Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Ravinder Kumar on 18 September, 2024
Page No.1 of 101
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH:
SPL. JUDGE, CBI (PC ACT)-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS NEW DELHI.
CC NO. 200/2019
RC No.25(A)/2015/CBI/ACB/Delhi
CNR NO. DLCT11-000830-2019
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
Sh. Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Kuwar Pal Singh
UDC (L&L) Vikas Kutir, I.P. Estate,
DUSIB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
R/o Village-Indergrahi, Main Hapur Road,
Near Ganshyam Farm House,
Ghaziabad, UP ...... ACCUSED
Date of institution : 30.11.2015
Date of reservation : 08.08.2024
Date of decision : 18.09.2024
JUDGMENT:
Brief Facts of the Case:
1. The present RC was registered against the accused Sh.Ravinder Kumar, UDC(L&L), DUSIB, Vikas Kutir, ITO, New Delhi on the basis of CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.2 of 101 complaint of one Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan. In the complaint it was stated that the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar demanded bribe of Rs.40,000/- for clearing the application made by the complainant for getting the Flat No.52-A, DDA Flats, M.S. Road New Delhi, freehold. Subsequent to the complaint, verification was carried out as per the procedure and subsequently, the RC was registered.
Verification proceedings
2. After the complaint dated 21.08.2015 Ex. PW12/A was made by the complainant, the same was marked for verification to Inspector Kuldeep Singh, ACB, CBI. It is stated that for such purpose Sh. Ashwini Kumar, Inspector Food and Supply Department, Circle 20, Third Floor, ISBT Building New Delhi was called at the CBI Office. He was read over and explained the handwritten complaint of the complainant. It is stated that subsequently, the complainant was given a DVR containing a newly company sealed micro-SD Card of SanDisk make after ensuring its blankness and recording of introductory voice of said Sh. Ashwini Kumar, for the purpose of recording the likely conversation between the complainant and the accused (then suspect). It is stated that the verification team reached near Vikas Kutir, ITO where the complainant informed that the accused will not make the demand in presence of any strange person and hence, it was decided to send the complainant alone along with DVR while CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.3 of 101 the witness /Sh. Ashwini Kumar was directed to watch the complainant secretly. It is stated that after coming, the complainant clarified that the office of the accused is of DUSIB. Thereafter the recorded conversation was heard wherein it was clear that the accused was demanding bribe of Rs.40,000/- but after negotiation the deal was settled for Rs. 25,000/-. It is stated that thereafter a copy of the contents of the memory card was taken with the help of official laptop for investigation purposes after taking out from the DVR and sealed as per procedure. The verification memo was prepared and signed by all concerned.
Trap Proceedings
3. The same were carried out on 24/8/2015. The trap team consisted of the complainant, two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Inspt. Food & Supply Department, Circle - 20, IIIrd Floor, ISBT Building, New Delhi, Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma, Assistant, Oriental Insurance, D-
8, Second Floor, Chander Shekhar Azad Marg, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. and CBI Officers including Insp. A.K. Maurya, Insp. Kailash Sahu, Insp. Sanjay Upadhyay and Insp. Kuldeep Singh. It is stated that the complainant used a sum of Rs.25,000/- comprising of nine number of GC Notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each and 32 numbers of GC Notes of Rs.500/- denomination each. The distinctive numbers of those GC Notes were noted on a paper and they were then treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration regarding the purpose and significance of the same was given CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.4 of 101 to all concerned. Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma, independent witness touched the tainted notes and dipped his fingers in the freshly prepared solution, on which the colourless solutions turned pink. After conducing personal search of the complainant by the independent witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar, the tainted bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- was put in his left side front inner pocket and it was ensured by the independent witness that he was not carrying anything except the tainted bribe amount and his personal mobile phone. The complainant was directed to handover the tainted bribe amount to accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar on his specific demand and not otherwise. It is stated that a new memory card after opening its seal was inserted in the DVR which was used on 21/8/2015, in the presence of the independent witness and the introductory voices of both the witnesses were recorded in it. It is stated that independent witness Sh. Gyanender Kumar was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to the complainant to over hear the conversation and see the transaction of the bribe amount which may take place between the complainant and the accused while the other independent witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar was directed to remain with the trap party. After mutual search and carrying the relevant articles in a bag and completing other formalities, the trap team left for the spot at about 12:20 hours and reached at about 12.35 hours at Vikas Kutir, ITO, Delhi. It is stated that the complainant informed that the accused being experienced would not accept the bribe amount in the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.5 of 101 presence of any unknown person and as such, it was decided to send the complainant with the DVR in switched ON mode. It is stated that the complainant went inside the office of the accused at 12:35 hours and entered room no. D-6 at Ground Floor and subsequently was seeing going out of the building toward an ATM and then returned in the said room. It is stated that after about 50-55 minutes on getting signal from the complainant, by way of two phone calls to the trap laying officer Insp. A.K. Maurya, the CBI team along with the independent witness entered in the office room of accused where two persons were found sitting on chairs and in front of the seat of one person, the complainant was sitting on the chair. It is stated that the complainant identified the accused, who received the bribe amount from him. The other person in the room introduced himself as Manmohan Gupta, Asstt. Account Officer, DUSIB, New Delhi. It is stated that subsequently the phenolphthalein test was got conducted on the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar using both his hands and on doing so, the colour less solution turned pink. It is stated that the tainted bribe amount was recovered by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, independent witness from the back side pant pocket of accused (Rs.4,000- in 8 GC notes of Rs.500/-) and the remaining amount of Rs.21,000/- in 9 GC notes of Rs.1,000/- and 24 GC notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from a black-colored bag of 'Suhag Jewellers' from the steel almirah of the accused at his instance. It is stated that the recovered GC notes tailed with the numbers mentioned in handing over memo. The phenolphthalein test was CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.6 of 101 also conducted of the pant pocket wash and hand bag wash of the accused which also showed positive result. It is stated that the DVR was played which confirmed demand and acceptance of bribe amount from the account by the complainant and certain sentences were noted on a separate sheet of paper for the purpose of taking voice sample of the accused. Subsequently, the procedure of collection and sealing of the memory cards, the pant worn by the accused etc were carried out and after observing all codal formalities and signatures of all concerned were taken on the memos prepared. Thereafter seized articles were sent for CFSL examination, their reports were obtained, Call Detail Records along with Consumer Application Forms of mobile phone of the complainant and that of the accused were collected by the IO. transcript of the recorded conversations was prepared, sanction u/s 19 pf the PC Act, 1988 for prosecution of the accused was obtained and the chargesheet was prepared.
Cognizance & Charge:
4. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 30.11.2015.
Cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 17.12.2015, whereupon the accused was summoned for trial for offence punishable under Sec. 7 & 13(2) r/w Sec.13(1) (d) of P.C. Act. Copies of the charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused. Charges were served upon the accused on 24.02.20216 and the matter was fixed for P.E. CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.7 of 101 Prosecution Evidence
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 18 witnesses in all. The deposition of these witnesses has been dealt with in detail at the time of appreciating the factual as well as the legal aspects of the case and while considering the rival contentions raised at bar viz-a-viz their deposition. Nonetheless their role, sum and substance of their deposition has been discussed herein below.
5.1 Official Witnesses:
1) PW1 Sh. Pankaj Asthana, Sanctioning Authority
2) PW5 Sh. Rajeev Kumar Dutta, Head Clerk DUSIB
3) PW6 Ms Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer (Washes)
4) PW9 Sh. Manmohan Gupta, At Office of accused DUSIB
5) PW10 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, Sr. Scientific Officer
6) PW11 Sh. P.K.Raghav, Sanction forwarding authority
7) PW13 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, DUSIB
8) PW15 Sh. Ashok Kumar , DD, DUSIB 5.1(a) PW1 is Sh. Pankaj Asthana, Sanction Authority of accused Sh.
Ravinder Kumar. He deposed that in November, 2015, he was posted as Member Administration in Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, New Delhi and during that period he was removing authority of Upper Division CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.8 of 101 Clerk (UDC), Lease and Liquidation Branch, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board. He proved the Sanction Order dated 23/11/2015 (D-23) as Ex. PW1/A. 5.1(b) PW-5 is Sh. Rajeev Kumar Dutta Head Clerk, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Administration Branch, Vikas Bhawan-II, Civil Line, Delhi. He proved the letter dated 11/09/2015 (D-13, page 1) as Ex. PW-5/A and letter dated 29/05/2014 (D-13, page 2 and 3) as Ex. PW-5/B. 5.1(c) PW6 is Ms. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer-II-cum- Assistant Chemical Examiner, CFSL, New Delhi. She proved the letter dated 15/09/2015 of Dr. Rajinder Singh, the then Director, CFSL regarding collection of report and exhibits as Ex. PW-6/A and her report dated 09/09/2015 as Ex. PW-6/B. She proved the copy of the forwarding letter vide which the said four bottles containing RHW, LHW, H/BAG WASH and PPW as Ex. PW-6/C. She also identified her signatures on glass bottle mark RHW, LHW, PPW and H/BAG WASH already exhibited as Ex. PW-4/Article-1, Ex. PW-4/Article-2, Ex. PW-4/Article-3 and Ex. PW-4/Article-4 respectively. She also identified her signatures on the cloth wrappers which were taken out from envelope which also had the signatures. The said envelope was proved by her as Ex. PW-6/Article-1 and cloth wrappers as Ex. PW-6/Article-2.
5.1(d) PW9 is Sh. Manmohan Gupta, Assistant Accounts Officer, DUSIB. He deposed that on 24/8/2015, he along with accused Sh. Ravinder CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.9 of 101 Kumar and one another person were sitting in D-6, Vikas Kutir, in the office room where he had come during the lunch time for some work. He deposed that one person was sitting across the table of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar, who was sitting on his seat. He further deposed that between 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm, he saw 5-6 persons entering in D-6. He later came to know that these persons were from CBI, who as per him prepared 5/6 pages note, got the same typed from outside and asked him to sign the same, which he did without reading. He proved the letter written by him at the instance of the CBI as Ex. PW9/A. He also proved the recovery memo (D-5) as Ex. PW9/B. 5.1(e) PW10 is Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhury, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-II (Physics), CFSL, New Delhi. He carried out the examination of the recordings sent to him by the CBI in three sealed parcels, which were marked as Q-1, Q-2 and S-1. He proved his report dated 5/11/2015 as Ex. PW10/A. He proved the forwarding letter dated 8/10/2015 vide which the exhibits were received in the laboratory as Ex. PW10/B. He also proved the forwarding letter of CFSL dated 10-11-2015 for collection of exhibits and report as Ex. PW10/C. He proved the various envelopes containing exhibits Q1, Q2 and S1 and different micro-SD Cards bearings his initials and bearing five seal impressions to "C.F.S.L. PHOTO DIVISION CBI A.D. TIWARI S. SO. II N.D." as Ex. PW10/Article-1 to Ex. PW10/Article-12. 5.1(f) PW11 is Sh. P. K. Ragha, Deputy Director, Sports Authority of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. He proved the letter dated CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.10 of 101 23.11.2015 vide which he had forwarded sanction for prosecution order passed by disciplinary authority to CBI as Ex. PW11/A. 5.1(g) PW13 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Assistant Director in the O/o Dy. Director Rehabilitation, Raja Garden, DUSIB Office. He proved the documents i.e mutation application dated 27-5-2015 moved by the complainant Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan for the mutation of flat no.52-A, Mata Sundari Road, New Delhi-110002 along with the documents annexed therewith as Ex. PW13/A (colly.) He deposed that the same was initially marked to him and subsequently he marked the same to the accused/Sh. Ravinder Kumar. He proved the note-sheet regarding the same as Ex. PW13/B. He proved the further marking of the said file to the accused after the same was put back to him as Ex. PW13/C. He proved the note-sheet at page 21/N vide which the accused prepared the demand letter and marked the file to him for onward submissions to Dy. Director (L&L) as Ex. PW13/D and Ex. PW13/E. He proved the survey inspection dated 1-7-2015 mentioned at page 128/C as Ex. PW13/F. He deposed that the same was marked to Sr. Investigator on the same day and the site inspection was submitted on 8-7-2015, which he proved as Ex. PW13/G. He deposed that the case file for invitation, on the basis of inspection was put to him by accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar which he has proved as Ex. PW13/H. He proved the mutation transfer letter as Ex. PW13/I. He deposed that the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.11 of 101 application for freehold at page 146/C of file Ex. PW4/D was moved by the complainant Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan on 22/7/2015.
