Delhi District Court
State vs Dev Mangal Singh, on 1 November, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. A. S. YADAV SPECIAL JUDGE : DELHI
C C No. 14/08
State V/s Dev Mangal Singh,
S/o Sh. Pradhuman Singh,
r/o Village Bairiahwa,
P. S. Kotwali, District Basti,
( U. P. ) the then A-I,
National Zoological Park,
New Delhi.
F. I. R No. : 25/97
Under Section : 7/13 Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
ORDER
This case pertains to demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 40,000/- by accused Dev Mangal Singh the then Director of National Zoological Park, N. Delhi. 2 The prosecuting agency has filed the closure report because the sanctioning authority had refused to accord sanction.
3 The relevant facts of the case in brief is that Subhash Sharma , complainant went to Anti Corruption Branch on 23.6.97 and gave a complaint in presence of panch witness M. M. Sharma, Suptd. Directorate of Education to the Raid Officer Insp. 2 Suresh Chand regarding demand of bribe of Rs. 50,000/- by accused Dev Mangal Singh which amount was reduced to Rs. 40,000/- for not revoking the contract of parking at Delhi Zoo awarded to him. As per the complaint the bribe amount was to be delivered at the residence of accused which was within the Zoo complex between 1.00 PM to 2.00 PM. A raiding party went to the house of the accused. However he was not available there and it transpired that he had gone to his office. Thereafter complainant along with the panch witness went to the office of accused. At that time one person was also sitting in the office of the accused and accused asked them to wait . After that person had left complainant told the accused that he had brought whatever he had been asked. Thereafter accused gave a telephone call at his residence. However no body picked up the telephone and thereafter accused sent his driver to his house and told him to ask his son Neeraj to attend the telephone call. Thereafter the driver left and after some time accused again telephone at his residence and the telephone was received by his son Neeraj and accused asked his son Neeraj that some person will come with amount and he asked him to accept the same and to place it in an almirah. Thereafter complainant along with panch witness went to the house of accused where the bribe amount was accepted by Neeraj son of accused in presence of panch witness. The hand wash of Neeraj was taken which turned pink. The bribe amount 3 was recovered from Neeraj. The sanctioning authority declined to accord sanction . My ld. Predecessor vide a detailed order dated 31.10.02 asked the prosecuting agency to put up the statement of Neeraj before the sanctioning authority. The matter was again put up before sanctioning authority and sanctioning authority again declined to accord sanction vide letter dated 1.11.06.
4 It is worthwhile to reproduce para no. 6 of the order dated 31.10.02 of my ld. Predecessor as under:-
In the present case, as noted already, the sanctioning authority on receipt of request of the investigating agency for the sanction held its own enquiry into the matter and then took a decision for not sanctioning the prosecution of the accused in view of the material found during that enquiry which was considered to be favourable to the accused. In my view, the sanctioning authority, whenever it is approached for grant of sanction by the investigating agency cannot initiate another private enquiry into the matter through its own machinery for finding out the veracity of the allegations found out to be true by the investigating agency after full fledged investigation. The sanctioning authority is only required to consider the material placed before it by the investigating agency, whose job only is to conduct the investigation into the crimes reported to it, and then come to some 4 conclusion. Under Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the procedure is provided as when the crimes are to be investigated and by which agency. The Administrative authority under whom an accused works is certainly not authorised to investigate into the crimes and if that is done that would amount to usurping the powers of that State machinery which under the law only is authorised to investigate and conferring upon itself the jurisdiction which the law has not conferred on it.
5 The sanctioning authority vide letter dated 1.11.06 had declined to accord sanction on the following grounds :-
(a) Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is prerogative of the Competent Authority to decide to grant the sanction of prosecution or otherwise. Once on the basis of material available before it, it is decided against grant of sanction, the procedure followed by it cannot be questioned.
(b) The departmental enquiry was conducted by the Additional IGF only to ascertain the factual information on the involvement of Shri D. M. Singh in the matter. The findings arrived at by the departmental enquiry may not be considered as a departmental investigation parallel to the investigation conducted by the ACT, Delhi.
( C) Under the Prevention of Corruption Act the Competent Authority has not been empowered to review its own decision.
(d) The statement of Shri Neeraj Singh, minor son of Shri D. M. Singh recorded on 23.6.07 does not bear the signature of Shri Neeraj Singh. Legally an unsigned statement recorded by the 5 Police cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. It is required to be supported by other evidence.
(e) It is on record that the residential telephone of Shri D. M. Singh was out of order on the relevant date which has been corroborated by the certificate issued by the telephone authorities. In view of this the statement of Shri Neeraj Singh has no legal value.
6 It is true that it is the prerogative of competent authority to decide to grant sanction for prosecution or otherwise on the basis of material available before him. It cannot be over looked that the entire transaction has taken place in presence of an independent witness Mr. M. M. Sharma who was senior govt employee. He was totally independent witness. His statement cannot be brushed aside . Whether the telephone at the residence of accused was out of order or not cannot be looked into in view of the statement of Mr. M. M Sharma. It may be that there was more than one telephone connection in the house of the accused. Assuming for the sake of arguments that there was only one telephone connection,even then that thing has no relevance in view of the statement of Mr. M. M. Sharma. It is also stated that statement of Mr. Neeraj Singh was not bearing h is signature and cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. The law is that statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C of witnesses are not required to be signed. It is the mandate of the law that such statements are not to be signed. Rs. 40,000/- was recovered from the son of the 6 accused. His hand wash gave a positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein powder.
7 When the investigation of the case was under way regarding demand and acceptance of bribe, the department cannot conduct a simultaneous inquiry to collect evidence to come to conclusion that nothing of that sort was happened. Even in the departmental proceedings only those persons can be examined as witness which are cited as witness in the charge sheet. The department has not examined the complainant, the panch witness and the Raid Officer to come to conclusion that the accused had neither demanded or accepted the bribe amount.
8 The prosecution is directed to bring it to the notice of sanctioning authority that statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. are not required to be signed. The statement of the panch witness be sent to the sanctioning authority. The entire transaction has taken place in the presence of independent witness. There is no scope at this stage to disbelieve the statement of independent witness atleast.
In view of above observations, case file be sent back for further necessary action.
Announced in the open court on this 1st day of November,2008 ( A. S. YADAV ) SPECIAL JUDGE DELHI 7