was working as LDC-cum-Meter Reader in the MCD. PW1 stated that before granting sanction for prosecution, he perused the report of the Zonal Revenue officer, the copy of the FIR and the detailed reports sent by the CBI. Learned counsel for the Appellant has assailed the sanction order on the grounds that it does not mention the provisions of law and secondly it is verbatim the same as the draft CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 13 of 74 -14- sanction order. In Indu Bhushan Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1958 SC 1482 their Lordships upheld the grant of sanction wherein a draft sanction order was prepared by the Police and put up before the sanctioning authority, who thereafter after going through all the relevant papers signed the same. The sanction on the basis of a draft sanction order was held to be a valid sanction accorded by the competent authority. A perusal of Ex.PW1/A shows that it is a detailed order passed after due consideration of material on record. It is well settled that a valid sanction order must either contain all the facts and materials constituting the offence or the prosecution must establish aliunde by evidence that those facts were placed before the sanctioning authority (Major Som Nath Vs. UOI 1971 Cr.L.J 1422). There is no requirement in law to mention the provisions of Act for which prosecution sanction is being granted. The same can be also inferred by the recital in the order or from the accompanying documents. Hence, I find no infirmity in the order granting sanction.
31. Sanction is administrative matter. Merely because draft sanction was sent alongwith material for according of sanction, it does not matter even if it is verbatim the same. I have perused the sanction order. It gives the evidence and the manner in which offence has been committed which is self speaking. Requirement is that whether authority applied its mind and sanction order reveals by its plain reading that the PW-1 Mr. Gupta has applied his minds. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority. As per discussion above, I am of the opinion that the competent authority has properly accorded CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 14 of 74 -15- sanction for prosecution of public servant.
DEMAND & ACCEPTANCE
32. The prosecution in order to prove demand examined PW-4 complainant Sh. Dharamvir, PW-6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, independent witness, PW-7 Sh. Brahm Prakash another independent witness, PW-12 Sub-Inspector Arjun Kumar Maurya, who also conducted verification and PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu, who was the trap laying officer.
33. PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir, the complainant, testified that he was awarded contract work by DDA, New Delhi for the construction of boundary wall along with trunk drain no. 2, Dwarka in Sector- 23 to 26 and he had completed the contract work on 16.01.2012. The bill for the work was to be prepared by accused Pritam Lal Garg, J.E., and he met accused Pritam Lal Garg, a number of times in connection of his bill amount, however, accused told him that he is not going to prepare his bill unless Rs. 3 Lakhs as a bribe money is not paid to him. He stated that on 01.03.2012, he visited CBI Office and lodged a written complaint. He stated that on 01.03.2012, accused Pritam Lal Garg called him telephonically and asked him to come at Dwarka in connection with his bill on 02.03.2012. He stated that he had told this fact to CBI Officials, who told him that he should visit CBI Office before going to Dwarka. He along with CBI Officer Sh. Arjun Maurya and another Sh. Ranbir, went to a room which is located behind Radha Swami CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 15 of 74 -16- Satsang Bhawan, Pochanpur. Sh. Ranbir Singh was standing at the gate. During conversation with accused Pritam Lal Garg, accused told him that unless bribe amount is not paid, he (accused Pritam Lal Garg) will not process bill. The accused had threatened that he will not write anything in his file if he will not pay the bribe money. During conversation, he repeated for the bribe amount. He stated that on his request, the accused agreed to accept Rs. 1.5 lakhs as initial bribe amount and remaining amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was to be paid later on. The accused asked him to come on 06.03.2012 with bribe amount and take his bill amount. Thereafter, they all returned back to CBI Office. Before reaching the aforesaid place, one DVR was handed over to him in order to record the conversation which will take place between him and the accused. He further stated that after reaching back to CBI Office at CGO Complex, the DVR was switched on and the conversation was heard in presence of Inspector Kailash Sahu, him, Sh. Arjun Kumar, Sh. Ranbir Singh and some other persons whose names he does not remember. After hearing the conversation, the contents of the DVR were transferred to a CD. The further examination of this witness was recorded on the next day and he clarified that on the previous day, while his examination-in-chief was being recorded, he had forgotten to state that the accused had reduced the bribe amount from 3 Lakhs to Rs. 2.5 Lakhs and had asked him to pay an amount of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 16 of 74 -17- Rs.1,50,000/- as first installment. On 02.03.2012, Inspector Kailash Sahu had instructed him that he should not inform about his visit to CBI Office or about any proceedings to any one. Thereafter, he again went to CBI Office on 06.03.2012 at about 9:30 am. Sh. Arjun Kumar, Inspector Kailash Sahu, Sh. Ranbir Singh and some other persons whose names he does not remember were present. He had carried a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with him. The GC notes were in two bundles, one bundle contained Rs. 1 Lakh and the other Rs.50,000/-. Inspector Kailash Sahu had noted down the GC numbers of each GC notes and had prepared a document, handing over memo. He stated that at about 10:20 am accused P.L. Garg had given him a telephonic call. The conversation between him and accused was recorded in the DVR. The phone was kept on Speaker mode and the others who were present at that time had also heard the conversation. After hearing the conversation, the contents of the DVR were transferred to a CD. During this conversation, the accused had made inquiries from him regarding the time and place of meeting and had fixed Deepali Chowk, Rohini, Sector-3 as meeting point. Thereafter, a powder was applied on all the GC notes by CBI officers. The IO had explained that he should not touch the GC notes. He had kept the GC notes in his Maruti Gypsy. At 11:45 am, they left CGO complex. Inspector Kailash Sahu and 2-3 other CBI persons had accompanied him CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 17 of 74 -18- in his car and the rest of the team members were in other two cars. At about 12:30 noon when the team members reached Badali Chowk, he received another phone call from accused P.L. Garg, who made inquiries from him as to where he had reached and whether he had been able to make arrangement of the bribe amount. He (witness) told him (accused) that the bribe amount has been arranged. He stated that this entire conversation was again recorded with the help of a DVR and at 12:40 noon they reached Deepali Chowk. At the gate of DDA Office, Rohini, all other team members had got down from his Gypsy. Inspector Kailash Sahu had asked him to give him a missed call after the accused will accept the bribe amount. He (Inspector) had also asked Sh. Brahm Prakash and Sh. Ranbir (sic) to give an indication to the team members in case the accused accepts the bribe amount. As soon as he reached the parking area, accused had also reached there. Accused was in his car and had given an indication to him to come and sit in his car. However, he (witness) told him (accused) to come and sit in his (witness) car. Accused came and sat in his car. He (accused) asked him (witness) as to whether he had brought the bribe amount and he handed over the bribe amount to the accused which he accepted with both hands. He kept one packet in the left side pocket of his pant. He stated that he asked the accused to at least count the amount. The accused was counting the GC notes of the second CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 18 of 74 -19- bundle which was in his hands. He gave a missed call to Inspector Kailash Sahu. The entire team had reached the spot. The accused upon seeing the raiding team, had dropped the bribe amount from his hands in the car. Inspector Kailash Sahu had caught hold of one hand of accused and another CBI official had caught hold of the other hand. Sh. Ranbir Singh and Sh. Brahm Prakash were asked to pick up the bribe amount which had fallen in the car and thereafter the accused and the entire team members were taken to DDA Office. He stated that a packet containing Rs.1 lakh which the accused had kept in his left side pant pocket was recovered either by Sh. Ranbir Singh or by Sh. Bharam Prakash (sic). The hand washes of accused P. L. Garg were taken and kept in bottles and sealed. The DVR was taken back from him. Thereafter, they all left for CBI Office and some of the team members left for some other place. He also stated that left side pant pocket wash of accused was also taken in CBI Office and wash were put in a bottle and the same was sealed. Then the recorded conversation contained in the DVR was transferred into a CD and the same was sealed.
34. PW-6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, independent witness, supported the prosecution only partially. He stated that 02.3.2012 he had visited CBI Office as his office had issued an order to visit CBI Office. He stated that one Sub Inspector Sh. K.K. Mourya (it should be A. K. Maurya) had told him that they CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 19 of 74 -20- have to proceed to Dwarka in Punjab and Sindh Bank in connection with a complaint against a Bank Manager. Thereafter, they all reached the said Bank at Dwarka and there he was made to sit outside the cabin of the said bank and SI Mourya and some Senior officials of CBI went inside the said cabin of the said Bank. After some time, there was exchange of hot words between the persons present inside the cabin and the CBI Officials and then they came outside the cabin. Thereafter, they all went to nearby market in the vehicles. He remained in the vehicle and saw the CBI Officers talking on a mobile phone with some person which he did not hear. After some time one person came in a Gypsy and meanwhile, SI Mourya had told him (witness) that they all have to proceed another site. In the said market, SI Mourya had given him a paper on which some lines were written and he was told that he has to read the said lines. Accordingly, he had read all the lines written on the paper which were simultaneously recorded in a recorder by SI Mourya. He was asked by Sh. Mourya to sit in the Gypsy. After 4-5 Kilometers, he and Sh. Mourya were made to step out the said Gypsy by the person who was driving the said Gypsy, stating that he was going to DDA Office and will come back after some time. The said driver of the Gypsy returned back after 2 ½ hours and they all came back to CBI Office in the said Gypsy. He stated that in the CBI Office Sh. Mourya had told him that one CD has been CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 20 of 74 -21- prepared by the said person who was driving the Gypsy and he was asked to hear the same. He stated that the said CD was played but the same was not audible and he was asked to come again on 06.3.2012.