5.1(h) PW15 is Sh. Ashok Kumar, Dy. Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Delhi. He deposed that at the relevant time, he was posted at DUSIB. He deposed about the procedure that was followed subsequent to the application moved by the complainant for getting mutation of the property bearing no.52A, Mata Sundri Road, Delhi, in his favor. He deposed that the mutation letter Ex. PW13/I was issued by him and was received by the applicant, complainant herein on the same date by hand. He further deposed about the procedure followed after an application for freehold was moved by the complainant. He deposed that the only process was in DUSIB was in execution through designated vendors of DUSIB before getting it registered in Sub-Registrar office. He deposed that the case was pending with Sh. Ravinder Kumar, accused herein, who had to put the case to Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Head Clerk but the file was not sent to Sh. Rajesh Kumar till 24/8/2015 and as such they were not in a position to send the file to the vendor for execution.
5.2 Material Witnesses:
1) PW4 Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma, Independent witness (Trap Laying)
2) PW12 Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan, Complainant
3) PW14 Sh. Ashwini Kumar - Independent Witness (Verification & Trap Laying) CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.12 of 101 5.2(a) PW4 is Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma. He deposed that he was working in the office of United India Insurance Company. On 24/08/2015, he was deputed to attend the CBI Office where he met Insp. Sh. A. K. Maurya, the other CBI Officers, complainant/Mohd. Khan and one Sh.
Ashwani Kumar. He deposed that he was shown the complaint regarding demand of bribe for passing of the documents regarding the house which he read and deposed that in the name, it was mentioned that Rs.40,000/- was demanded but, the complainant was agreed to give Rs.25,000/-. He deposed that the demand was made by one Sh. Ravinder Kumar, who was working at Sudhir Kutir DESUB at ITO. On being shown the complaint (D-2) and its photocopy (D-1), he identified both of them and proved them as Mark PW- 4/A and Mark PW-4/B respectively. He deposed that Mr. Khan had brought Rs.25,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- comprising of 32 genuine currency notes and 9 currency notes of Rs.1000/- each and that their numbers noted down. He deposed that the powder was applied to these currency notes and chemical was poured in water and stated that when the currency notes were touched by him and later on, he dipped his hand into the glass tumbler, the colour of the solution turned pink. He deposed that the currency notes were kept in the left side pant pocket and one recorder was also kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. He also deposed that before that an old chip memory card was taken out from the DVR and new one was inserted after taking the same out from the new pack. He deposed that before CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.13 of 101 putting the recorder in the pocket, his voice and that of another person, namely, Sh. Ashwani was recorded. He deposed that they left to Sudhir Kutir at ITO at DUSIB in the vehicle of CBI at about 12:00 noon and he and said Mr. Ashwani were told that they had to remain with the complainant and he would give money to some official, which they have to observe. He deposed that before leaving the office of CBI, Mr. Khan had made the telephonic call to the person to whom the money was to be given, who had asked to come in half an hour. He proved handing over memo as Ex. PW-4/A and the Annexure-A attached with the said handing over memo as Ex. PW-4/B. He deposed that he followed the complainant whereas the rest of the CBI team scattered outside the office. He deposed that initially the person to whom the money was to be given was not inside the room and he had gone to take lunch. Subsequently, after waiting at the ATM Machine, located outside the building, the complainant again entered the room of the person, who was to take the money. He deposed that the signal was to give a missed call from the mobile phone of the complainant, after money was accepted. He deposed that Mr. Khan gave missed call to the mobile phone of Mr. Maurya and thereafter they all went inside the room. He deposed that some CBI Inspectors hold the hand of the accused, whom he correctly identified in the Court, from his wrist so that he could not touch anything. He deposed about the presence of another person in the room, namely, Sh. Manmohan Singh. He deposed that the complainant told the CBI officials that part of money CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.14 of 101 was kept by the accused in his pocket and remaining in a bag in the almirah. He deposed that Sh. Ashwani took out the money from the pocket of the accused as well as from the bag from the almirah. He deposed that 8 genuine currency notes of Rs.500/- each were taken out from the pocket of the pant of the accused. The same were matched with the list and found to be the same. He deposed that the remaining notes were found in the bag were also tallied with the list and also found to be the same. He deposed that thereafter water was poured in a glass tumbler, chemical was also poured and accused was asked to dip his left and right hand separately. He deposed that the wash of both hands turned into pink. He deposed that the said pink water was poured into empty glass bottle and it was signed by three persons including himself. He identified his signatures on the two glass bottles bearing RHW & LHW and proved the same as Ex. PW-4/Article-1 and Ex. PW-4/Article-2 respectively. He also proved his signatures on the glass bottle containing the pant pocket wash of the accused as Ex. PW-4/Article-3. He also identified the signatures on the glass bottle containing the bag wash as Ex. PW-4/Article-4. He also identified the signatures on big khaki colour envelope containing one pant and proved the same as Ex. PW-4/Article-5 and stated that it was the same company but he did not remember the same. He identified the signatures on the back pocket of the pant which was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/Article-6. He also identified the signatures on small khaki colour envelope wrapped in a plastic cover wherein Rs.4,000/- and CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.15 of 101 Rs.21,000/- respectively were kept as Ex. PW-4/Article-7 and Ex. PW-4/Article-8 respectively. He proved the office search memo as Ex. PW- 4/C vide which the file mentioned therein was seized. The said file was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/D. He also proved the rough sketch of the spot as Ex. PW-4/E. He deposed that a new blank memory card was inserted in the DVR for the purpose of taking voice sample of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. The witness proved the envelope containing DVR used for recording as Ex. PW-4/Article-9 and the said DVR was exhibited as Ex. PW-4/Article-
10. He also identified his signatures on the envelope containing SD Card in its original packing which was already proved as Ex. PW-10/Article-6 and also identified his signatures on the paper packing of SD Card which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-10/Article-8. He also identified his signatures on the envelope containing SD Card, already exhibited as Ex. PW-10/Article-10 and on the paper packing of the SD Card at point 'B' which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-10/Article-12. He identified his signatures on recovery memo dated 24/8/2015 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW-9/B and deposed that at page 3, there was typographical error regarding the amount involved and stated that inadvertently 'Rs.25,000/-' was mentioned as 'Rs.2,50,000/-'. He proved the voice identification-cum- transcription memo (D-18) dated 07/10/2015 as Ex. PW-4/F. The witness identified the voice of the accused and the complainant, his introductory voice and specimen voice of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. He identified his CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.16 of 101 signatures over the black colour hand bag of Suhag Jewellers already Ex. PW12/D and stated that it was the same bag from which Rs. 21,000/- were recovered. He identified the signatures on the arrest-cum-personal search memo and proved the same as Ex. PW4/G. On being played conversation from the SD Card Ex. PW 10/Article 12, he identified the voice of accused. 5.2(b) PW12 is the complainant/Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan. He deposed that after the death of his father, he had applied for freehold of Flat bearing No.52-K, DDA Flat, Mata Sundari Road, New Delhi which was in the name of his father and for this purpose, he met with accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar for which he demanded Rs.40,000/-. He deposed that for the same, he made a complaint dated 21/8/2015 to the CBI which he proved as Ex. PW12/A. He deposed that the verification proceedings were carried out in the presence of independent witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Inspectors Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. A. K. Maurya whereupon the accused reiterated has earlier demand of Rs.40,000/- but at his insistence reduced the same to Rs.25,000/-. He stated that subsequently he was handed over one DVR with a new SD Card inserted therein, which he took to the office of the accused at Room No. D-6 (DUSIB) wherein the conversation with the accused regarding the bribe money was recorded. He deposed that the said conversation was verified in the CBI Office. The witness identified his signatures and initials on the envelopes containing Micro SD Card, its packaging and plastic cover on Ex. PW10/Article-1 to Ex. PW10/Article-4.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.17 of 101
He also proved verification memo dated 21/08/2015 where apart from CBI Officers, independent witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma were also present. He deposed about the treating of the articles with phenolphthalein powder and Inspector Upadhaya given demonstration to all the members present there regarding its use. He deposed about the denominations of the currency notes and that after their numbers were noted down along with other necessary details, he was asked to keep the same in his left side pocket of pant. He deposed that after inserting a new SD card in the DVR, the same was kept in his shirt's pocket. He identified the signatures on the handing over memo Ex. PW4/A. He deposed that when they reached Vikas Kutir, he was instructed by the TLO regarding the pre-decided signal to be given after acceptance of bribe amount by the accused and DVR was put on 'ON' mode in his shirt's pocket. He deposed that when he entered the room and the accused was sitting on his seat and there was one more person doing his work in the same room but again said that at that time, the other person was not present and only the accused was there. He deposed about the conversations between them regarding demand of money. He deposed that on being asked to bring the money, he pretended for going to ATM to bring the money and went outside and returned back in the room of accused where Sh. Manmohan Gupta was sitting but, the accused came after 15-20 minutes. He deposed that the accused demanded money and on handing it over to him, he counted the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.18 of 101 money and kept some money in his pocket and some in his bag, kept in his almirah. He deposed that he gave a missed call to Inspector Sh. A. K. Maurya, he was apprehended by the CBI officers. He deposed that the money was recovered from the pocket of the pant and from the bag he had kept in the almirah. The recordings were played in the Court wherein the witness identified the introductory voice of the independent witness Sh. Ashwani Kumar. He also identified the voices of himself and that of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. The witnesses also identified his signatures on the transcription (D-18) already exhibited as Ex. PW4/F. He deposed that the specimen voice of the accused was taken in his presence as well as in the presence of independent witness. He deposed that the accused was apprehended at that moment he was leaving the room with his file. He deposed about the test conducted after the recovery of money wherein the fingers of accused were dipped in the solution of the glass and the liquid turned pink. He also deposed about the procedure regarding conducting the pocket wash of the trouser of the accused and also that of the hand bag and subsequent sealing of the samples. He identified the signatures on the bottles Ex. PW4/Article 1 to Ex. PW4/Article 4. He also identified the signatures on the sketch / site plan Ex. PW4/E and memo vide which the proceedings at the spot were recorded as Ex. PW9/B. He also identified the signatures on Ex. PW12/C in which a black handbag was there which was correctly identified by the witness. The witness also identified his signatures on the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.19 of 101 said handbag Ex. PW12/B. He also identified the pair of trouser Ex. PW4/Article 6 to be the one of the accused where he had kept Rs.4,000/-, out of the amount recovered and also identified his signatures thereupon. He deposed that after 1-2 minutes, he was again called by the CBI Officers, who had prepared a transcription of the recorded conversations. He deposed that the same was played before him and he tallied the same with the transcription and found it to be corrected. He identified the signatures on voice identification-cum-transcription memo Ex. PW4/F. The witness also correctly identified the accused in the Court.