35. PW-6 Sh. Ranbir Singh further stated that on 06.03.2012, he had again visited CBI Office. Another witness, whose name he does not remember, was also present there and was sitting in nearby another cabin. After 1 ½ hours, one CBI Officer had told him that one person was demanding bribe from the complainant, whose name he also does not remember, was also sitting in other cabin. He was shown a bundle of GC notes of Rs. 1.50 lacs (sic) and then told that these notes were treated with chemical powder. The said GC notes were got touched by another witness and it was told that after touching the said chemical powder smeared notes with hands, the handwashes of the concerned persons would turn pink in colour. The said notes were got touched by another witness. Thereafter, they all proceeded to Rohini. There were 8-10 members in the trap team.
36. PW-6 stated that at a Chowk near Rohini the vehicles were stopped and it was told to them that the Gypsy will proceed to Gate no. 1 and other vehicles will proceed towards Gate no.2 of DDA Office, Rohini. He along with another independent witness and some CBI officials were in a vehicle which was to proceed towards Gate no.2. At the parking of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 21 of 74 -22- Gate no. 2, there was no place to park their vehicle as such they parked vehicle in a corner at some distance. After some time, one CBI Official called them and they saw that CBI Officials had caught one person from both of his hands, who had demanded the bribe. This was objected to by Ld. Counsel for the accused. He stated that the person who was caught is present in the court today. The accused was crying and was saying that he is being falsely implicated. He was directed to take the personal search of the accused and a bundle of GC notes in denomination of Rs. 500/-, was recovered from his pant pocket. Thereafter, the accused was searched by the CBI Officials and amount of Rs.4000-5000 were also recovered from the pocket of his shirt. After sometime DDA Officials started gathering and thereafter, DDA officials also started protesting, then they all returned back to CBI Office along with the accused. No proceedings took place at the spot. In the transit, the accused was asked by CBI Officials to talk on the mobile phone with the DDA Officer, to which the accused objected. In the CBI Office, all the persons including him were made to sit in separate cabins. Meanwhile, the pant of the accused was taken from the accused by CBI Officials and one Pyjama was given to him and the pant was given to some CBI Official with direction to get it washed. After some time he was shown the said pant which had turned pink at some portion. After that his signatures were obtained on some CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 22 of 74 -23- papers, paper slips, CDs and Pant. He stated that he had appended his signatures without going through the contents of the documents as it was not possible for him to read them in a short period. The contents of the documents which he had signed were also not read over to him.
37. PW-6 Sh. Ranbir Singh was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross-examination by Ld. PP for CBI, he denied that he alongwith Sh. A. K. Maurya, Dharamvir and ASP Sh. D. K. Barik had gone to DDA Office at Dwarka on 02.03.2012. He denied having been handed over any metal seal which was used for sealing. He voluntarily stated that his signatures on the said memo Ex.PW-4/B were obtained on 06.03.2012 and he had put the date as per the direction of CBI and the contents of the same were not read over to him. He stated that in his presence phenolphthalein powder was not applied on the GC notes. He voluntarily stated that no voice recorder was handed over to the complainant Sh. Dharamvir in his presence.
38. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused, PW-6 has categorically denied that at no point of time, the accused had demanded or accepted any bribe amount in his presence. When he had taken out a bundle of GC notes of Rs. 500/- each, the accused protested and said that this amount belongs to him. Besides the bundle of Rs. 500/- which was recovered by him, Rs.4,000/- - 5,000/- which were CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 23 of 74 -24- recovered by CBI official from the shirt pocket, no other amount was recovered from the possession of accused Pritam Lal Garg at any point of time.
39. PW-7 Sh. Brahm Prakash, another independent witness, deposed that on 06.03.2012 he was reported by his office to visit CBI office and accordingly he visited CBI Office on that day and was informed by CBI staff that he was to be taken to some place because someone is demanding bribe from one contractor. He does not know the name of the contractor from whom some one whose name he does not know was being demanded the money. In the CBI office, some powder was applied on a bundle of GC notes comprising of Rs. 500/- in the denomination. He was directed to touch that GC notes and he was explained that the colour of the water would turn pink if he dip his fingers in the water. Accordingly, he touched the GC note and dipped his fingers in the water, the colour of the water turned slight pink. After half an hour, he was informed that he alongwith the CBI officials have to go to Rohini. In his presence, in the CBI office before proceedings to Rohini, no proceedings took place. He alongwith CBI officials proceeded to Rohini in the CBI vehicle and reached DDA office, Rohini in 2-3 vehicles. Meanwhile, he had gone to washroom and at that time he heard people calling him and he saw one JE who was caught hold by the CBI official and he also saw other independent witness carrying a bundle of GC CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 24 of 74 -25- notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/-. The abovesaid JE was crying and protesting by saying that he is innocent and has been falsely apprehended. At the spot, many people including DDA officials had gathered and they questioned the presence of CBI officials and therefore, the accused was brought to the CBI office immediately. At the spot in his presence no proceedings took place. His signatures were obtained by CBI officials on slips in the evening hours when they were to leave.
40. PW-7 was also cross-examination at length by the prosecutor but he had not supported the prosecution. In his cross- examination, he stated that he does not remember as to whether any voice recorder was handed over to Dharamvir. Dharamvir had gone to DDA Office alone. When Dharamvir had parked his vehicle accused Pritam Lal Garg had not come in a car in his presence and he did not see him coming out of his car and going to the vehicle of Dharamvir. He stated that he does not remember whether any instruction was given to Dharamvir. He does not know as to whether any CD was prepared in respect to the sample voice of accused. However, he admitted his signatures on all the paper, which were recorded. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel on behalf of accused he stated that his signatures on all the exhibits were obtained in the evening of 06.03.2012 in one go, when he was about to leave.
41. PW-10 Sh. Arjun Kumar Maurya is the verifying officer, who CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 25 of 74 -26- verified the complaint made by the complainant. He stated that on 02.03.2012, he was posted as SI in ACB, CBI Delhi and on that day SP Sh. D. K. Barik had called him and had shown him a complaint written in Hindi by Sh. Dharamvir regarding demand of bribe by a JE Mr. Garg and instructed him to verify the genuineness of the complaint. He stated that the complainant informed him that he had undertaken construction of the boundary wall for DDA and a payment of Rs. 32 lakhs was due towards him and when he had requested the concerned JE for payment of the bill, he had demanded a bribe of Rs. 3 lakhs. He stated that thereafter, he had contacted an independent witness Sh. Rambir (It should be Ranbir) from MCD, arranged a DVR and got the complaint register as CO-11/2012/CBI/ACB/Delhi. He stated that he had obtained introductory voice of the witness Sh. Ranbir Singh and thereafter, they decided to go to Dwarka Sector-23, Delhi for the purpose of verification of the complaint and recording probable conversation between the complainant and the accused. They had left CBI office in the car of the complainant and stopped car outside Radha Swami Satsang, Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi. He had explained the procedure of recording the voice in DVR to the complainant and the witness. The complainant had told him that the accused might not demand bribe amount in presence of the witness, therefore, he (witness) had requested the witness to CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 26 of 74 -27- hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused from a distance. Thereafter, he had put the DVR on switch 'on' mode and handed over to the complainant and also put the DVR on Key Hold Position to ensure that no one will be able to operate the DVR. He had kept the DVR in left side shirt pocket of the complainant. He kept sitting in the car and after sometime the witness and the complainant had returned back. He stated that he had switched 'off' the DVR. Upon making enquries from the witness (Sh. Ranbir Singh), he informed him (witness) that he could not hear conversation between the complainant and the other person. He had not seen the said person (accused). The witness (Sh. Ranbir Singh) told him that he had seen the complainant speaking to the other person. He stated that he had played the conversation contained in the DVR, which revealed that someone was demanding Rs.1.5 lakhs for clearing the bill. Thereafter, they returned back to CBI office. Thereafter, he transferred the conversation contained in the DVR to the laptop and then into audio CD and had marked the same as Q-
1. Further, PW-10 Sub-Inspector A. K. Maurya stated that during verification conducted on 02.03.2012, accused Pritam Lal Garg had directed complainant Dharamvir to contact him on Tuesday i.e. 06.03.2012 and accordingly he had also directed complainant Dharamvir to arrange Rs.1.5 lacs as demanded by accused Pritam Lal Garg and to report to him CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 27 of 74 -28- when the said arrangement is done. The complainant Dharamvir again came to CBI office and reported him on 06.03.2012. Since the venue of the delivery of money was not decided on 02.03.2012, therefore, they asked complainant to make telephonic call for the venue. On 6.3.2012, on his asking complainant made telephonic call on the mobile of the accused in the presence of independent witness Ranbir Singh, who was also present. In the said conversation, the accused asked complainant to come to Deepali Chowk, Rohini, DDA Office. He stated that he prepared verification memo Ex.PW-4/H and recommended for registration of FIR u/s 7 of P. C. Act, 1988. Thereafter the FIR was registered. The conversation on the telephone was also recorded and the said recording was transferred in blank CD Q-2. He also stated that Sh. Ganesh Verma, the then Sr. S. P. had constituted a trap team which comprises of him, Inspector Kailash Sahu, Inspector Pankaj Vats, Inspector Vijay Yadav, both independent witnesses namely Brahm Prakash and Ranbir Singh and complainant. The said trap team assembled in the chamber of Inspector Kailash Sahu at around 11:15 a.m. Inspector Kailash Sahu briefed the trap team and told every one their roles. The complainant produced 150 GC notes in the denomination Rs.1000/- each. The number of the 150 GC notes were noted down in a separate paper and were made part of the handing over memo. Thereafter they left CBI office at around 11:45 CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 28 of 74 -29- a.m. for Deepali Chowk, Rohini and reached the spot i.e. Deepali Chowk, Rohini at about 12:40 p.m. On the instruction of Inspector Kailash Sahu, the complainant Dharamvir telephonically contacted accused Pritam Lal Garg and told him that he had reached Deepali Chowk as fixed by him. The trap team members took their position behind the vehicles already parked there. The DVR, was handed over to complainant in Switch 'ON' made, was put in his shirt pocket and was directed to proceed. The complainant told that the accused would not accept the bribe amount in front of anyone and therefore accordingly independent witness probably Sh. Ranbir Singh was directed to follow the complainant and was also directed to watch the said proceedings from some distance. After sometime, they noticed one car make i-10 which was driven by person later on identified as accused. The accused parked the said car near the car of the complainant. Accused came outside of the car and then both complainant and accused sat in the car of the accused Pritam Lal Garg. After sometime, the complainant gave pre-decided signal. He stated that he does not remember the mode of the signal which was given by the complainant whether it was missed call or any other signal. However the pre-decided signal was that after the transaction is over, complainant would give a missed call on the mobile phone of Inspector Kailash Sahu or he may make full call. Inspector Kailash Sahu told them to rush as the money has CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 29 of 74 -30- been handed over. Since they were just nearby, they reached at the car. Inspector Kailash Sahu knocked the window of the car and introduced himself and at that time the accused was counting the money. On being given the introduction by Inspector Kailash Sahu, the accused dropped the money inside the car from his hands. The complainant was asked as to where accused kept the money and the complainant told him that one wad of GC notes comprising of Rs.1 lakh was kept by accused in the pocket of his pant and remaining money was being counted by accused. After the opening of the door, the DVR was taken from the complainant and was switched 'OFF'. Hand wash and pant wash of the accused were taken. Both the washes of pant and hand were turned into pink with reaction of sodium carbonate. Before leaving for the spot, Inspector Vijay Yadav had treated the GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter crowd gathered at the spot and therefore they left for the CBI Office alongwith the trap team, complainant, independent witnesses and accused. The recovery memo (D-6) was prepared at CBI Office. The accused was arrested. The conversation recorded in DVR was transferred in a CD Q-3.
42. PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu, TLO, corroborated PW-10 regarding marking of FIR to him for investigation, constituting of trap team, production of GC Notes of Rs.1.50 lacs in the denomination of Rs.1000/- each by the complainant, noting down of its numbers and demonstration of phenolphthalein CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 30 of 74 -31- powder. He stated that Sh. Brahm Prakash was directed to act as Shadow witness and give signal by giving a missed call on his mobile number. A DVR make Sony was also arranged and its functions were explained to the witnesses and the complainant. The other witness was asked to remain with the trap team members. Thereafter, the trap team along with witnesses and complainant left CBI office at about 11:45 Hours. On the way, introductory voice of one witness was recorded in the DVR for the purpose of recording the likely conversation between the accused and the complainant, after ensuring its emptiness. After some time, a phone call was received by complainant Sh. Dharamvir on his mobile from accused P. L. Garg and the said conversation was simultaneously recorded in the DVR by putting the mobile phone of the complainant on speaker mode. The complainant informed that accused will meet him in DDA Office near Deepali Chowk, Rohini. The team reached near Deepali Chowk at about 12:40 hours and then introductory voice of other witness was also recorded in the said DVR. At about 12:45 hours, the complainant again informed that the accused will not accept the bribe amount in the presence of any unknown person and therefore, it was decided to send the complainant alone. The DVR was switched ON and it was kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant who proceeded towards DDA office alone. The other witness and CBI Trap CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 31 of 74 -32- team members followed the complainant. After reaching the DDA office the complainant parked his vehicle i.e. Maruti Gypsy, inside the DDA office. After a few minutes, one Hyundai I-10 Car was seen and the driver of the car, identified as accused Sh. P. L. Garg, parked his car near the car of the complainant and came out of his car and sat inside the vehicle of the complainant. The CBI team members and witnesses had already taken suitable positions in the said area. After receipt of a missed call from the complainant, he alerted the trap team members and the witnesses and rushed towards the vehicle of the complainant. Accused P.L. Garg, after seeing the number of persons from CBI, threw the bundle of GC Notes on the floor of the vehicle in which he was sitting. After introduction, they challenged the accused for receiving the bribe amount from the complainant but he could not explain the reasons of receiving bribe amount from the complainant. Left and right wrists of the accused were caught hold by him and SI Vijay Yadav. The complainant also informed that accused Sh. P.L. Garg, demanded and accepted bribe amount from him, and one of the bundles of GC notes of Rs.1.50 Lakhs was kept by the accused in his left side pant pocket. Thereafter, witness Sh. Ranbir Singh recovered the tainted amount of Rs.50,000/- from the floor of the vehicle where the accused was sitting, and Rs.1 Lakh from left side pant pocket of the accused.
CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 32 of 74 -33-
43. Thereafter, a solution of sodium carbonate and water was prepared and left and right hand washes of accused was taken which turned into pink, which were transferred into separate clean glass bottles and sealed with the seal of CBI. He also stated that since it was DDA office and a large number of DDA employees had gathered at the spot and it appeared that they were disturbing the proceedings, it was decided to leave the spot. Accordingly, they along with independent witnesses and the complainant, left the place. The DVR was switched off and kept with witness Sh. Ranbir Singh. The tainted GC Notes were also kept with Sh. Ranbir Singh. In the CBI Office, the accused was arrested. The tainted GC Notes, kept with the witness, were counted and it was found to be Rs.1.50 Lakhs and its distinctive numbers matched with the noted list. Thereafter, a trouser was arranged and the accused was asked to change his pant and then wash of the left side pant pocket was also taken in freshly prepared colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. He also stated that he had obtained sample voice of accused Pritam Lal Garg in the said DVR and transferred into CD mark S-1
44. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the complainant PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir is not trustworthy as he is in the habit of blackmailing DDA officials in allowing his exaggerating claims against the work done. He has been blacklisted by the DDA. The Contractor Association (Regd.) for such habit has CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 33 of 74 -34- also filed complaint against him regarding blackmailing done against them by present complaint Sh. Dharamvir. It is also submitted that the complainant Sh. Dharamvir has close links with the CBI officials and in connivance with whom he had falsely implicated the accused. Further, it is submitted that the complainant had not completed work in time and thereafter time was extended on 29.02.2012 and the bill was prepared by the accused on 02.03.2012. The complaint in the present case is ante dated after CBI officials came to know that the bill was already prepared and was sent to the higher officials by the accused Pritam Lal Garg, Junior Engineer, and therefore there was no occasion for the accused to make any demand. Further submitted that the complainant wanted to get passed his bill for Rs.80 lacs against the work of Rs.35 lacs which accused refused and therefore the complainant manipulated the present proceedings in connivance with the CBI Officials who was already known to him. It is also submitted that he had got entrapped another DDA official from CBI. It is further submitted that there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant and another witnesses. The independent witnesses, who have been declared hostile by the prosecution, had given the correct version. It is further submitted that the recorded conversation could not be proved in the absence of the valid certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that the deposit of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 34 of 74 -35- hand washes and pant washes is highly doubtful in view of the statement of investigating officer as to when they were sent for the chemical analysis. Last but not the least, it is submitted that alleged GC notes were not proved in the court as it is alleged by CBI that they were deposited in the bank inadvertently. Further, the mallkhana register, by which the said amount was deposited in the bank, and entries therein have been tampered with.
45. PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir, the complainant, is the star witness of the prosecution. His cross-examination reveal two important aspects - one regarding complainant is habitual complainant and other is the aspect of inconsistencies and past conduct. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember as to since how long he is working as a contractor with DDA. He could not say as to if he is associated with DDA since one, two years, five years or ten years. He stated that he has done number of other work for DDA as contractor but could tell as to how many works have been undertaken by him or by his firm.