5.2(c) PW14 is Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Inspector, Food & Supply Department, who was called as an independent witness by the CBI. He deposed that he was introduced to the complainant by the Verifying Officer and was told that one Sh. Ravinder Kumar, accused herein was demanding a bribe of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant for getting the mutation of a flat in his name after the death of his father. He identified the complaint, Ex. PW12/A which was shown to him. He deposed about the steps taken for the verification of the complaint. He deposed that he was asked to remain at a distance from the complainant and follow him from some distance. He deposed that the complainant had talked to the accused, who told him to bring Rs.25,000/- on 24/8/2015. He identified his signatures on the packing containing a 4 GB Sandisk Chip in the envelope Ex. PW10/Article 3. He also identified his signatures on verification memo dated 21/8/2015 Ex.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.20 of 101
PW12/B. On being played, the conversations recorded on the Micro SD Card, he identified his introductory voice and the conversations between the complainant and the accused. He deposed that the seal impression used in D3 i.e. Ex. PW12/B was given to him by the CBI Officers with the instructions to bring the same on 24/8/2015. He deposed about the proceedings conducted on 24/8/2015 that is the date on which the trap proceedings were carried out. He identified the signatures on the handing over memorandum already Ex. PW4/A and also on the Annexure Ex. PW4/B bearing the numbers of general currency notes given by the complainant. He also identified the signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 2 i.e the left-hand wash of the accused. He also identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 1 in which the solution trap turned 'pink' was transferred. He deposed that he took out the money from the pocket of the pant of the accused on directions of CBI Officers and the same were tallied with the numbers written on handing over memo and were found tallying. He also identified his signatures on envelope Ex. PW4/Article 7 in which sum of Rs.4,000/- was kept. He deposed that the remaining amount of Rs.21,000/- was recovered by him from steel almirah of accused and found in a black coloured bag of Suhag Jewellers from the almirah of the accused. He deposed that on being compared the number of these notes tallied with the one mentioned in the annexure part of D4. He also identified his signatures on brown envelope Ex. PW12/C, when opened contained one black colored handbag which the witness identified to be the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.21 of 101 one that he recovered from the almirah of the accused and was containing the bag amount of Rs.21,000/-. He also identified his signatures over it. The witness also identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 4 that is the handbag wash. He also identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 3, Ex. PW4/Article 5 and Ex. PW4/Article 6. He identified his signatures on the file related to allotment of Flat No.52A, Mata Sundri Road, Delhi seized from the table of the accused which was Ex. PW4/D. He also identified his signatures on office search memo dated 24/8/2015 Ex. PW4/C. He also identified his signatures on the rough sketch of the spot prepared by CBI Officers as Ex. PW4/A. He identified his signatures on the envelopes containing Sandisk 4 GB memory card Ex. PW10/Article 8. He deposed that the accused voluntarily gave his sample voice in the presence of all present. The witness identified his signatures on a brown-coloured envelope Ex. PW10/Article 11 containing memory card of Sandisk make and deposed that this was the memory card that was used for recording the voice of accused on 24/8/2015. He identified the DVR that was used for recording the conversations and identified his signatures on the envelopes containing the same which were already Ex. PW4/Article 9 and Ex. PW4/Article 10. He identified his signatures on the recovery memo Ex. PW9/B and also on the arrest-cum- personal search memo Ex. PW4/G. He also identified his signatures on office search memo Ex. PW4/C and voice identification-cum- transcript memo as Ex. PW14/A (colly.). The memory card make SanDisk CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.22 of 101 which was placed in an envelope Ex. PW10/Article 3 and Ex. PW10/Article 4 was played after which the witness deposed that the recorded conversation was played in his presence in the office of CBI for the purpose of preparing the transcript. Subsequently, another yellow colour envelope 'Q2' Ex. PW10/Article 5 containing memory card make SanDisk was opened and the recording on the same was played before the Court which the witness identified his introductory voice and that of the other witness Sh. Gyanender Kumar. The witness also identified the voice of the complainant Waqar Mohd. Khan and the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. The microchip which is the copy of the 'Q2' was exhibited as Ex. PW14/B. 5.3Verification/Trap Laying Proceedings:
1) PW16 Sh. Joseph Krelo, DSP, ACB, CBI
2) PW17 Inspector Kuldeep Singh, Verifying Officer
3) PW18 Inspector A.K. Maurya, AC-1, CBI.
5.3(a) PW16 is Sh. Joseph Krelo, DSP, ACB, CBI, New Delhi. He proved the FIR dated 24/8/2015 as Ex. PW16/A. He deposed that the case was handed over to him on 27/8/2015 for further investigation. He deposed about the steps taken by him during further investigation after the same was marked to him. He proved the letter dated 1/9/2015 vide which he sent four exhibits to CFSL CBI for analysis as Ex. PW16/B. He proved the certificate dated 24/8/2015 issued by Sh. D.K. Barik, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi as Ex.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.23 of 101
PW16/D. The certificate dated 24/8/2015 issued by Sh. D.K. Barik, SP, CBI, ACB, Delhi as Ex. PW16/E. He proved the letter dated 15/9/2015 sent by Director, CFSL, CBI to SP, CBI as Ex. PW16/F. He also proved the letter dated 12/9/2015 vide which Sh. Anish Prasad, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi had authorized Sh. Anil Kumar, Constable CBI to collect reports and exhibits from CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex, New Delhi as Ex. PW16/G. He proved the certificate dated 8-10-2015 given by Sh. Ashish Prasad, SP, CBI, ACB along with letter Ex. PW10/B as Ex. PW16/H. He proved the charge sheet along with list of witnesses, list of documents and list of articles as Ex. PW16/I. 5.3(b) PW17 is Insp. Kuldeep Singh, who was the Verifying Officer. He identified the signatures of Sh. Dilip Kumar Barik, the then SP on the complaint Ex. PW12/A. He deposed about the steps taken by him for verifying the complaint in presence of the independent witness and recording the conversations in the DVR. He identified his signatures on the verification memo Ex. PW12/B. He also identified signatures and endorsement of the then SP Sh. Dilip Kumar Barik on Ex. PW12/B. He identified his handwriting "Q1" on plastic packing in which micro-SD card was kept by him. He also identified his signatures on the plastic packing and also identified his handwriting 'Q1' on paper packing in which micro-SD card along with its packing was kept by him. He also identified his signatures on paper packing. He also identified his handwriting 'Q1' on CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.24 of 101 brown envelope Ex. PW12/Article 1 in which micro-SD card along with plastic bag and paper packing was kept by him. He also identified his signatures on Ex. PW10/Article 3. He deposed that he was also a member of the trap team, the TLO being Insp./Sh. A.K. Maurya. He deposed that on 24/8/2015 he handed over envelope containing micro-SD card (Q1) to TLO Sh. A.K. Maurya. Subsequently, he deposed about the manner in which the trap proceedings were planned and executed. He identified his signatures on handing over memo Ex. PW4/A1. He also identified his signatures on Annexure 'A' of handing over memo Ex. PW4/B. He deposed that all the signatories signed on the handing over memo Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, in his presence. He identified his signatures on each page of the recovery memo Ex. PW9/B. On being specifically asked, the witness deposed that the recovery memo Ex. PW9/B shows that Rs.2,50,000/- have been recovered as bribe amount but he volunteered to say that in fact Rs.4,000/- were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused and Rs.21,000/- were in the hand bag which was recovered from the almirah kept inside the office of the accused and the same is mentioned in the recovery memo. He also identified his signatures on the rough sketch of the spot Ex. PW4/E. 5.3(c) PW18 is Sh. A.K. Maurya, AC-1, CBI, New Delhi, the Trap Laying Officer. He deposed that on 24/8/2015 SP/Sh. D.K. Barik directed him to lay a trap. He deposed that he was provided with the original copy of written complaint dated 21/8/2015, the verification memo and IO copy of CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.25 of 101 FIR. He deposed that the SP constituted the trap team consisting of himself, Insp./Sh. Kailash Sahu, Insp./Sh. Sanjay Upadhyay and Insp./Sh. Kuldeep Singh. He deposed about the manner in which the trap laying team was briefed about the purpose, role assigned to every member and the execution thereof. He identified his signatures on the handing over memo Ex. PW4/A and on both sides of Annexure A of Ex. PW4/B. He identified his signatures on the cloth wrapper written as 'LHW' which was used to seal the cap of the bottle containing left hand wash of the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. Similarly, he identified his signatures on the cloth wrappers written as 'RHW', H/Bag and PPW. He identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 8 and deposed that the envelope containing Rs.21,000/- was signed by him, both independent witnesses and the complainant. He also identified his signatures on Ex. PW4/Article 7 containing Rs.4,000/-. He also identified his signatures on the envelope Ex. PW12/Article D containing black color hand bag. He deposed that he had appended his signatures inside the bag also and it was signed by both independent witnesses and the complainant. He also identified his signatures on the cloth back side pocket of pant Ex. PW4/Article 6. He also identified his signatures on the office search memo Ex. PW4/C and also on the rough sketch of the spot Ex. PW4/E. He also identified his signatures on recovery memo Ex. PW9/B and on the arrest- cum-personal search memo dated 24/8/2015 as Ex. PW4/G. He deposed that the DVR along with cell Ex. PW4/Article 10 was used by him at the time of CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.26 of 101 recording conversations between the accused and the complainant. He identified his signatures on the 4 GB SanDisk memory card in plastic packing and also on its paper packing, both Ex. PW10/Article 7 and Ex. PW10/Article 8 respectively and deposed that it was the same 4 GB memory card which was used for recording the conversations between the complainant and the accused on the day of the trap. He proved his signatures on the 4 GB SanDisk memory card in plastic packings Ex. PW10/Article 12. The witness identified his signatures on the envelope containing mobile phone of Nokia make from the accused, at the time of his arrest. He deposed that he wrote about the details of the case on the said envelope which he proved as Ex. PW18/A. He deposed that he also wrote RC number on back side of the mobile at the time of arrest of the accused and proved mobile phone along with SIM card as Ex. PW18/Article 1. He deposed that it was the same mobile which was seized from the accused during trap proceedings.
5.4 Miscellaneous Witnesses:
1) PW2 Sh. Chandershekhar, Nodal Officer, Airtel
2) PW3 Sh. Pradip Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.
3) PW7 Sh. Vivek Raghav, son of accused
4) PW8 Sh. Kunal Katiyar, friend of PW7/Sh.Vivek Raghav CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.27 of 101 5.4(a) PW2 is Sh. Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi. He proved the letter dated 16/9/2015 as Ex. PW2/A (D-15) vide which he handed over Customer Application Form and Call Details Record of mobile connection No.8800940021 in the name of one Sh. Kunal Katiyar for the period 21/8/2015 to 24/8/2015 along with the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which he proved as Ex.
PW2/B. He proved the CDR of the same as Ex. PW2/C and photocopy of Customer Application Form of said mobile number as Ex. PW2/D. He proved the power of attorney by virtue of which he was authorized to appear on behalf of the company to provide records as Ex. PW2/D1. 5.4(b) PW3 is Sh. Pradip Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd., Delhi Circle, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, Delhi. He proved the letter dated 25/09/2015 vide which he handed over CDR, CAF along with Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile connection no. 8860786199 as Ex. PW3/A. He proved the CDR and details of the subscriber of the aforesaid mobile number as Ex. PW3/B (colly.), the Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW3/C and photocopy of CAF of the said mobile number issued in the name of Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan along with relevant documents Ex. PW3/D (Colly). 5.4(c) PW7 is Sh. Vivek Raghav, son of the accused. He deposed that mobile no.8800940021 was registered in the name of his friend, namely, Sh. Kunal Katiyal. He deposed that the said number was given by him to his CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.28 of 101 father that is the accused herein and on 24/8/2015, the said mobile phone was being used by his father/accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar Raghav. He identified the photograph of his friend Sh. Kunal Katiyal on customer application form and on the passbook of Punjab National Bank already exhibited as Ex. PW2/D. 5.4(d) PW8 is Sh. Kunal Katiyar. He deposed that the mobile post- paid connection number 8800940021 is in his name and he had purchased the said mobile connection in the year 2010/2011 and after that he had given to Sh. Vivek Raghav, S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar/accused herein. He deposed that he was not in contact with Sh. Vivek Raghav for long.
P.E. was closed vide order dated 02.03.2020 and the matter was listed for recording of statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. of the accused.