46. He stated that he does not remember whether he had filed two complaints or ten complaints or more than 10 against DDA officers with allegation of demand of bribe, however, two cases were made on his complaint. One of the trap case was against P.S. Rai, J.E., DDA and another case is against the present accused. Many other DDA Officials had demanded CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 35 of 74 -36- bribe from him and he had made complaint against them accordingly. He does not know whether he had made a complaint about those demands of bribe to CBI or not, however, he had made a complaint to Vice Chairman, DDA. He admitted photocopy of the complaint dated 10.10.2008 Ex.PW4/DA1 and stated that in this complaint he has made allegation for demand of Rs.20,000/- as bribe by DDA Officials. He also admitted photocopy of the complaint dated 23.2.2011 Ex.PW4/DA2 wherein he had made allegations for demand of bribe against the officials of North Zone, DDA. He also admitted photocopy of the complaint dated 27.5.2011 Ex.PW-4/DA3, wherein he had made allegations for demand of bribe against the officials, namely, Sh. V.K. Madan, E.E., Sh. U.K. Tyagi, A.E. and Sh. J.C. Sharma, J.E., DDA for demanding bribe of Rs.1 Lakh. He also admitted photocopy of complaint dated 07.2.2012 and 16.2.2012 Ex.PW4/DA4 and stated that he had made allegation of demand of Rs.10 Lakhs as bribe against the officials of North Division IX, DDA. He stated that in this complaint, he had alleged that the tender has been given by the DDA officers by taking Rs.10 lakh as bribe. PW-4 further admitted photocopy of complaint dated 26.09.2012 and stated that he had made allegation of demand of bribe against Sh. Lachman Singh, EE and Sh. H.C. Banghia, J.E., Sector -14, Madhuban Chowk, Delhi and stated that it bears his signatures on page no. 2 at point A. However, he CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 36 of 74 -37- stated that this complaint has not been made by him.
47. On seeing another complaint dated 25.10.2012, he stated that he can say that this complaint might have been fabricated by the accused by forging his signatures and voluntarily stated that accused Pritam Lal Garg and P. S. Rai had been working in conspiracy with each other against him. He further admitted complaint dated 25.11.2012 Ex.PW-4/DA5 and stated that it is in his handwriting and it bears his signature and in this complaint he had made allegation that A. E. Sh. Raj Kamal was demanding bribe for releasing his security amount. He voluntarily stated that they were not releasing his security amount, however, after this complaint, he had received cheque through post.
48. After seeing photocopy of complaint dated 09.5.2013 Ex.PW4/DA6 also admitted his signatures at point A and stated that he had made allegations against Executive Engineer, DDA that they were demanding Rs. 80,000/- as bribe from him for taking on record extra item and voluntarily stated that this Executive Engineer is a relative of accused Pritam Lal Garg and till date he has not received any payment regarding this. He stated that he has been harassed not to give evidence in this case. He also admitted complaint dated 15.7.2013 Ex.PW-4/DA7 and that he had made allegation of demand of bribe by J.E., A.E., E.E. and S.E. In respect to the construction work of Community Center in Pritampura for not CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 37 of 74 -38- making the bill and recording extra work on record. He voluntarily stated that this Executive Engineer is a relative of accused Pritam Lal Garg and P. S. Rai and till date he has not received any payment regarding this and he has been harassed not to give evidence in this case. He also admitted another complaint dated 16.7.2013 Ex.PW4/DA8 against Sh. Raj Kamal and J.E. Sh. Amar Singh, alleging therein that they were demanding bribe and complaint dated 10.10.2013 Ex.PW4/DA9 against Sh. A.E. Chandela, alleging therein that there was a demand of Rs.12,000/- from him. He also voluntarily stated that Sh. A.E. Chandela is a relative of accused Pritam Lal Garg. He also admitted complaint dated 11.12.2013 Ex.PW4/DA10 against X'EN, WD-7 alleging therein that he was demanding bribe. He stated that he has not mentioned the name of X'EN in the complaint, however, the name of the person who was demanding the bribe was Sh. Mithlesh. He also admitted complaint dated 13.03.2014 Ex.PW4/DA11 with respect to allegations of bribery gainst DDA Officials; and complaint dated 17.07.2014 Ex.PW4/DA12 wherein he had alleged that there are disproportionate assets with X'EN, WD-7 and that A.E. Sh. S.D. Sharma, and X'EN, WD7 are demanding bribe for making his final bill. He stated that he has made these complaints against the officials of DDA only because accused Pritam Lal Garg and Sh. P. S. Rai were pressurizing him for CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 38 of 74 -39- not giving evidence against them in the Court and he had not received payment even till date. He stated that he has not made complaint against these other officials in CBI for getting them trapped, since he was not having money with him as the entire payment has been withheld by the DDA at the behest of accused persons.
49. As regards the complaint made against him by the DDA Contractor Association (Regd.), on seeing photocopy of complaint dated 06.03.2012 made by DDA Contractual Association against him. He stated that this complaint might have been lodged by them with the allegation that he is in the habit of blackmailing. He stated that he might have made other complaints also, of similar nature against the persons who had demanded bribe from him or have not released his payment. He denied the suggestion that he is in habit of making false complaints against the officials so that they may agree to (sic) his illegal demands or ignore his other illegal acts committed by him while working as DDA contractor.
50. PW-4 stated that he is not aware if any tender granted to some firm can be transferred to another firm on the basis of power of attorney. He knows M/s. Sehrawat Construction Company. He had taken Special Power of Attorney from M/s. Sehrawat Construction Company only for looking after the work alloted to M/s. Sehrawat Construction Company. He admitted that the work which was alloted to M/s. Sehrawat Construction CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 39 of 74 -40- Company was in respect to development of 157.83 Hectare Land, in Sector -29 and 30, Phase IV and V, Rohini. He was not given the work on some salary basis. In fact he, himself and Mr. Sehrawat had a mutual arrangement. Mr. Sehrawat used to look after the works alloted to him at Dwarka as Mr. Sehrawat used to live at Pochanpur, Dwarka and he was asked to look after Mr. Sehrawat's work at Rohini as he was resident of Pitampura, Rohini. In this he had made certain payments to the labour which were refunded by Mr. Sehrawat. He had not made any other investment in this.
51. He was confronted with the statement recorded in the Court of Sh. Pradeep Chadhha, Ld. Special Judge, CBI in 26.3.2010 in the case of CBI v. P. S. Rai. He stated that he does not remember as if he had stated there on oath that he had invested his money to complete the work by his own which was undertaken by him from M/s. Sehrawat Construction Company. He also admitted that he has been black listed by the DDA.
52. PW-4 further admitted that he has filed Civil Writ Petition against the order of his Black listing, in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He does not remember if he had made a statement during the proceeding of the above said Writ Petition before Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. K. Jain on 07.5.2013 that he was an employee of M/s. Sehrawat Construction Company at a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. He CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 40 of 74 -41- denied the suggestion that he is also in the habit of speaking lie before the Hon'ble courts.
53. PW-4 stated that he does not know, if recently, DDA has filed a complaint with Police against him for forging and tampering with the original tender documents. He admitted that he was awarded a tender by DDA for construction of Community Hall at Pitampura Village. He does not remember the contract number. He also does not remember the rate which he claimed relating to item no. 12.3 and 12.4 in the final bill. He might have claimed @ Rs.3180/- per square meter and Rs.41,000/- per cubit meter respectively. He denied the suggestion that he had forged the documents and claimed the bill at false rates. He was called at the Keshavpuram Police Station in respect of this case. However, he was not shown the complaint. The police only told him that they have received a complaint and made certain inquiries from him. Later on, he admitted the FIR in his further cross-examination on the another dates.
54. Accused Pritam Lal Garg has examined DW-1 HC Hanram Meena, who proved the FIR No.295/15, u/s 468/471 IPC, PS Keshav Puram against the complainant Dharamvir.
55. DW-3 Sh. J. P. Sharma was examined in defence by the accused. He stated that when he joined the division as Executive Engineer, he noticed that there were old bills pending. He called the contractors including Sh. Dharamvir as his bill was already prepared. He told him that due to his CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 41 of 74 -42- inability he (complainant) could not come and accepted the same. Thereafter the matter was sent for payment where he accepted the payment. However, subsequently he (complainant) wrote a letter to the department that his payment was not made correctly. Thereafter they checked the record and noticed that there was manipulation regarding the rate change in the schedule of quantity of the agreement and proved the copy of the same as Ex.DW-3/A. In the measurement book where he had accepted the bill he scrubled the same and on the back page he wrote "under protest", which was forgery done on behalf of Dharamvir in the record and proved the copy of the measurement book as Ex.DW-3/B. Thereafter they reported about the manipulation done in the record. The contractor Sh. Dharamvir approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi where the arbitrator was appointed. He filed the detailed reply to the claim and proved copy of the same as Ex.DW-3/C. He stated that they (DDA) also filed the rejoinder to his reply and proved the copy of the same as Ex.DW-3/D. The matter is still pending with the arbitrator.
56. In the said matter, rate changes were found to have been made by the complainant. Actual award rate, which was claimed by the Dharambvir and payment was accepted by him but subsequently manipulation was done. Therefore as per cross- examination of this witness it is not only established on record that PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir, complainant, is in the habit of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 42 of 74 -43- making complaint against the DDA officials regarding bribe but he also tells lie and manipulates this record. Therefore believing this witness without corroboration would be casualty of justice.
57. Now coming to the inconsistencies in his testimony. PW-4 Sh.
Dharamvir stated in his cross-examination that he does not know whether as per Clause 8 of Agreement No. 09/EE/WD- 12/DDA/2011-12 Mark PW4/DX between his firm and DDA, he was required to prepared and submit the bill. He voluntarily stated that he was not given the copy of the agreement nor he was asked to submit the bill. He stated that he is not aware as if as per the terms of agreement, the JE concerned was required to prepare the bill as per the entires in the Measurement Book, if he (witness) fails to submit the bill. He also voluntarily stated that as no letter or any communication has been received by him from anyone. He does not remember whether the work awarded to him was completed by him on 22.10.2011. He was shown to D-12 Ex.PW8/DA and after going through the same he states that it is mentioned on the file, but there is no award letter, therefore, he cannot say with certainty. He admitted that if the work is not completed by the Contractor in the stipulated time, the extension is to be sought from the Authority to complete the work. He also admitted that work awarded to him was to be completed within three months from the date of the award of work and he stated that he did CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 43 of 74 -44- not complete the work as the Department did not hand over him the clear site for the work. He voluntarily stated that the work was delayed on account of fault with the department which is not given the clear site for which he had written the letters. The final bill cannot be made without completion of the work. He also admitted that he had given the application for extension of time in this case. He does not remember the exact date on which extension of time was granted to him, but the same was granted to him. He could not say whether the extension of time form (EOT Proforma) was issued to him on 18.2.2012. On being shown he admitted proforma for Extension of Time Ex. PW4/DX-2 and stated that the same was submitted by him and filled in his handwriting and voluntarily stated that the proforma bears the dated of 10.3.2012. In reply to question that document Ex. PW4/DX-2 was issued on 18.02.2012 by X'EN Sh. M.S. Hassan and endorsement to this effect is also at encircled portion at point Y and by saying the dated of 10.3.2012 you are trying to confuse the Court, he stated that the department issues such proforma in the back date and he was forced to write on the same that he will not claim any extra money for the delay from the department on the encircled portion Z. In reply to question that the extension of time was granted to you on 29.02.2012 as per page no. 105 of D-12 Ex. PW8/DA, he stated that department makes document in the back date and as per the CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 44 of 74 -45- procedure, the dispatch number of the letter should be mentioned when it is issued from the Division Office for the Circle Office and after the Circle Office forwards the same it also mentions its own dispatch number and this document does not bear any dispatch number. He stated that this is the procedure of the department, but he does not know if there is some written instructions to this effect or not. He stated that he had dispute regarding the payment of bill with DDA before he had gone to CBI with his complaint. The award of tender was for Rs. 32,29,035/- and he stated that he does not remember the exact amount for which he raised the bill. However, he demanded more amount than the awarded tender amount. He could tell as to how much more the same was from the tender amount even by approximation i.e. 10 lakhs, 20, lakhs or 50 lakhs. He denied the suggestion that he was forcing the department to make his claim for bill for more than Rs. 80 lakhs and that the bill is raised on the basis of entries made by the JE in the Measurement Book.
58. In reply to question that how the department verifies the work done for raising the bill, he stated that the department measures the length and height of the boundary wall at the site and the bill is raised on that basis. The measurement of the site is recorded in the Measurement Book. He denied the suggestion that he came to know before going to CBI office that JE has prepared his bill. He admitted that with respect to CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 45 of 74 -46- the work done relating to the present case, he has filed a suit in the Court for claiming his payment. He denied the suggestion that he had gone to the office of DDA for rectification of the bill before approaching CBI. He was also confronted with the legal notice sent by his counsel to the department to claim the bill amount.
59. PW-8 Sh. Bhagwan Das Arora, who was Assistant Engineer (AE) in DDA during the relevant period 30.09.2009 to 30.04.2014, stated that accused Pritam Lal Garg had worked as Junior Engineer under his supervision. He stated that in the present case, accused had submitted bill as the contractor Dharamvir had not submitted the bill. In his cross-examination, he stated that as per the agreement awarded to M/s Dharamvir & Company, the company was to complete the work on or before 22.10.2011. However, the company had completed the work on 16.01.2012. The entries in the Measurement Book were made by the Junior Engineer Concerned after physical verification of the work done by him at the spot alongwith the Contractor. The formalities were also followed strictly in the present case too by him and the Executive Engineer Mr. M.S. Hasan. As the JE supervises the work, it is not unusual for him to have telephonic conversation with the Contractors of the work. The final bill can be prepared only if, extension of time (EOT) is granted by the Competent Authority for the delay caused in the completion of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 46 of 74 -47- work. In the present case there was delay in completion work by Contractor Dharamvir. Extension of time was granted to contractor Dharamvir Agency on 29.02.2012 without levy of compensation. He admitted that final bill of Sh. Dharamvir could have been prepared only after 29.02.2012. He stated that on the basis of entries in the Measurement Book Ex. PW8/B, the first and final bill was prepared by the Junior Engineer on 02.03.2012 and it does not have any correction, alteration or overwriting. However, the same bears correction in the calculations done by Sub Divisional Clerk (SDC) in Red Ink. The work and liability of the Junior Engineer accused Pritam Lal Garg comes to an end in respect of the bill, once he prepared the same and submitted to the Sub Division Office through the Assistant Engineer. In this case also the bill was submitted in my office on 02.03.2012 and the final payment was to be made by the Division Office. There was no delay on the part of DDA including accused Pritam Lal Garg in preparation of the first and final bill of the complainant Sh. Dharamvir.
60. Therefore the complaint of the complainant that the bill was not being prepared is contrary to the other evidences on record as the bill could not have been prepared before 29.02.2012, when extension of time was granted regarding delay in completing the work and bill was prepared by accused 02.03.2012. Therefore there is no delay in preparing the bill on CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 47 of 74 -48- the part of the accused Pritam Lal Garg, JE.
61. As regards the written complaint, the complainant was shown the complaint Ex.PW-4/A, which does not bear any date. He denied the suggestion that date of 01.03.2012 was introduced later on when he came to know that the bill was prepared on 02.03.2012 after the arrest of the accused Pritam Lal Garg i.e. on 06.03.2012. He stated that he does not remember as to how many times he had met accused before lodging the complaint in the present case. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC in respect of the statement that he had met the accused many times before lodging the complaint, wherein it is not so recorded.
62. PW-4 stated that his arrival entry at the CBI Office was made every time when he visited CBI Office. He was not carrying his mobile phone and he left the same in his vehicle and voluntarily stated that he had taken his mobile phone on 06.03.2012 inside the office. His vehicle was parked outside the CBI office in which the mobile phone was kept. He gave the complaint at CBI office in the Dak against the receipt. He does not have the copy of the receipt. No diary number was given on the receipt in his presence. Before giving the complaint, he met Inspector Maurya and Inspector Kailash Sahu in the office of CBI and told them about the demand of bribe and they asked him to give the complaint in writing in dak and they instructed him to tell them whenever the demand CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 48 of 74 -49- is made. He does not remember as to how many days prior to 02.03.2012, he had visited the CBI office for making the complaint. He was confronted with the statement that accused had called him telephonically on 01.03.2012 and asked him to come to Dwarka in connection with his bill on 02.03.2012, where it is not so recorded. He was also confronted with the statement that he met accused number of times in connection of his bill, he told him that he is not going to prepare the bill unless he is paid bribe of Rs.3 lakhs, wherein it is not so recorded, however, it is recorded in the complaint that accused has demanded Rs.3 lakhs for preparing bill. On 02.03.2012, he was carrying his mobile to CBI Office and carried the mobile phone through the day and his mobile number was 93122- 68100. He stated that he does not remember as to whose call was received on that day but he had not made call to anyone on that day. In reply to question that on 02.03.2012, whether he had made call to CBI officials or CBI Officials called him on his mobile phone, he stated that he received telephonic call of accused on his mobile phone on that day firstly. He denied the suggestion that on 02.03.2012, he called ASP D. K. Barik from his mobile phone number on his (D. K. Barik) mobile no.96503-94882 at 09:20 a.m. He stated that he might have called D. K. Barik at 12:57 p.m. on that day. He does not remember whether any call on his mobile phone came from the mobile phone of A. K. Maurya. He voluntarily stated that CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 49 of 74 -50- he was with him on that day. He does not remember whether A. K. Maurya had called him at 01:35 p.m., 2:02 p.m. and 2:05 p.m. on that day. He stated that he also does not remember whether at about 6:30 p.m. he had telephonic conversation with A. K. Maurya. He could not tell as to how (sic) telephonic conversation is recorded in his CDR Ex.PW-3/C when A. K. Maurya was accompanying him. He stated that he knew Mr. D. K. Barik, ASP, CBI in connection with another CBI case of P. S. Rai, who has not been convicted. He does not remember whether he met Mr. Barik in connection of the present case and again stated he met him when Inspector A. K. Maurya and Inspector Kailash Sahu had taken him to him in connection with present case.
63. In his cross-examination, PW-10 Inspector Arjun Kumar Maurya could not tell whether the mobile number of Sh. D. K. Barik was 9650394882 on 02.03.2012 and stated his mobile number on the relevant date was 9968081435.
64. The attention of the witness is drawn on call detail record Ex.PW3/C at point A regarding call made from 9312268100 to 9650394882 at 09.20 am. The BTS address is shown as Samaypur Badli. He admitted that as per Ex.PW3/C, there were 7 incoming and outgoing calls of 9312268100 from 09.20 am to 12.57 pm on 02.3.2012 and addresses of BTS are of the area of North Delhi near Rohini, Pitampura.
65. He stated that he was called by Sh. D. K. Barik, the then SP at CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 50 of 74 -51- his office at about 10:00 a.m. and the complainant was present at his office at that time.