Statement of Accused
6. In his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied most of the allegations and gave answers such as 'Matter of record', 'I do not know' and 'Wrong and denied'. On being asked as to why the case was made against him, he stated that the complainant had his vested interest/enmity with him and with revengeful motive, he acted in a pre-planned manner to falsely implicate him in the present case. He stated that the complainant acted on his self-designed surmises that he was delaying his work whereas as per him, he had proceeded with the file as per required time and date without any delay.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.29 of 101
Defense evidence
7. Thereafter, the accused was given opportunity to lead defence evidence, as he had chosen to lead as per his statement under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. His application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning defence witness was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2022. One Sh. Prahas, retired LDC, L&L, Department of, Vikas Kutir, ITO, New Delhi was present on subsequent date, but was not examined by the accused that day. Subsequently, on 26.03.2022, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused stated before the Court that he does not want to lead D.E. and as such, D.E. was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Arguments on behalf of CBI
8. Written submissions were filed by Ms. Bindu Ld.PP/CBI. She led the arguments along with Sh. Surendra Kumar Singh, Ld.P.P/CBI and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that the sanction for prosecution was proved by Sh. Pankaj Asthana, and Sh. P.K. Raghav who were examined as PW1 & PW11 respectively. She further argued that PW2, PW3, PW7 and PW8 proved the mobile numbers that were used by the accused and the complainant and the exchange of calls between them during that period. It was further argued that the initial demand/acceptance was proved by PW4 Sh., PW12/complainant Waqar Mohd. Khan, PW-16, PW17 and PW18. It was further argued that the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.30 of 101 demand and acceptance of bribe at the spot and recovery of the same from the accused has been proved by the testimonies of PW4, PW12, PW14, PW16, PW17 & PW18. While relying upon the following judgments, it was prayed that the accused be convicted for the charges against him.
1) M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of AP Supreme Court 2001 CRI.L.J.515 2) Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 AIR SCW 4018 3) Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnatka 2012 (8) SCC 527 4) Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 5) State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48, Supreme Court 6) Bhogni Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 759 7) Faquira Vs. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 915 8) State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh AIR 2003 SC 3609 9) State of Haryana Vs. Tek Singh 1999 SC 10) Neeraj Dutta Vs. State Govt. NCT of Delhi 2022 11) Heema Vs. State of UP 2023 12) B. Hanumantha Rao Vs. State of Andrapradesh AIR 1992 SC 1201 13) Iqbal Masa Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2011 SCC (Cri.) 654 14) Gurubachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh 1990 SCC (Cri) 151 15) Mangal Lal Vs. State of Punjab 2001 CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.31 of 101 Arguments by Ld. Defence Counsel:
9. Written submissions were filed by Sh. Inderjit Singh Kapur, Ld. Defence Counsel who argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and there are several loop holes that have left unplugged after the prosecution evidence was over. It was argued that there was no need of leading any defence evidence since the prosecution witnesses have not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused and that it is well settled that benefit of doubt always goes to the accused. It was argued that the testimony of the complainant cannot be believed upon who has contradicted himself on several counts. It was argued that it was deposed by the complainant that he met the accused for the first time for getting his property freehold but he met him even for the purpose of mutation of the said property for somewhere in May/June, 2014. It was submitted that the complainant was in a hurry to get the said property transferred in his name so that he could transfer it to the buyer and as such, started creating disturbance of the official work of the accused and even complained against him to his seniors and that the present complaint was filed to teach the accused a lesson. It was argued that it is evident from the testimony of PW-13/Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Head Clerk, DUSIB that the complainant made the complaint against the accused alleging delay in the mutation of the flat in question, however, perusing the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.32 of 101 concerned file, no such delay was found. It was argued that even PW15/Sh. Ashok Kumar, Dy. Director, DUSIB deposed that a normal period of conversion of property from lease hold to free hold is 60 to 90 days and on perusal of the file, he admitted that there was no delay caused by the accused in processing the file and that even he admitted that there was a complaint against the accused to his senior officer regarding undue delay. It was argued that there is nothing on record to show that the accused ever demanded Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. It was argued that such allegation does not find corroboration from any evidence, be it the transcript or otherwise. It was argued that from the letter Ex. PW13/M and transcript of conversation dated 21.08.2015, it is established that the allegations of demand of Rs. 40,000/- by the accused on 20.08.2015 are false and concocted. It was further argued that the complainant in his cross examination dated 18.11.2017 had stated that, "No Lain Den" had taken place before giving the complaint to CBI. It was argued that the complainant also deposed wrongly in context of call made by him to the accused from his mobile from the office of CBI and the accused demanding Rs. 40,000/- from him for freehold and reducing it to Rs. 25,000/-. It was argued that falsity of the complainant regarding claim that the file was not being processed by accused on account of non-payment of demanded money is evident from the fact that the order from the SDM was produced by him on 20.08.2015 and on the very next date i.e. on 21.08.2015, he made the complaint. It was argued that there is no CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.33 of 101 independent witness to prove demand of bribe by the accused since the independent witness did not accompany the complainant to the office of the accused and neither witnessed the transaction of the bribe amount or hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant. It was also argued that the tape-recorded conversation dated 21.08.2015 and 24.08.2015 are false and fabricated by the complainant. It was argued that the tape- recorded version can only be used as corroborative evidence and no more. It was argued that the complainant is also accused of fabricating various versions regarding presence of the accused in his office on 24.08.2015, his non giving of the tainted bribe money to him and going to ATM despite there being no direction, presence of helmet with hi m etc. It was further argued that in view of the testimony of PW9 Sh. Manmohan Gupta, the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused could not stand established and that the CBI has fabricated the version about the recovery of bribe amount from back side pant pocket and black hand bag of the accused. It was further argued that the specimen voice recording of the accused was nothing but a farce. It was argued that certain sentences were not even spoken by the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar on 24.08.2015 but were part of conversation dated 21.08.2015 and still he was made to speak those sentences which shows that the CBI did not record the specimen voice of the accused on 24.08.2015 and was recorded when either transcript or memory card of conversation dated 21.08.2015 was available with the CBI. It was CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.34 of 101 further argued that the timing shown in the handing over memo Ex. PW4/A, recovery memo Ex. PW9/B and verification memo Ex. PW12/B do not match with the timings of the transcriptions. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel that the version of CBI that on 24.09.2015 and 07.10.2015, copies of transcript of conversations between the accused and the complainant dated 21.08.2015 and 24.08.2015 were prepared is false. It was argued that Sh. Anil Kumar, Constable CBI was authorized only to collect reports of handwash etc. and there is no evidence to prove that the five sets of copies of DVD were ever collected. It was further argued that the expert opinion of sample voice of accused/Sh. Ravinder Kumar with questioned voice was not asked for from the Director, CFSL vide letter dated 01.09.2015 and was obtained after preparation and handing over of transcript to CFSL mentioning the name of the accused against his alleged voice vide letter dated 07.10.2015 and thereafter the expert's opinion was obtained. It was further argued that the opinion of Director CFSL was not authentic and also that the DVR was not examined by the CFSL. It was argued that the sanction for prosecution has been accorded without due application of mind by the Sanction Authority. While relying upon the following judgments, it was prayed that the accused be acquitted from all the charges.
1) Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC21 2) P. Satyanarayan Murthy vs District Inspector of police State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (2015) 10 SCC 152 CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.35 of 101 3) Ashish Kumar Dubey vs State 4) Nilesh Dinker Paradkar vs State of Maharashtra (2011) SCC 143 5) Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611 (para 30) 6) Laddi vs. State of Haryana, CRR Nos. 398, 399 & 400 of 2013 7) Joginder Singh Malik vs. CBI, CRL.A.1302/2010 8) CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) 14 SCC 295 9) Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0676/2010 Analysis of Evidences and Findings
10. Foremost assault of the defence is upon the Sanction Order Ex. PW-1/A. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel is that the sanction order was passed without application of mind as complete set documents were not supplied to the sanctioning authority by the prosecuting agency which is evident from the fact that in the complaint it is not alleged that the bribe amount of Rs. 40,000/- was reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. Further that un- less the sanctioning authority was provided all the material facts of the case, the sanction given by him is bad in law.
11. Before proceeding to advert upon the submissions advanced, it is pertinent to make mention of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under:
19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. --
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.36 of 101
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction, --
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to re- move him from his office.
(d) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), --
(e) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(f) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the au- thority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
(g) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.
(2) In d e t e r m i n i n g u n d e r s u b -section ( 3) w h e t h e r t h e absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.37 of 101 any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, --
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any re- quirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.
12. The importance of this provision and the obligation of the sanctioning authority was stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'R.S. Nayak Vs A.R Antulay AIR 1984 SC 684' wherein it has been held that:
"In catena of decisions it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. A grant of sanction is not an idle formality, but a solemn and sacrosanct act which removes the umbrella of protection of government servants against frivolous prosecution and the aforesaid requirement must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against a public servant."
13. The legal position regarding the importance of sanction U/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is much too clear to admit equivoca- tion. The object and character of this provision is evidently emanating from the non- obstante clause used in this section by the legislature which says 'No court shall take cognizance of such offence, except with CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.38 of 101 the previous sanction'. The use of words 'No' and 'shall' make it abun- dantly clear that the bar on the exercise of power of the court to take cog- nizance of an offence is absolute. As per Black's Law Dictionary, the word 'cognizance' means jurisdiction or the exercise of jurisdiction. In common parlance, it means 'taking notice of'. In view thereof, in absence of a valid sanction, the court is precluded from even taking notice of the offence or exercising its justification, with respect to a public servant.
14. In the present case, no aspersions have been cast about the competency of the sanctioning authority to grant sanction for prosecu- tion of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. Sh. Pankaj Asthana, member Ad- ministration, DUSIB, Punarvas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi, who was examined as PW-1 deposed that after going through the documents and relevant records of CBI and thereafter applying his mind, he gave sanc- tion for prosecution of the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar. In his cross-ex- amination, he deposed that he need not obtain any approval of other au- thority to grant the sanction as he was competent to grant sanction. Noth- ing has been brought on record by the Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh. Pankaj Asthana was not competent to award the sanction or that if not him then who was. He proved the sanction order as Ex. PW1/A. He de- posed that format of sanction order was provided by the CBI for the pur- pose of guidance. He denied the suggestion that he did not peruse any CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.39 of 101 document and signed the already made draft sanction against the ac- cused. In the opinion of this court there is no illegality if a draft sanction order is given by CBI to the concerned competent authority since it is not that request for grant of sanction comes to such authority on a regu- lar basis but may be once in a while and in order to accord or deny such sanction, a particular format in which the same has to be given or denied, so that necessary details/particulars are not missed, may be required. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hari Shankar Sharma v. CBI, (2014) 4 HCC (Del) 577 o b s e r v e d a s u n d e r :
"17. Also, merely because the order granting sanction repeats the text of the draft sanction order cannot, ipso facto, mean that it is vitiated by non-application of mind. In Indu Bhusan Chatterjee v. State of W.B. [AIR 1958 SC 1482] , the Supreme Court held that if the competent authority, after perusing the material, signed a draft sanction order, it could not be said to be suffering from non- application of mind. Further, in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222: AIR 1991 SC 1260], the Supreme Court held that the order of sanction need not contain the detailed reasons in support thereof. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the submission of Mr Chopra that the sanction order stood vitiated on account of non-application of mind by PW 1 to the relevant materials."
The sanctioning authority is not required to weigh each and every evidence placed before it by the CBI and to ascertain its veracity.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.40 of 101
It has only to form a prima facie opinion from the material placed before it by the prosecuting agency whether the umbrella of protection other- wise available to the public servant is to be lifted or not. The judgment of CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) relied by Ld. Defence Coun- sel is not appliable here since the accused failed to established that he has suffered any disability or detriment in protections available to him. He failed to bring on record any document which as per him, was not put before the Sanctioning Authority, which if put before him, would have made him deny the sanction.
15. From the testimony Sh.Pankaj Asthana , it is abundantly proved that the sanction order Ex.PW-1/A was passed after due application of mind and consideration of all the relevant documents. Thus, this court re- frains itself from adopting a hyper technical approach and holds that the sanction order Ex. PW-1/A is valid and admissible.