66. There are call details record. The call made during that period shows his location at Samaypur Badli and not at CBI Office. Therefore neither the complainant can be believed nor PW A. K. Maurya can be believed to this effect that he met complainant at 10:00 a.m. He also contradicted that he did not meet complainant before 02.03.2012 whereas as per the complaint he had met him on 01.03.2012 alongwith Inspector Kailash Sahu when they asked him to give complaint in dak. Therefore, there was previous acquaintance of the complainant with the then SP Sh. D. K. Barik, whose call he has received and had made call to PW Inspector A. K. Maurya from his mobile number, where his location is shown at Samaypur Badli and therefore the verification and presence of the complainant as stated by the complainant and A. K. Maurya cannot be believed. Therefore the alleged demand, made by the accused from the complainant, firstly on the day when he has given written complaint by visiting the CBI Office wherein he has stated that he has met accused number of times in connection with his bill amount, he told him that he is not going to prepare his bill unless Rs.3 lakhs is not paid to him and then on the day of verification, cannot be believed.
67. Now coming to the date of trap. PW-4 Sh. Dharamvir stated that at about 10:20 am accused P. L. Garg had given him a CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 51 of 74 -52- telephonic call and the conversation between him and accused was recorded in the DVR. During this conversation, the accused had made inquiries from him regarding the time and place of meeting and had fixed Deepali Chowk, Rohini, Sector-3 as meeting point. In his cross-examination he stated that he had no knowledge that on 06.03.2012 some work of accused was in progress in Rohini, Delhi and he knows that at present accused is working in Rohini. The treated GC notes were kept by CBI officials with them and were handed over to him in Rohini before he entered the gate of the office of the accused. He did not keep the treated GC notes in his gypsy.
68. In reply to question that whether he had stated to CBI that he received another phone call from accused at 12:30 p.m. who made enquiries from him where he has reached and whether he had made the arrangement of bribe amount, to which, he replied that bribe amount has been arranged, he stated that when phone call was received, he answered the call that he had reached bye pass and after that the phone was taken by CBI officials from him, but, he does not know whether the said conversation was recorded by CBI or not. He was confronted with the statement where portion, recorded in the aforesaid question, was not mentioned in the statement.
69. He stated that he had not suggested to CBI on 06.03.2012 that independent witness should not accompany him. He was confronted with the statement wherein it is so recorded. He has CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 52 of 74 -53- contradicted on this point by both other CBI officials who had categorically stated that complainant insisted that independent witness should not accompany him as bribe would not be accepted by the accused in his presence.
70. He was also confronted with the statement that accused was apprehended by Inspector Kailash Sahu by one hand and another CBI official had caught hold the other hand of accused and Sh. Ranbir and Brahm Prakash were asked to pick the bribe amount which has fallen inside the car and thereafter accused was taken by entire team member to DDA office, wherein it is not so recorded. The amount of Rs.1 lakh was taken out from the left side pant pocket of accused at inside DDA office. The other proceedings were also conducted in DDA Office i.e. checking of the GC notes, handwashes of the accused taken in the bottle and bottles were sealed and the proceedings were conducted in the room of Land & Building, where the possession of the plot are handed over. He stated that he does not remember as to where the pant pocket wash of the accused was taken. However in examination-in-chief he stated that pant wash was also taken at the spot. He stated that he does not remember whether he made telephonic call to Kailash Sahu on 06.03.2012 and voluntarily stated that he remained with him on that day. He stated that he cannot tell as to why the CDRs show that telephonic call was made by Inspector Kailash Sahu at 12:27 p.m., 1:10 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 53 of 74 -54- and on other occasion on the same day. Therefore he has made improvement in his statement and also contradicted the TLO and other inspector of CBI.
71. There are also inconsistencies in the statement of complainant.
PW-10 A. K. Maurya claimed that on 06.03.2012 on his asking the complainant made telephonic call on the mobile of the accused whereas complainant claimed that he received telephonic call of the accused. Further in his examination-in- chief, PW-10 A. K. Maurya stated that on the instruction of Inspector Kailash Sahu, the complainant Dharamvir telephonically contacted accused Pritam Lal Garg and told him that he had reached Deepali Chowk as fixed by him. Further, PW-10 stated that accused parked his car near the car of the complainant and came outside of his car and then both complainant and accused sat in the car of the accused Pritam Lal Garg, which is completely contrary to the prosecution version that accused sat in the car of the complainant where he accepted the bribe. PW-10 also stated that Inspector Kailash Sahu knocked the window of the car and introduced himself and at that time the accused was counting the money and after the opening of the door, the DVR was taken from the complainant and was switched 'OFF' and hand wash and pant wash of the accused were taken, which was prior to going to the CBI Office. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that the pant wash was taken at the spot, which is contrary to CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 54 of 74 -55- prosecution case that pant wash was taken at CBI office and not at the spot.
72. PW-11 also contradicted other witnesses. PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu stated in his examination-in-chief that they left CBI office at 11:45 a.m. and on the way introductory voice of one independent witness was recorded and after some time, a phone call was received by complainant Sh. Dharamvir on his mobile from accused P. L. Garg, which was recorded and the the complainant informed that accused will meet him in DDA Office near Deepali Chowk, Rohini, which is contrary to what other witnesses have stated. He also stated that after receipt of a missed call from the complainant, he alerted the trap team members and the witnesses and rushed towards the vehicle of the complainant. Accused P.L. Garg, after seeing the number of persons from CBI, threw the bundle of GC Notes on the floor of the vehicle in which he was sitting. PW-11 does not say that the window of the car was knocked and at that time accused was counting the money. PW-11 claims that at the CBI office a trouser was arranged and the accused was asked to change his pant and then wash of the left side pant pocket was also taken.
73. PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu was also cross-examined with respect to mobile phone. He stated that on the day of trap, he was having mobile number no.9650394846 and they reached Rohini at about 12:45 p.m. and till 12:45 p.m. he and CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 55 of 74 -56- complainant were together in the same vehicle. However, as per CDR Ex.PW-3/F, there is a call made from his mobile number to mobile no. 9312268100 at 12:27:41 on 06.03.2012 and he voluntarily stated that on the way to Rohini from CBI office, they stopped in between for taking specimen voice of the witness and this call perhaps was made during that period. He stated that they directed the complainant strongly that he should accompany one of the independent witnesses with him but he refused to do so and convinced them that the accused will not accept bribe money in presence of any stranger.
74. Therefore, as regards the demand on the day of alleged acceptance of bribe i.e. 06.03.2012, there is no evidence except the complainant himself that accused has demanded the bribe and accepted.
75. As regards exhibits and recovery also, there are material inconsistencies between the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses as PW-10 claims that Inspector Kailash Sahu knocked the window and at that time the accused was counting the money whereas other witnesses do not say so and claimed that he was challenged straightway. There are also inconsistencies with respect to pant wash. Independent witnesses have not supported that the recovery was effected from the accused. Complainant is not found trustworthy and reliable and the other independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The other CBI officials, that is, trap CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 56 of 74 -57- laying officer and verifying officer who joined the trap team, are also inconsistent and have contradicted each other. There is also inconsistencies with respect to denomination of the GC notes as both independent witnesses say that GC notes were in the denomination of Rs.500/- each whereas complainant and CBI officials say that it was in the denomination of Rs.1000/- each. Therefore the recovery is also not free from doubt.
76. There are other insufficiencies in the evidence which will be discussed later on which also create doubt in favour of the accused.
CASE PROPERTY - GC NOTES.
77. In this case, case property i.e. GC notes amounting to Rs.1.50 lacs, is not proved in the court as it was claimed by the prosecution that inadvertently they got deposited the same in the bank. PW-13 Sh. Ram Charan Gangwal, who at the relevant time was Mallkhana Incharge, CBI was examined to this effect. He deposed that being Mallkhana Incharge his duties were to deposit the trap money, seized money and any other articles seized during investigation and they shall make necessary entries in the mallkhana register meant for those specific purpose. He proved the first page of the register which is certificate regarding register that it contains pages sl. no.1 to 197 as Ex.PW-12/A and entry at page 62 in respect of deposit of trap money amounting to Rs.1.50 lacs alongwith its denomination for RC-8(A)/2012-DLI on 07.03.2012, which CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 57 of 74 -58- was made by Sh. K. Mamchain, HC, who was his assistant at the relevant time as Ex.PW12/B. He stated that at the time of depositing the said trap money, the denomination of the GC notes were checked and noted down in the Register-1 and the money was kept in mallkhana chest and thereafter they got busy in 2G Scam case and inadvertently they forgot to deposit the said trap money in the bank's locker. Thereafter Sh. K. Mamchain, his assistant, had taken out cash pertaining to the RC Nos.8/12, 15/12, 17/12, 24/12, 27/12, 26/12, 28/12 and 29/12 including the said trap money and deposited by mistake the said trap money in Corporation Bank, CGO Complex, New Delhi in the current account no.0799 of CBI against RC No.26A/12 inadvertently. He also proved the receipt dated 13.09.2012 to this effect as Ex.PW-12/C. In his cross- examination, he admitted that number of GC notes are not legible on Ex.PW-12/B and he voluntarily stated that at that time, original copy had come mentioning the denomination of GC notes and then thereafter he tallied that and thereafter same was entered in the said mallkhana register. He also admitted that as per Ex.PW-12/C an amount of Rs.1,99,500/- was shown to has been deposited against RC No.26A/12 and an amount of Rs.54,560/- was shown to have been deposited in RC No.8/2012. He denied the suggestion that he has given false explanation that amount of Rs.1.50 lacs was deposited against the case bearing RC 26/12.
CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 58 of 74 -59-
78. The trap money in this case was Rs.1.50 lacs whereas entry is shown of Rs.1,99,500/-. What was other amount which was deposited alongwith trap money in question in the bank is not clear as there was no other amount in this RC. There is no separate deposit entry. Therefore, it cannot be believed that inadvertently the same was deposited in the bank and this was same money which was trap money.
79. As regards the deposit of hand washes and pant washes PW-12 Inspector P. Shadang, IO, stated that CDs in the present case were sent to CFSL only on 13.04.2012 from mallkhana in sealed condition. Similarly hand washes and pant washes of the accused was also deposited. He admitted that on 6.8.2013, he had filed compliance report before the court on the direction of the court regarding depositing of exhibits in mallkhana alongwith copy of the mallkhana register pertaining to the present case and proved the compliance report as Ex.PW-12/DX. He stated that before filing this report, he had verified and confirmed that entries contained in mallkhana register are as it were in the malkhana register. He voluntarily stated that he did not verify the same, but it is the photocopy of the mallkhana register. He had perused all the entries before filing the compliance report. He admitted that at encircled portion 'A', it is recorded that 3 sealed bottles and 4 sealed CDs sent to CFSL through Inspector Shadang on 14.03.2012. Similarly, there is separate entry 11.04.2012 wherein at CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 59 of 74 -60- encircled portion 'B' it is mentioned that 3 sealed bottles and 4 sealed CDs sent to CFSL on 11.04.2012 and separate entry dated 17.04.2012 at encircled portion 'C' it is mentioned that 3 sealed bottles and 4 sealed CDs sent through S. R. Reddy to CFSL on 17.04.2012. He could not tell as to why he had taken 3 sealed bottles and 4 sealed CDs to CFSL on 14.03.2012. In reply to court question that his signature appears at point 'A-1' on Ex.PW-12/DX under which is written as 14.03.2012, did he sign this whether to receive or send the exhibits, he stated that the exhibits were supposed to be sent from mallkhana to CFSL on 14.03.2012 but could not be sent on that day and were sent on a later date. He stated that on the later date when the exhibits were actually sent, he did not go personally, but he deputed somebody, whose name and rank he does not remember. The exhibits which were sent to CFSL were not sent before 13.04.2012. With respect to note mentioned at encircled portion marked 'D', he could not comment on the same and stated that the same can be told by malkhana In- charge. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW-12/A is a fabricated documents.
80. Ex.PW-12/DX (Colly.) is the compliance report filed by IO.
The same is with respect to Ex.Q-2, Q-3 and S-1. Same was accompanied with the receipt issued by P. Shadang to the Mallkhana Incharge regarding receipt of the same from Mallkhana. Copy of the Mallkhana Register is also annexed CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 60 of 74 -61- with the same, in which it is mentioned regarding handing over of three sealed bottles RHW, LHW and PHW. On the 'Remark' column it is mention that three sealed bottles and four sealed CDs sent to CFSL on 14.03.2012 and there was cutting in the name. Subsequently on the same page it is again reiterated, however, date is mentioned as 11.04.212 and it is also cut. On the same page, it is also mentioned that three sealed bottles and four sealed CDs sent to CFSL through S. R. Reddy on 17.4.2012. On the note, however, it is mentioned that the he received three sealed bottles and sealed CFSL envelop from CFSL through Inspector P. Shadang on 8.3.2012.
81. Therefore it is not clear as to when sealed bottles were taken from the Mallkhana to the CFSL and endorsement gives three dates, out of them one was cut and two remains. IO could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding the same.
82. Therefore it is doubtful as to when exhibits were sent to CFSL whereas in the compliance report he had given different date of sending exhibits in the CFSL. Therefore it also creates doubt about mallkhana register whether it was maintained properly or not, as it contained contrary statement which show that exhibits were given to Inspector Shadang whereas he has denied that he has taken the same on that day and it was actually sent later by the person whose name and rank stated to be not remembered by IO and there is no endorsement that he did not take the same for the purpose of depositing.
CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 61 of 74 -62- CALL DETAILS RECORD (CDR)
83. PW-3 Sh. Rajeev Sharda from Reliance Communication Ltd.
proved the letter vide which Sh. Sanjeev Lakra, alternate Nodal Officer, furnished details to CBI and Certificate u/s 65- B of India Evidence Act as Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B respectively, having signatures of alternate nodal officer and call details record of 9312268100 Ex.PW-3/C and Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-3/D.
84. The mobile no. 9312268100 belongs to complainant PW-4 Sh.
Dharamvir. As per CDR Ex.PW-3/C, at 9:20 a.m., he has made phone call to mobile no. 96503-94882 (which is of SP D. K. Barik) and location is showing Samaypur. Thereafter calls made from his mobile number to said number at 12:57 p.m. and location is Rohini, and at 6:24 p.m. phone call was made from his mobile phone and location is shown as Harsh Vihar, Pitampura.
85. In cross-examination, after going through the Ex.PW-3/C, PW-3 Nodal Officer stated that on 02.03.2012 mobile phone number 9312268100 never came within the area of Lodhi Colony, CGO Complex, South Delhi and Jungpura Extension, which is the location of CBI Office.
86. PW-9 Sh. Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. in respect of mobile no.9811720785 proved the letter alongwith CDR and CAF as Ex.PW-9/A collectively and seizure memo as Ex.PW-9/B. The Ex.PW-9/A is customer CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 62 of 74 -63- application form (CAF) and it is in the name of accused Pritam Lal Garg, and his photograph is affixed thereon. The CDR, Ex.PW-9/A, shows that call was received on his number from mobile number 9312268100, which is mobile number of the complainant, on 02.03.2016 at 2:27 p.m. and on 06.03.2012 at 10:25 a.m., and 12:51 p.m., which shows that there was conversation between them from the mobile number of the complaint to the mobile number of the accused and from the mobile number of accused to the mobile number of the complainant. Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the contractor talking to the junior engineer is quite normal as his nature of work requires such conversation and relied upon the statement of PW-8 Bhagwan Das Arora who has very categorically stated that accused was junior engineer and as the JE supervises the work, it is not unusual for him to have telephonic conversation with the Contractors of the work. Moreover, call details record when the telephonic call was made from mobile number of the accused to the mobile number of the complainant and from the complainant to the accused, it cannot lead to inference that these were in connection with demand of money.
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
87. In this case, there are four recordings as per the prosecution.
Firstly on 02.03.2012 at the time of verification (Q-1), secondly on 06.03.2012 at about 10:20 a.m. when as per CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 63 of 74 -64- statement of PW-4 that accused P. L. Garg had given him a telephonic call and conversation was recorded in the DVR and transferred to a CD (Q-2), thirdly at 12:30 p.m., time as given by PW-4, on the same day on the way telephonic call was received and alleged demand was made same was also recorded in DVR and transferred to a CD and finally at the time of demanding and accepting the bribe (Q-3) in the car. Three recordings were transferred into three CDs i.e. Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3. Specimen voice of accused was also taken and transferred to a CD i.e. S-1.
88. The CD Q-1/2 is played in the court and after hearing the same witness (PW-4) states that the same initially contains the noise of traffic and thereafter, there is background voice of Hindi song and after hearing further, the witness identifies his voice and of accused and the CD was exhibited as Ex.4/Q1. CD mark Q-2 already exhibited as Ex.P3 was also played and witness (PW-4) also identifies his voice and voice of accused. The CD Mark Q-3 already Ex.P5 was also played and accused also identified his voice and voice of accused. In his cross- examination, PW-4 stated that he cannot tell as to how CD was prepared as he is not technical expert. He stated that on 02.03.2012 the DVR was put in his pocket on ON mode while he was entering in the office of accused. He had not seen the DVR before it was put in his pocket. CD was prepared in CBI office but he does not know as to how the same was prepared CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 64 of 74 -65- as he is not technical person.
89. As regards CD Mark Q-1 as the copy of same was to be supplied to the accused was sent to CFSL for making its copy, however, the CFSL has reported that the CD is showing error and copies of the same cannot be prepared for being provided to the accused. Thereafter my Ld. Predecessor directed CBI on 08.01.2013 to send the CD to CFSL again for getting a second opinion. Head of the department, CFSL, Computer Forensic Division has reported that CD is corrupt and unreadable. Thereafter an application was moved by CBI for permission to prepare copies of CD mark Q-1 by CFSL from the data available in the computer. It was submitted by Ld. Senior PP for CBI that CD was sent earlier to CFSL for voice identification and they had fed the contents of the said CD Mark Q-1 alongwith Q-2 in their computer and they have verbally reported that the data is still available in the computer and therefore it was prayed that CFSL may be allowed to make copies of the CD Mark Q-1 from the data available in their computer. The same was allowed subject to cross-examination of the accused.
90. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he does not remember whether DVR or the recordings was ever played in his presence after 06.03.2012.