Authenticity of the Recorded Conversations and Transcripts
16. As per the verification memo Ex. PW12/B (D-3), the com- plainant Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan, for the purpose of recording the likely conversation between him and the accused (then suspect) was given a DVR of Sony Make having a new company sealed micro-SD card of 4 GB make SanDisk after ensuring its blankness and recording of introduc- tory voice of the witness/Sh. Ashwani Kumar. The conversations were CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.41 of 101 recorded and subsequently after reaching back in the CBI Office, the memory card was taken out from the DVR and sealed after keeping the same in an envelope which was marked as Q-1. It was argued by Ld. De- fence Counsel that the following sentences which were allegedly noted down on paper for the purpose of taking voice sample from transcript dated 24.08.2015, were not spoken by the accused on 24.08.2015 but are part of conversation dated 21.08.2015 between the accused and the com- plainant.
"Kuchh Nahi sab ye lagta hai, kitna lete hai freehold ke, abhi tujhko pata pad jayigi, juban ka mol hota hai, teeno step pe 15-15-15, dekhiye yahan hame sabko dena padta hai"
17. It is worth noting that as per the verification memo Ex. PW12/B, a copy of the contents of the memory card (after verification proceedings) was made before removing it from the DVR with the help of official laptop for investigation purpose. It shows that the recording of conversations between the accused and the complainant of 21.08.2015, was available with the CBI and as such the sentences that were exchanged between them were part of the voice sample of the accused taken on 24.08.2015 after the trap proceedings were over. This otherwise was also required to get compared the voice of the accused with his voice recording CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.42 of 101 during verification proceedings. There was no other mechanism to match the voice of the accused recorded on 24.08.2015 to that recorded on 21.08.2015 if the same was unavailable.
18. This negates the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel that the speci- men voice recording of the accused is nothing but farce who had argued that since the sentences exchanged between the accused and the com- plainant were available on 24.08.2015, it reflects that the memory card of the verification proceedings which as per CBI was sealed on 21.08.2015 was actually not and as such its contents have been tampered with.
19. The arguments on Ld. Defence Counsel that the expert opin- ion of sample voice of the accused with questioned voice was not asked for vide letter dated 01.09.2015 and was obtained after preparation and handing over of transcript to CFSL mentioning the name of accused against the alleged voice vide letter dated 07.10.2015 is not tenable. As per document Ex. PW16/D i.e. letter written by Sh. D. K. Barik, SP/CBI to Director CFSL, four exhibits i.e. memory cards marked 'Q-1', 'Q-2' and 'S-1' and DVR used for recording the same were sent for their exami- nation. However, the request was only regarding the preparation of copies of each memory card and not regarding tallying of the specimen voices with the questioned voices. It is to be seen that the earlier request of mak-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.43 of 101
ing copies of the memory cards was executed by the Photo Division of the CFSL and the memory cards that were again sent for the purpose of ana- lyzing the specimen voice with the questioned voice were sealed with the seal of 'Photo Division CFSL', thereby negating all the concerns of them being manipulated. The reasons for not asking for voice analysis along with getting the copy of the memory cards should have been put to the I.O. and it is found that no such questioning of the IO was done on this as- pect. However, from the corresponding letters it has been duly established that the sanctity of the authenticity of the memory cards remained intact during all the processes. More over the contention of Ld. Defence Coun- sel that the report Ex. PW10/A has been given after the transcription had been prepared after mentioning the name of the accused against his al- leged voice and as such cannot be relied upon , has no takers. The letter Ex. PW10/B itself reflects that the specimen voice of accused is contained in the memory card at sl. NO.3 marked as 'S-1' and has to be compared with the questioned voice of accused contained in memory card at sl. No.1 and 2 marked 'Q-1' and 'Q-2' respectively. What has been compared and analyzed by the Sr. Scientific Officer are the particular words found in memory card marked as 'S-1' with those found in marked as 'Q-1' and 'Q-2' and not the complete sentences. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the copy of transcript was provided to the expert, even then it cannot be attributed that the expert did not follow the process of CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.44 of 101 analysis which is self-detailed in the report itself. It is worth noting that the testimony of Dr. Subrat Kumar Chaudhary who prepared the report Ex. PW10/A could not be shaken in his cross-examination. It is also to be observed that in his cross-examination he categorically deposed as under
"It is not possible that the SD card sent to me, was edited or abridged version. I have examined the SD card whether the same was stopped or paused during the recording and again restarted but no such activity was detected in the recording."
He had denied the suggestion that his report was based only on the tran- script provided to him by the CBI. If the said report was doubted by the accused, the same could have been reverified from any other authorized lab but the same was not got done.
20. Both the independent witness identified the voices of the con- cerned persons when the recordings were played in the Court. NO cross- questioning qua the authenticity of the recordings was done by Ld. De- fence Counsel from any of them. Even the complainant who also identi- fied the voices in the recordings played in the Court during his testimony was not subjected to cross-examination regarding their authenticity except putting few questions to him, that too only when he volunteered to say, "Nipta Dunga, Kal Hoga" is a voice of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.45 of 101
Only Inspector Joseph Krelo, the IO was given a formal suggestion that the voice in the recordings is not that of the accused, to which he denied.
21. While relying upon Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State 2014 (IV) AD Delhi 473, L d . Defence counsel that the recording device i.e. DVR was not sent to CFSL so as to have an opinion whether tampering was possible in the questioned recording with the help of the DVR or not. At the outset the said case law is based upon distinct facts altogether. In the said case though, the recording was done in a micro cassette, how- ever, the cassette which was sent to CFSL for examination & opinion was a different one i.e regular cassette and the prosecution failed to explain as to when the contents of the micro cassette were transferred to a larger/reg- ular cassette.
22. As against that in the case at hand the memory cards in which the recording was done i.e. Q1 and Q2 were itself sent for examination & expert opinion. It has already been discussed above that they along with the DVR were immediately sealed and seized after the recordings b y t h e T L O ( T r a p L a y i n g O f f i c e r ) in the presence of all present vide Recovery Memo Ex. PW-9/B which bears his signatures along with that of the independent witnesses and there is no question of any tampering of the same. Infact just after entering the office room of the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.46 of 101 accused, the same was taken from the complainant and handed over to the independent witness/Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma for its safe custody. It was sufficient enough to safeguard and ensure the authenticity of the recorded conversation/memory cards. Once the memory cards were duly sealed no question arises of any tampering in the same. What was impor- tant was the sanctity of the memory cards, which were duly sealed and nothing could have been recorded in them thereafter. The use of the DVR was only for recording the conversation. The conversation was to be recorded in the memory cards. The DVR was merely a via media for recording the conversation. PW-6/Dr.Subrat Kumar Choudhury in his cross examination deposed that the recording in the present case was done by DVR only as the meta deta was available in the audio file. In fact, vide forwarding letter Ex. PW10/B the opinion was also sought whether any of the memory cards/conversation has been tampered with or not and while answering the said query no. 2, PW10 in his report Ex. PW10/A answered as follows: -
"Critical auditory examination, waveform, and spectrographic examination of the relevant audio recordings are continuous and no form of tampering detected in the audio recordings contained in exhibit 'Q-1' , 'Q-2'&' S-1'."
23. Defence has tried to pick and choose even the minutest of the discrepancies to support its case forgetting that the case was handled by human beings who are bound to act like this in natural course of events.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.47 of 101
This kind of perfection as expected would have been possible only when investigation was carried out by machines having a set software which even otherwise are liable to get corrupted sometimes. Thus, a Hyper Technical approach should not be adopted while relying upon the report of an expert and such a report definitely has a corroborative value more so in the light of the fact that the voices have been duly identified by the wit- nesses and the same have been exhibited in the form of transcripts. With regard to DVR, it is an admitted fact that the DVR was produced in the court in the sealed envelope and was identified by the concerned wit- nesses.
24. In 'Anvar PV Vs P.K. Basheer & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473', Hon'ble Apex, Court has drawn clear distinction between the situation when the device used for recording is directly produced in the court as primary evidence and a situation when the incriminating material is recorded using other instruments which are fed in computer from which CDs are prepared and produced in evidence before the court. The relevant paragraph is:
"24. The situation would have been different had the appel- lant adduced primary evidence, by making available in evi- dence, the CDs used for announcement and songs. Had those CDs used for objectionable songs or announcement been duly got seized through the police or election commis-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.48 of 101
sion and had the same been used as primary evidence, the High Court would have played the same in court to see whether the allegations were true. That is not the situation in this case. The speeches, songs and announcements were recorded using other instruments and by feeding them into a computer, CDs were made therefrom which were produced in court, without due certification. Those CDs cannot be ad- mitted in evidence since the mandatory requirement of Sec- tion 65 B of Indian Evidence Act are not satisfied. It is clar- ified that notwithstanding what we have stated herein in preceding paragraphs on the secondary evidence of elec- tronic record with reference to Sections 59, 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence U/s 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence without compliance with the condi- tions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act."
25. Lastly, just because no witness has been examined to depose as to how the five sets of DVDs that were prepared of Ex. Q-1, Q-2 and S-1 were collected from the office of CFSL, it does not wash away the efficacy for the proceedings qua them regarding preparation of tran- scripts. The entire process by which the exhibits were sealed at the spot with the CBI seal and later sent to CFSL who after examining the ex- hibits, resealed them with the CFSL seal has been duly explained and noted down in the letters by which the case property / exhibits were sent CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.49 of 101 for examination to CFSL and thereafter collected by the CBI officials. Since, the seal at all these interceptions have been found to be intact dur- ing deposition of the witnesses in the court, there was no separate re- quirement of examination of the witnesses who took the exhibits to CFSL or collected those exhibits from there.
26. The 'clock' of a DVR is not synchronized with that of other digital watches or that of mobile which are updated through a network and operates independently, so there can be a variation of few minutes here and there. But that in way even points towards any tampering with the recordings.
27. Thus, the court finds that the authenticity of the recordings stands duly proved. I am in consonance with the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel that recordings are only pieces of corroboration. They are not to be considered in isolation but vis-à-vis other evidences like CDR, ocular evidences of the independent witnesses, eye witnesses and the officials witnesses who had heard the conversations and seen the transactions as they unfolded. Weather the said recordings do compli- ment the other evidences shall be considered in the subsequent apprecia- tion of the evidence.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.50 of 101
28. Now coming to the aspect of preparation of the transcripts. Independent witness PW-14/Sh. Ashwani Kumar during his testimony proved the transcripts of S1, Q1 and Q2 as Ex. PW-14/A and stated that the same were prepared after hearing the conversation and it tallied as per the recorded conversation. He deposed that the said proceedings were car- ried out in the presence of the complainant Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan, Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma (another independent witness) and Sh. Joseph Krelo, DSP, CBI. No question regarding the preparation of transcript was put to him by the Ld. Defence Counsel in his cross examination. PW-16/ IO Sh. Joseph Krelo in his cross examination deposed that before prepar- ing the transcript, he heard the recording. In fact, Ld. Defence Counsel in order to take his 'opinion' as to if demand was made before the payment of alleged bribe 'relied' upon the transcript Ex. PW-14/A. Even during ar- guments, issue of authenticity of the transcript was not raised.
However, the same was found to be having negligible varia- tion as qua the speaker of few sentences. But the same were duly identi- fied and corrected by the court when the same were played in the court in presence of the Complainant and Independent witnesses, during their re- spective testimonies. As such, the correct transcript of the conversation has come on record.
29. Before delving into the next limb of the arguments of Ld. CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.51 of 101 Defence Counsel regarding non fulfillment of the essential ingredients of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is essential to recapit- ulate Section 7 in verbatim of P.C Act (before Amendment in 2018) which has been reproduced below :
"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remu- neration in respect of an official act :- Whoever, being, or ex- pecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than le- gal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbear- ing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or dis- favour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Gov- ernment or any State Government or Parliament or the Legis- lature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than [three years] but which may extend to [seven years] and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. - (a) "Expecting to be a public servant". If a per- son not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by de- ceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section. (b) CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.52 of 101 "Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration"
are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organization, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to be- lieve that his influence with the Government has obtained a ti- tle for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section."
30. The essential ingredients of Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988 are:
1) the accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public ser-
vant;
2) he should accept or obtain or agree to accept or attempt to obtain from any person;
3) for himself or for any other person;
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.53 of 101
4) any gratification other than legal remuneration;
5) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour ;
31. Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,-
(b) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary ad- vantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or The essential ingredients of Section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 are:
(iv) That he should have been a public servant.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.54 of 101
(v) That he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his official position as such public servant, and
(vi) That he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advan-
tage for himself or for any other person.