91. PW-10 Inspector A. K. Maurya stated that on 02.03.2012, when he was verifying the complaint, he had put the DVR on CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 65 of 74 -66- switch 'on' mode and handed over to the complainant and he had also put the DVR on key hold position to ensure that no one will be able to operate the DVR. After return of the complainant back, he had switched 'OFF' the DVR. And transferred the recordings from DVR to laptop and then to audio CD. The said CD is given Mark Q-1 and proved as Ex.4/Q1. Thereafter on 06.03.2012 telephonic conversation took place between accused and complaint regarding fixing of venue was also recorded and transferred in blank CD and given Mark Q-2 and proved as P3. Thereafter on the instruction of Inspector Kailash Sahu, the complainant telephonically contacted accused Pritam Lal Garg and told him that he had reached Deepali Chowk as fixed by him. The DVR was handed over to complainant in Switch 'On' Mode was put in his shirt pocket. The accused was arrested. The conversation recorded in DVR was transferred in a CD and same was given mark as Q-3, which is proved as Ex.P5. In his cross- examination, PW-10 stated that CD Q-2 was prepared by him and he has not given any certificate under S. 65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding CD Q-2 Ex.P3. However, subsequently Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was submitted by him with respect to CD Mark Q-1 and Q-2 and proved the same as Ex.PW-10/B ans Ex.PW-10/C respectively.
92. PW-11 Inspector Kailash Sahu stated that on 06.03.2012 they CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 66 of 74 -67- left office of CBI and on the way, introductory voice of one witness was recorded in the DVR. After some time, a phone call was received by complainant Sh. Dharamvir on his mobile from accused P. L. Garg and the said conversation was simultaneously recorded in the DVR by putting the mobile phone of the complainant on speaker mode. Thereafter after reaching near Deepali Chowk at about 12:40 hours, introductory voice of other witness was also recorded in the said DVR. The DVR was switched ON and it was kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant who proceeded towards DDA office alone. He stated that during the trap proceedings on 06.3.2012, the conversation recorded in the DVR between complainant and the accused was transferred into a blank CD, sealed and given mark Q-3. He also stated that thereafter he had obtained sample voice of accused Pritam Lal Garg in the said DVR and same was transferred in a new blank CD and was given mark as S-1, which is proved by him as Ex.P7. He also proved Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dated 01.03.2016 as Ex.PW-11/C which was given subsequently with respect to CD Mark Q-3. In his cross- examination, PW-11 admitted that he has not issued the certificate Ex.PW-11/C during the investigation of this case or at the time of filing of the charge-sheet or on or before when the CDs in question were got exhibited before the Hon'ble Court. He gave the same on the asking of the IO of the present CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 67 of 74 -68- case namely DSP Sh. P. Shadang and he prepared the same on his own.
Expert Evidence
93. PW-14 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Retd. Director, CFSL is the expert witness who has examined the CDs. He deposed that on 17.04.2012, the Physical Division, CFSL received four sealed parcels through SP CBI, ACB, New Delhi. These parcels were marked by him Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 and S-1. He stated that Q-1, Q-2 and Q-3 were found to be containing compact discs stated to have questioned voice recordings of accused P. L. Garg and parcel S-1 was also found containing compact disc and stated to have been specimen voice recording of accused P. L. Garg. He stated that he examined questioned voices of Sh. P. L. Garg with respect to his specimen voice by auditory and voice spectographic techniques and he found that questioned voice of Sh. P. L. Garg tallied with the specimen voice in respect of his linguistic, phonetic and other general spectographic parameters and proved his report as Ex.PW-14/A. Further, he also stated that he also examined the genuineness recording of questioned voice by scientific method and found the same might not have been tampered with and proved his report as Ex.PW-14/B.
94. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that recordings done in DVR and transferred to CDs are not reliable and not trustworthy as the requisite Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 68 of 74 -69- Evidence Act, 1872 was given subsequently after conclusion of the evidence and same too does not comply with the requisite conditions and cited case of Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 in support of his arguments.
95. The certificate Ex.PW-11/C was given by PW-11 in respect of CD Q-3 which is dated 01.03.2016. PW-10 Inspector Arjun Singh Maurya gave certificates Ex.PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C in respect of CD Q1 and CD Q2 respectively. As regards CD Mark Q1, it comes on record CD was corrupt and unreadable and copy of the same was only prepared from the contents available with the computer of CFSL and hence the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-10/B, will not be suffice in the present case unless another certificate comes from CFSL regarding availability of the contents and having prepared CD from the said contents.
96. As regards most important evidence, that is, voice of accused Pritam Lal Garg which was allegedly recorded in transferred to CD Mark S-1. The certificate under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is lying on record which is not proved as record would reveal that application was moved by CBI for bringing on record certificate only in respect of CDs marked Q1, Q2 and Q3 and not regarding CD S-1. Therefore matching of the voice of accused with the questioned CDs could not be done/matched, therefore in the same manner the evidence of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 69 of 74 -70- the expert who matches the questioned voice (CDs Q1, Q2 and Q3) with the sample voice of the accused (CD S-1) will not result in ending as specimen voice for want of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could not be proved.
97. Now we are left with only evidence of identification of voice of the accused by the complainant. I am of the considered opinion that merely voice identification by the complainant is a weak type of evidence.
98. Now coming to the statements of verifying officer, and trap laying officer regarding certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. What are conditions to make electronic record admissible ? The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, observed that electronic record is admissible in evidence if it is accompanied by a certificate. To quote :-
...Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 70 of 74 -71- the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
99. In view of the law laid down in respect of electronic records, which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, if the same is accompanied with required Certificate u/s 65-B of India Evidence Act, then same would be treated as document and would be admissible in evidence.
100. I have perused the certificates Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-11/C. The Certificate Ex.PW-11/C reads as under:-
Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act This is to certify that I, Kailash Sahu, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi certify that conversation between complainant Dharamvir and accused Pritam Lal Garg, JE/DDA, Delhi was recorded on 06.03.2012 in in-built memory of Sony make official Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) during the course of trap proceedings in CBI case RC-DAI- 2012-A-0006, CBI, ACB, Delhi. Introductory voice of independent witnesses were also recorded in the said DVR on the said date.
The files related to the recordings in Sony make DVR were created in in-built memory of the DVR in the usual and ordinary course of its functioning and said DVR was functioning properly at the time of its use.
It is further certified that the recorded files in in-built memory of the DVR were transferred in a new blank audio CD with the help of official laptop. The said audio CD had not been tampered with while CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 71 of 74 -72- being handled by me. The CD was marked as Q-3 and sealed by using CBI seal in presence of independent witnesses.
Sd/- 01/03/16 (Kailash Sahu) Inspector of Police CBI/ACB/New Delhi
101. In the similar manner, the certificates Ex.PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C are given. The certificates also do not comply with and meet the requirement/conditions laid down in case of Anvar P. V. (supra) and accordingly they are inadmissible in evidence.
Transcription
102. PW-2 Ms. Manju Sehgal deposed that she was posted as LDC on adhoc basis in CBI and she after hearing the CDs on instruction of Sh. P. Shadang, Inspector, CBI had prepared one rough transcription in her own handwriting and the typist Ms. Lalita, Personal Assistant had typed the said transcription. After comparison with rough transcription, he had signed the transcription in token of its correctness and genuineness. In her cross-examination, she stated that she does not know who had written the words 'G' and 'D' appearing on different papers of the transcription. She stated that she had not written the same. She also stated that she had not written the words 'G' and 'D' in her rough transcription too and these words were not written in her presence on the day when she had signed the same. In his CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 72 of 74 -73- cross-examination, PW-12 IO stated that for the purpose of preparing transcription, besides him and Ms. Manju Sehgal, nobody from the office of CBI was involved. He further stated that no other transcript was prepared in this case prior to the 29.05.2016 whereas the transcript Ex.PW-12/DA was found on record which was identical to Ex.PW-2/A. Therefore, the preparation of transcription and writing made on the transcription subsequently and another transcription found on the record creates serious suspicion in the circumstances regarding preparation of the transcriptions. Therefore, same does not inspire confidence.
CONCLUSION
103. As per discussion above, the complainant is not trustworthy witness. His testimony has also not found corroboration from electronic evidence. The other corroboration from the trap laying officer and verifying officer is also not free from doubt. There are other infirmities and inadequacy in the CBI case as noted above regarding deposit of the exhibits in the mallkhana and in the manner it were sent to CFSL, in the manner the specimen voice has not been proved. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove their case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused from complainant.
104. The evidence of this case would reveal that the present case has been handled by CBI in most casual manner. The important evidence like Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 73 of 74 -74- Evidence Act, 1872 with respect to the electronic evidence were not initially filed and attempt was made to place on record the same at later stage. But despite that they fail to bring the Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which fulfills the legal requirement. As regards the specimen voice sample, the Certificate was annexed with the application without mentioning the same. Similarly in the manner the exhibits were sent for analysis leaves much to desire. Be that as it may.
RESULT
105. Accordingly, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Pritam Lal Garg and he is accordingly acquitted of all the charges. His bail bonds stand cancelled and his surety is discharged. Original documents, if any, be returned to the concerned department from where they were seized. The tainted money already returned to the complainant Sh. Dharamvir. The case property be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal.
106. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 28.09.2016 (GURDEEP SINGH) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)/CBI-05 NEW DELHI/28.09.2016 CC No.: 65/12, RC No.:DAI/2012/A0008 CBI v Pritam Lal Garg Page No. 74 of 74