32. In the present case it has nowhere been denied that accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar is a public servant. His place of posting on the day of the trap proceedings as UDC in DUSIB, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has been proved vide Office order dated 29.05.2014, Ex. PW-5/B. Even oth- erwise, no issue qua this aspect was ever raised in the court. Thus, the first ingredient stands proved.
33. In 'B. Jayaraj Vs State of A.P (2014) 13 SCC 55' it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would not bring home the offence U/s 7 of P.C. Act (as amended in 2018). It was further observed that presumption U/s 20 of the Act could not be drawn in respect of an offence U/s 7 of the Act. Such a presumption could have been drawn only if there was a proof of acceptance of illegal gratifica- tion for which proof of demand was a sine qua non.
34. Subsequently, in 'P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs The District Inspector of Police, State of A.P (2015) 10 SCC 152', the Hon'ble Apex Court by placing reliance on B. Jayaraj (supra) observed that mere pos-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.55 of 101
session and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence u/s 7 of the P.C. Act. This is because proof of demand is a sine qua non or an indispensable essential- ity and a mandate for an offence U/s 7 of the act. The proof of accep- tance of illegal gratification could follow only if there was a proof of de- mand. The proof of demand of illegal gratification is therefore the gravemen of the offence under Sections 7 of the Act and in the absence thereof, the charge would thereby fail.
35. Thus, mere acceptance of any amount by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso-facto would not be sufficient to bring home the charges U/s 7 of P.C. Act (as amended in 2018).
36. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarifying the relevant provisions of law U/s 7 of P.C. Act in ' Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Government of GCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC Online SC 1724' held that:
"74. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sec- tions 7 and 13(1) (d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.56 of 101
has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subse-
quent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstan- tial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue namely, the demand and ac- ceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(I) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtain-
ment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratifica- tion emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sec- tion 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (I) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.57 of 101 which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)
(d) and (I) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and accep- tance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discre- tion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presump- tion of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is un- available to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was the purpose of a motive or reward as men- tioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sec- tion 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.58 of 101
Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is a discretionary in nature."
(emphasis supplied)
37. Further, paragraph 76 of the aforesaid judgment provided that:
"76. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration o f this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section (13)(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution."
(emphasis supplied)
38. Demand From the complaint The complaint on the basis of which the present RC was registered after verification is reproduced as under:
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.59 of 101
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.60 of 101
The said complaint which is written by the complainant himself reflects that the accused had demanded bribe of Rs. 40,000/- from him for getting his property freehold. He reiterated the contents thereof in his testimony as PW-12 and his testimony could not be shaken at all.
During Verification Proceedings
39. The same were carried out on 21/08/2015 only. As per the testi- mony of the complainant /PW-12 when he along with independent wit- ness/Sh.Ashwani Kumar along with CBI officers went to the office of the accused at the office of DUSIB, the accused insisted that nothing short of Rs. 25,000/- would suffice. The conversation between the two was recorded in the DVR, the relevant portions of which are reproduced here- inafter:
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.61 of 101
Here the accused instead of directly demanding Rs. 45,000/- is referring the same to be paid in three steps/installments of Rs. 15,000/- each. The accused on request of the complainant, reduced it to Rs. 30,000/- and on complainant stating to him that he had to spent elsewhere also, bragged that such expenses are inevitable and that he has the lowest 'rates' for these works and the complainant can satisfy himself regarding the same, elsewhere also.
The accused on insistence of the complainant for discount stated that the same shall be done only in the last step and further bragged that everyone there has to be paid, some ask for it beforehand and some later and went CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.62 of 101 on to say that he didn't let the work of the complainant stalled anywhere.
On final request, the accused gave a 'concession' of Rs. 5000/- to the ac- cused by stating that the complainant has given him Rs. 15,000/- so far and he need to pay Rs. 25,000/- more. He also held the complainant only re- sponsible for not paying the bribe stagewise which if paid would not have pinched the complainant so much.
Nothing can be clearer than this to form an opinion that the accused was directly asking the complainant to give him Rs. 25,000/- more.
40. At this stage contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that that the complainant did not come up with correct facts in his testimony that he CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.63 of 101 met the accused prior also regarding mutation of his property and the alle- gations of accused demanding Rs. 40,000/- being falsified from the tran- script is taken up.
In his cross-examination, the complainant who was examined as PW12 admitted that he had met the accused at the time when he had filed his application for mutation of his name in the records while deposing in his examination in chief that he met the accused only in respect of free hold of the property. From his cross examination, file (Ex.PW-4/D) relat- ing to the property and the recorded conversation it is clear that the two had met earlier also regarding the mutation of the property as well. The ac- cused has specifically pointed out that in all Rs.45000/- (by referring the same to be paid in three steps of 15 15 15) had to be paid and admitted that out of that Rs.15,000/- had already been paid by the complainant to him. He was also bragging about that for mutation and freehold of the property there are expenses to be met. The complainant had indeed met the accused during the period of getting the property in question mutated in his favor and had paid Rs.15,000/- for getting it done. The complainant may be held accountable for not coming out with the correct facts but what has come in the recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused during the verification proceedings is sufficient to cull out the reasons thereof. He must not have disclosed with the fear that he may also be held liable for giving the bribe for getting his work done.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.64 of 101
In the conversation between the accused and the complainant, the relevant extracts having been mentioned below (not in order of occur- rence but as per relevancy), one 'Shankar Lal' has often been referred. From the conversation it can be inferred that the 'Shanker lal 'being re- ferred in their conversation, time and again must be a person who had in- troduced the accused to the complainant, got the 'settlement' for getting the work done between the two and got money delivered to accused by the complainant for the mutation work.
The above conversation proves that it was said Shankar Lal who had given an estimate of amount that may have to be shelled out by the complainant to get his work done.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.65 of 101
The above conversation shows that said Shankar Lal had quoted the amount of Rs. 15K for mutation and through him only, the complainant gave first step of Rs.15k to the accused. The above conversation reflects that the said Shankar Lal is aware of all such transactions that happen there i.e in the office of DUSIB. Interestingly, during arguments, Ld. Counsel again and again was putting question as to why the prosecution did not enquire from said Shankar Lal and submitted that his non examination by the prosecution has turned fatal for the prosecution but he himself did not cross examine the complainant on the identity of said Shankar Lal. The particulars of said Shankar Lal were available in the documents since he witnessed the same but he was not chosen to be a defense witness to negate all such allegations. His non examination has not been fatal for the prosecution who, for the purpose of present case had to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused only and nothing more , though non examination of said Shankar Lal in defence has raised doubts on the bonafide of the accused only. The reference of said Shankar Lal cannot be inferred anything but that the corruption was rampant there and said Shankar Lal was privy to it. That is the precise reason for his non examination by the defense.
41. But from the conversation, it is evident from the 'code' language used by the accused that in total the demand was Rs.45,000/- which was ultimately reduced to Rs. 40,000/-. The accused admitted to have CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.66 of 101 received Rs. 15,000/- and asked for remaining Rs.25,000/- for the final work. The admission of receipt of Rs. 15,000/- before is also reflected from the following conversation
42. However , the deposition of the complainant that on 21.08.2015 which is Mark A to A in his examination chief dated 22/08/2016 that before going to the office of accused, he made a call to him from his mobile and the accused demanded Rs.40,000/- from the complainant for freehold which during conversation was reduced to Rs.25,000/-, and the same was heard by the independent witnesses as well, is not supported by any other witness or even by his own statement under Sec.161 CrP.C. There is not even any call to this effect as per the CDRs placed and proved on record. However, the complainant stood to gain nothing by saying so who otherwise has been consistent in his testimony. It must not be forgotten that the witness being a human cannot be expected to narrate each and every fact in detail, with precision and in sequence. It has already been observed that the accused and the complainant were meeting regularly since the process of getting the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.67 of 101 property in question mutated in his favor was initiated. There must have been several demands and negotiations between the two. Even he can get confused and mix up things. In the opinion of the Court, the same must have been got confused with the verification proceedings which were recorded in the DVR and later on, heard by the independent witnesses as well. The same is not sufficient to completely wash away the efficacy of his testimony and does not go to the root of the merits of the case.
I am supported by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh' AIR 1999 SC 3544 wherein it was held that:
"The courts should bear in mind that it is only when the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious of view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny".
43. Due to lapse of time and some amount of nervousness, the witness in all probability tends to get confused in the court regarding mi- nor details of the series of incidents which took place in the past due to which these discrepancies are reflected.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.68 of 101
During Trap Proceedings
● On 24/08/2015 i.t the day on which trap proceedings were conducted, the accused made DIRECT demand. The relevant portion of the tran-
script is reproduced below:
On that day, the accused was expecting the complainant and welcomed him. On being asked by the complainant regarding his work, he straight-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.69 of 101
away asked for money for getting the work done. He asked the com- plainant for money and to take his file that was kept with the accused. The accused stated in a blunt manner that without money, nothing moves and gave reference of a case pertaining to year 2013 that perhaps was still pending with him.
Thus 'Demand' of bribe has been proved at all stages.
ACCEPTANCE and RECOVERY
44. As per the deposition of the complainant who has been examined as PW-12, on the demand of the accused for money, he handed over the currency notes that were kept in his pocket and were already treated with phenolphthalein powder who after counting the same and getting satisfied, kept some money in his pocket and some in his bag which was kept in his almirah. The relevant extract of the conversation between the duo, as got recorder in the DVR is reproduced hereunder:
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.70 of 101
Earlier, the accused had told the complainant that the work don't get done without money. The relevant extract of the conversation having been reproduced as under:
It proves that just after receipt of the money, the accused got motivated to get the work of the complaint done and was taking his file along with him which he had flatly refused to handle for want of payment of money. It proves that the transaction of tainted bribe amount took place. Further as has come in the testimony of the complainant, while the accused was leaving the room with the file of the complainant, he (complainant) gave a missed call to TLO/Inspector A.K. Maurya as a signal and by the time, the accused reached the gate of his office room, Inspector A.K. Maurya and independent witness/Sh. Gyanender Kumar came and apprehended the accused. On enquiry by Inspector A. K. Maurya regarding money the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.71 of 101 complainant told him that he had kept some money in his pocket and some money in his bag. The said money was recovered from the pocket of the accused and from the bag kept in the almirah. The complainant did not specify as to how much amount was recovered from the pocket of the accused and from his bag. However, PW4/Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma, independent witness deposed in his testimony that Rs. 4000/- were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused and rest of the amount of Rs. 21000/- was recovered from the bag which was lying in the almirah which was in the back side where accused was sitting. He also deposed about the said bag being black in color and of some "Jeweller" and on being shown the same which was contained in envelope Ex. PW12/C, correctly identified it along with his signatures over it. The numbers of the recovered GC notes tallied with the list prepared beforehand.
45. PW-14 Sh. Ashwini Kumar, another independent witness, deposed that the hands of the accused were dipped in freshly prepared solution of sodium bicarbonate which turned pink in color, thereby signifying that the accused had touched the GC notes which were given to the complainant to be handed over to him on demand and the same were already treated with phenolphthalein powder. Similar results were deposed to be obtained, i.e. the sodium bicarbonate solution turning pink by carrying out hand hag wash and pant pocket wash of the accused.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.72 of 101
The Chemical Examination Report Ex PW-6/B corroborates the same in which it has been concluded that:
"The exhibits RHW, LHW, H/BAG WASH and PPW gave positive tests for the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate"
46. In his cross examination, PW4/Sh.Gyanender Kumar Sharma deposed that no currency was lying on the table and that the tainted money was taken out from the pocket of accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar and at that time he saw those currency notes. It proves that the tainted bribe money after being touched by the accused by both of his hands was kept partly in his pant pocket and remaining in his hand bag.
47. Ld. Defence Counsel has relied upon the testimony of PW9/ Sh. Manmohan Gupta, who was present in the office room of the accused when the incident occurred. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the said 'independent witness' i.e. PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta did not support the prosecution version regarding 'acceptance' that the accused took Rs. 25,000/- and kept Rs. 4000/- in his back side pant pocket and balance Rs. 21000/- in the outer side pocket of the black hand bag and as such had CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.73 of 101 argued that the CBI has fabricated the version about the recovery of bribe from the back side pant pocket and black hand bag of the accused.
48. Now, the testimony of said Sh. Manmohan Gupta needs to be looked into. PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta was working in the same very department where the accused worked and as is evident, he used to sit in the office of the accused as well during his free time and as such the closeness between the two can be imagined. Though not doubting but it is quite possible that said PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta would depose in a manner which may in some manner be of some help to the accused Sh. Ravinder Kumar, whose office he used to share. In his testimony, he has deposed that the CBI had got a letter written from him which he did on their dictation but also deposed that the contents of the said written letter was correct to his knowledge. The said letter was proved by him as Ex. PW9/A. The same is reproduced hereinafter:
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.74 of 101
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.75 of 101
The aforesaid letter was objected to be relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel stating that since the same was written during investigation, it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C.
49. I am not in consonance with the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel on this aspect. The said letter is nothing but a form of explanation from said Sh. Manmohan Gupta regarding his presence in the office room of the accused, where the transaction of bribe amount was carried out and to ascertain if he was also involved in the same. The same can be seen from the fact that the last line of the said letter reads as, "Mera Isme Koi Lena Dena Nahin Hai". As such, the said letter cannot be said to have been written during investigation. In his cross-examination, said Sh. Manmohan Gupta had deposed "I had only heard, 'Gin Liya' and accused Ravinder Kumar said, 'Pachees Hazaaar'. I cannot tell as to who had said, 'Gin Liya'. It was spoken by someone out of those five to six persons."
50. However, in the letter Ex. PW9/A, it has been written by Sh. Manmohan Gupta that the person (complainant) who was sitting with the accused, whom he did not know had given some money to the accused CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.76 of 101 who after counting the same, had confirmed that it was Rs.25,000/-. Further, that thereafter the CBI Inspector caught the accused.
51. It is worth noting that no complaint whatsoever was given by said Sh. Manmohan Gupta that he was made to write the letter Ex. PW9/A under force. In fact, he during his testimony has accepted the contents of the said letter to be true. No suggestion was given to him by Ld. Defence Counsel that any of the contents of the letter Ex. PW9/A were false. In his cross-examination Sh. Manmohan Gupta has deposed that at the time when five to six persons came after one to two minutes of accused coming to his seat, he was busy in his work and did not notice as to what was happening. It is worth noting that the office of the accused is stated to be not more than 10x12 ft. and it is not possible that the said witness would continue doing his work when five to six unknown people have entered the said room and confronting his colleague, accused herein. More so, when the said witness has not even specified as to for what work, he had been there for. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the writing work and 'hand wash' was done in his presence. He nowhere states that the accused Ravinder Kumar at any point of time, was pleading that he is innocent and that he is being falsely implicated. In fact, no such suggestion was given by Ld. Defence Counsel as well. It is hard to believe that in case of false implication, the accused would not even call for help or anyone to be his CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.77 of 101 witness later on when the proceedings were going on in the very office where he had been working for years. Moreover, I find no reasons as to why anyone except the complainant would ask 'Gin Liya' and anyone else except the accused would say, 'Pachees Hazar'. In fact, in his cross- examination PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta categorically deposed that 'Rs. 25,000/-'was spoken by the accused only. There is nothing in the testimony of said Sh. Manmohan Gupta that the tainted bribe amount was planted on the accused by the CBI team. Even in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr,P.C. the accused did not depose about the same. No complaint whatsoever was made by the accused post the incident regarding the planting of the said bribe amount by the CBI, who otherwise had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. The tainted bribe amount was recovered from the back pant pocket of the accused and from his bag as well. Sh. Manmohan Gupta has nowhere deposed if the CBI official had taken the bag from the almirah and planted money inside.
52. Now let us see as to on what aspects the testimony of said Sh. Manmohan Gupta can be safely relied upon. At the time of recovery, the presence of accused on the spot is required to be determined. As per testimony of PW12/Complainant Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan when he first entered the office room of the accused at D-6, he found the accused there and after conversing with him he went to the ATM on the pretext of CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.78 of 101 withdrawing the money and when he came back, he did not find the accused there but one Sh. Manmohan Gupta. He further deposed that the accused came 15-20 minutes later. His testimony has been corroborated by the independent witness namely PW4/Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma and PW14/Sh. Ashwini Kumar who equivocally deposed that they saw complainant going inside the office of the accused, then coming out and going towards the ATM and thereafter again going into the office room of the accused.
53. PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta in his examination in chief deposed that when he had come to D-6, that is office room of the accused, he was sitting on a vacant seat and doing some work and one person was sitting across the table of the accused Sh.Ravinder Kumar who was sitting on a seat. However, in his cross-examination by Ld. PP/CBI, he deposed that when he entered the room one person was sitting opposite to the seat of accused/Ravinder Kumar and at that time accused/Ravinder Kumar was not there, who came after sometime. He reiterated the same in his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel as well. From the aforementioned events, what can be culled out safely and relied upon is that the complainant went to the office room of the accused, some conversation occurred between them, the complainant came out of the office room and went towards the ATM while the accused left for lunch. Thereafter the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.79 of 101 complainant came back to the office room of the accused and found only PW-9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta there and accused came after 15-20 minutes whereafter, the transaction of the bribe amount took place. The testimony of PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta that has come in his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel that five to six persons had entered the office room of the accused did not disclose their identities and had taken away the accused outside the room No. D-6 immediately and came back sooner than half an hour and on their return, they did the writing work and also got the hand wash done, cannot be relied upon. The transcript (Q-2) in File No. Q2-150824_004 in its last line clearly reflects that the trap laying officer introduced himself as Inspector CBI. Thus, the deposition of PW9 that the identity of those persons who had entered in the office room of accused was not disclosed to him, is incorrect. He was made fully aware of the identity of the team members and that is the precise reason that no one in the entire office including himself did not intervene or object to the proceedings that were undertaken subsequently like recovery of money and taking hand wash, bag wash and pant pocket wash of the accused. It is unlikely that PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta and other persons working in that office would do nothing for their colleague (accused herein) if he is taken away by 5-6 strangers and they are not even aware for his whereabouts for half an hour/. There is nothing in the testimony of PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta that the accused was forced to give his hand wash or was even CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.80 of 101 objecting to it. No complaint whatsoever of use of any force or planting of any evidence was made either by PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta or by any other official of department to any agency including the Court.
As per PW9 Sh. Manmohan Gupta, he had written the letter Ex. PW9/A on being dictated by someone but he could not recall the name of that person. Even if it is assumed that he had written the said letter on the instructions of some CBI Officer but in his cross-examination by Ld. PP/CBI he admitted the facts mentioned from point X to X to be correct. The said contents of the letter Ex. PW9/A are reproduced here under:
"Pahle se Ek Aadmi Wahan Baitha Tha, Jisko Mai Nahi Jaanta. Usne Ravinder Ko Kuch Paise Diye."
54. The first sentence has been corroborated by the testimony of PW4/Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma and PW14/Sh. Ashwini Kumar, the independent witnesses as well as that of PW12/complainant. The second part of the admitted portion of the letter is of utmost important. PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta admitted having written in the letter Ex. PW9/A that the person who was sitting there (the complainant) gave some money to the accused. Thereby proving the transaction of money between the accused and the complainant.
55. This witness i.e. PW9/Sh. Manmohan Gupta was not expected to be present on the spot at the relevant time and happened to be a CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.81 of 101 'CHANCE' witness. He could otherwise also be not cited as a prosecution witness or even not examined as such but still the investigating agency chose to cite him as a witness and the prosecution chose to examine him despite knowing well that he being a close colleague of the accused may side with him, at least in some aspects to give him a benefit of doubt. But it is for the Court to see how to separate grains from the chaff. It proves beyond reasonable doubt that the demand as well as acceptance of money was done as illegal gratification for doing an unlawful act by the accused.
56. Section 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 provides as under:
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.-(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.82 of 101
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.
57. Thus, Section 20 of the Act deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. It uses the expression 'shall be presumed' in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) unless the contrary is proved. The said provision deals with a legal pre- sumption which is in the nature of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted gratification as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do any official act, if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing a legal presumption U/s 20 of the Act is that during trial, it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification.
58. In 'State of Madras Vs A. Vaidyanatha Iyer AIR 1958 SC 61' it was observed that presumption U/s 20 of the Act would arise where illegal gratification has been accepted. The legislature has used the words 'shall presume' and not 'may presume' which means the pre- sumption has to be raised as it is a presumption of law and therefore it is obligatory on the court to raise it.
In the present case it has been proved that the accused had demanded as well as accepted illegal gratification from complainant which was subsequently recovered from his back pant pocket and from CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.83 of 101 his bag. It was for the accused to prove the same to the contrary by lead- ing positive evidence than just raising doubts on the veracity of the testi- monies and the procedures flowed. As discussed above, humans cannot narrate the versions exactly, that too after lapse of a considerable time and some variations do creep in. Section 20 mandate cannot be said to be discharged by the accused just by citing his false implication for settling personal scores and by giving evasive answers to questions u/s313 Cr.P.C in the form of 'I do not know' and 'Wrong and denied'. What personal enmity (as stated by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C ) did the complainant developed in the official dealings between the two remains unexplained. Even if it assumed that the complainant had devel- oped such feelings of enmity towards the accused, what enmity did the CBI officers had against the accused still remains unanswered. No such background of the complainant has been brought on record so as to argue that under pressure such action was taken against the accused. Most im- portantly, the independent witnesses had any way no role to play in ei- ther ways, be it towards the CBI or the complainant. The whole world had not conspired against the accused. It was for the accused to account for the tainted money that was recovered from his person which he failed to except by arguing that the same was planted upon him.
Thus, presumption U/s 20 of P.C. Act, 1988 can be raised that the said illegal gratification was received by Ravinder Kumar for CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.84 of 101 dishonestly performing his public duty in favor of complainant Waqar Mohd. Khan.
59. The Court is in consonance with the submissions of Ld. De- fence Counsel that the shadow witness has to accompany the com- plainant and has to see the transaction of the amount and to hear the con- versation but it cannot be possible in all the circumstances and is just a matter of utmost caution. The verification memo Ex. PW12/B mentions that the complainant informed the suspect officer (now accused) will not make demand in presence of a stranger and as such it was decided to send him alone with the DVR. As has come in evidence, the office room of the accused where the incident had taken place was not big and not so crowded that the shadow witness i.e. the independent witness would have gone unnoticed and as such the apprehension of the complainant that the accused would not make a demand in his presence, was justified. It is not that the complainant in between on his own had taken decision to go alone but the same was conveyed to the trap laying officer Inspec- tor A K Maurya before proceeding to the room of the accused. Further, the conduct of the complainant regarding going to ATM on the pretext of withdrawing money and not handing over the money that he was carry- ing, directly to the accused must be to avoid the accused having suspi- cion about the bribe amount and to make him feel at ease that the bribe CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.85 of 101 amount is going to be withdrawn from the ATM at that point of time only. Further, the incident of carrying helmet by the complainant must also be to make the accused look that there is no change in the circum- stances since the complainant earlier used to carry helmet along with him whenever he used to visit the office of the accused . The carrying of the helmet by the complainant from the CBI office might have escaped the vision of the other team members but it can certainly be not said to be amounting to carry an incriminating article.
60. Moreover, defense raised objection with respect to the fact that none of the independent witnesses were eye witness to the said de- mand or recovery and thus the same cannot be relied upon. However, as discussed above ,in every case independent witness since cannot possi- bly be insisted upon to accompany the complainant at every single spot due to fear of suspicion and the mere fact that the independent witnesses completely supported the case of prosecution regarding verification and trap proceedings goes on to prove the admissibility and genuineness of these proceedings. No major discrepancy came out between the testi- mony of all the independent witnesses and other official witnesses.
61. Going to the ATM may not be the part of the initial plan but the same had to be assessed by the complainant keeping in view the situ- ation that may change during conversation. The accused might have got CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.86 of 101 suspicious if the complainant would have handed the bribe amount di- rectly and just to gain his confidence that the currency notes that he would be giving as a bribe, would be the ones that have been withdrawn from ATM, the complainant went to ATM. The purpose was not to with- draw any amount from ATM but just to give the accused an impression of his 'bonafide'.
62. The independent witnesses PW4 /Sh. Gyanender Kumar Sharma and PW14/Sh. Ashwini Kumar had no vested interest in the present case. In his cross examination PW4/Sh. Gyanender Kumar has deposed that he was called in the CBI Office to join investigation as in- dependent witness only in this case though no such question was put to PW14/Sh. Ashwini Kumar but nothing has been brought on record to suggest that he is a stalk witness of the CBI. The Court finds no reason as to why would they side with the prosecution agency and help it in falsely implicating the accused/Sh. Ravinder Kumar. Both of them are serving in the government departments and their presence at the relevant time and date at the relevant spot could have been easily got verified by the defence from their respective departments by calling their attendance records but except giving suggestions that they did not join the proceed- ings; no such witness was summoned to depose to the contrary. No rea- sons for them coming in to the pressure of CBI to depose in against the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.87 of 101 accused has been brought on record. As such, there is no ground to doubt either their presence on the relevant day(s) at CBI/DUSIB Office and witnessing the proceedings or any reasons to believe that they did not act independently but under pressure.
63. The charges framed against the accused have been duly proved. The demand of Rs. 45,000/-, finally reduced to Rs. 25,000/- as the last installment has been duly proved from the recorded conversation on 21/08/2024, as has been discussed above. The complaint Ex.PW-12/A clearly reflects so, which was considered for framing of the charges. The order on charge was never challenged. Further charge framed u/s 13(1)
(d) of the PC Act, 1988 for obtaining pecuniary advantage is not even challenged in the arguments, thereby accepting its correctness. There is no error in framing of the charges. Even otherwise it has not been argued by Defense counsel as to in what manner the defence of the accused got misled or prejudiced that only rested upon the minor inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses and could not shake it at all. Thus, judgment of Main Pal v. State of Haryana (Supra) relied upon by the accused is of no help to him.
Call Detail Records of the Accused and the Complainant
64. PW2/ Sh. Chandershekhar on the basis of customer applica-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.88 of 101
tion form Ex. PW2/D, proved that the mobile connection no.8800940021 was issued in the name of one Sh. Kunal Katiyar and proved the call de- tail records of the said connection for the period from 21.08.2015 to 24.08.2015 along with certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/B. Said Sh. Kunal Katiyar was examined as PW-8 wherein he deposed that the said number was given by him to one Sh.- Vivek Raghav , son of the accused. Said Sh.Vivek Raghav , on being ex- amined as PW-7 had deposed that the said number was used by his fa- ther, accused herein. None of the witnesses i.e PW-7 and PW-8 were cross examined by the defence.
65. PW3/Sh. Pradeep Singh on the basis of customer applica- tion form Ex. PW3/D, proved that the mobile connection no.8860786199 was issued in the name of Sh. Waqar Mohd. Khan, i.e. the complainant and proved the CDR of said connection for the period from 21.08.2015 to 14.08.2015 as Ex. PW3/B. As such, it stands proved that the Mobile Connection no. 8800940021 was used by the accused and Mobile Con- nection No. 8860786199 was used by the complainant at the relevant time. The CDRs reflecting exchange of calls between the two has been duly proved and the same matches with the corresponding chain of events.
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.89 of 101
Motive
66. Now, the contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no motive of the accused to ask for bribe since the process of getting the property into freehold was being carried as per time is taken up.
67. It was being carried as per time since the accused was being paid by the complainant. At every stage he was being made realize that work cannot be got done except paying for it. Even if the work was be- ing done as per schedule, the complainant may not be aware of it and must be kept in fear that it will be done only on payment of bribe. He did not even bother to summon records from his office to show that in all other similar cases the in which the timeline has been followed.
68. From the conversation, whose transcript is reproduced be- low it is clear that the accused while giving reference of a case that was pending since 2013 stated that no one did it. As has come in discussions above, the property in question was mutated and accused had received Rs.15,000/- for it, assuming it to be the first time (against three steps that has been referred by the accused in his conversations). For remaining two steps, Rs. 30,000/- were payable which were reduced to total Rs. 25,000/- .
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.90 of 101
As soon as the accused received the tainted bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/- on the day of trap, he immediately took up the file of the complainant which was lying on his table, in expectation of the bribe amount, for fur- ther action over it. Thus, the work was being done only because the bribe CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.91 of 101 was being paid.
69. In B. Noha vs State of Kerala And Anr AIRONLINE 2006 SC 603 it has been held as under:-
".............When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evi- dence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the partic- ular case."
70. As per testimony of PW15/Sh. Ashok Kumar, the then Deputy Director, DUSIB there was no delay caused by the accused in processing the file of the complainant. However, on the aspect of any complaint being made to any senior officer by the complainant against the accused, he de- posed that the said aspect was brought to his notice only after incident dated 24.08.2015 that some verbal complaint was made by the complainant against the accused. On being questioned by the court as to whom the oral complaint was made, he took the name of Sh. Rajesh Kumar/Head Clerk. As per him, he almost every day holds meetings to review the recovery and disposal of other works in the morning hours. It is not clear as to why said Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Head Clerk would not tell the same to PW-15 regarding complaint of the complainant against the accused for delay in processing CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.92 of 101 his request for freehold. It is not the case of the defence that Sh. Rajesh Kumar was competent or authorized to entertain such complaints. As per him, he called for the file and observed that no undue delay was found. But neither he could recall the date of such complaint nor pointed out if any observation to this effect was made by him on the file. and if he was not then nothing has been brought on record as to whom he referred the com- plaint to and if not, how he addressed it. It is worth noting that the issue of filing oral complaint by the complainant was not deposed by the witness PW-13/Sh. Rajesh Kumar in his examination in chief but only in his cross examination. Suggestions to this effect were given to the complainant in his cross examination and the same were answered in negative. It was just an attempt by the accused to create a line of defence and nothing else. It is not the case that PW-13/Sh. Rajesh Kumar immediately after having knowledge of the incident dated 24/08/2015 informed his seniors that the accused is being falsely implicated and that he was aware of the ill inten- tions of the complainant. Even the accused did not file any complaint re- garding such behavior of the complainant as has been deposed by PW-13/ Sh. Rajesh Kumar in his testimony. In fact, from the conversation between the accused and the complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant was always requesting for getting his work done which the accused was not agreeable unless being paid.
It is also to be noted that not even a single person has been ex-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.93 of 101
amined by the accused in his defence who could be in chorus with the ac- cused of his false implication.
71. Another issue raised by the defence is regarding the letter Ex. PW-13/M. It has been submitted by Ld.Defence Counsel that the prosecu- tion has falsely shown letter Ex. PW-13/M dated 21/08/2015 was delivered by the complainant in the office of the accused on 20/08/2015 i.e a day prior. It must be noted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the let- ter Ex. PW-13/M was delivered in the office of the accused on 20/08/2015 who demanded Rs. 40,000/- from him then and thereafter the complaint dated 21/08/2015 was filed. The IO just placed all the relevant documents on record after the demand and acceptance of the bribe money.
72. PW-13/Sh. Rajesh Kumar in his testimony deposed that appli- cation Ex. PW-13/M was given by the complainant on 20/08/2015. While identifying his own signatures at point 'A' on the said application, he de- posed that the same was marked by him to the accused on 20/08/2015 it- self. He further deposed that the same was marked vide diary number men- tioned at point 'C'. It is to be noticed that below the diary number, date of 21/08/2015 is mentioned. Not a single question was put to this witness in his cross examination as to how the letter dated 21/08/2015 was received by him on 20/08/2015. He was the best person to throw light over the CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.94 of 101 same. Even in the cross examination of the complainant /PW-12, no refer- ence of the document Ex. PW-13/M finds mentioned. By observing the 'flow' of digit '5' (of 21/08/2015) written in the date and in the Flat No. (52-A) mentioned in the application by the complainant, it seems that the date '21/08/2015' found on the top right side of the document Ex. PW- 13/M is written by someone else, perhaps whose initials figures just to the left of it. It is a possibility that PW-13/Sh.Rajesh Kumar while marking the said application Ex. PW-13/M to the accused had inadvertently mentioned the date of a day prior i.e 20/08/2015 since the same should be diarized the same day and not later. However, as observed earlier, only said PW-13 could have explained it but the defence chose not to get it explained. Every circumstance point that the same was written on 21/08/2015 only. From the evidences it can be gathered that the complaint Ex. PW-12/A was filed in the morning of 21/08/2015 and thereafter during the verification pro- ceedings, the application Ex. PW13/M was written, on a safer side so that the accused does not get suspicious and remains of the view that the com- plainant is following the usual process.
73. Defence also tried to bring forth several other minor discrepancies in the testimony of various witnesses relating to verification proceedings or trap proceedings. However, minor discrepancies in evidence which do not go to the root of the matter, specially when evidence is adduced by the wit- nesses after a long time from the date of incident, cannot be considered as CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.95 of 101 material discrepancies. In this regard, it has been held in ' Harijana Thiru- pala Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P Hyderabad, AIR 2002 SC 2821' that :
"The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching to a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyze and access the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of the witnesses.'
74. The Hon'ble Court has further emphasized that if the dis- crepancies in the depositions are minor what is important is the nature of contradiction. Law is well settled that conviction may be based even on the oral testimony of a witness if his testimony inspires confidence. The testimonies of the independent witnesses and the recorded conversations between the accused and the complainant are only for the purpose of cor- roboration.
In Inder Singh & Anr vs The State (Delhi Admn.) 1978 CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.96 of 101 AIR 1091 , it was observed as under :-
"Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is, too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many, guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up ? Because the court asks for manufacture to make truth look true ? No, we must be realistic.
"We are satisfied that the broad features of the case, the general trend of the testimony and the convincing array of facts which are indisputable, converge to the only conclusion that may be reasonably drawn, CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.97 of 101 namely, that the accused are guilty. Theoretical possibilities may not shake up, fancied weaknesses may not defeat, when verdicts are rested on sure foundations. Stray chances of innocence haunting the corridors of the court cannot topple concurrent findings of guilt.
We feel unhappy that, while infirmity in some aspect or other of this prosecution case should not invalidate the culpability which is otherwise, veraciously made out, tragic occurrences like this one "
In the instant case , the chain of events duly matches with the testimonies of the complainant. The file of the complainant was seized from the table of the accused in the presence of the complainant. All the evidences complement each other. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, considering the evidence in its entirety as well as upon hearing the recorded conversation that the voices in the same belong to the accused persons.
75. The judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the ac- cused are of no help to him, being distinguishable on facts. Since 'de- mand' and 'acceptance' by the accused has been duly established, as per discussions above, the judgments of P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Dis-
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi
Page No.98 of 101
trict Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (supra) is not applicable. It is not the case that the tainted bribe money was recovered from a place where it can be defended that the complainant tried to trust the same to the accused and there is no other evidence as to recovery of the tainted bribe money. As such, the judgment of Meena W/o Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). No tampering of the recorded conversation has been noticed or proved in evidence and as such the judgment of Laddi Vs. State of Haryana (supra) is also not applicable. There is no dispute regarding the settled proposition that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt which is a ratio laid down in Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab(supra). Also that if two versions or two inferences can be reason- ably drawn , the version favorable to the accused has to be accepted by Court so long as it is a reasonable one , as held in Prashant Bhaskar v State (Govt. Of NCT of Delhi ) (Supra) Lastly, judgment of Joginder Singh Malik Vs. CBI (supra) is also not applicable to the facts in hand since the present case is not regarding transfer of data from DVR to nor- mal cassettes using any mini cassette recorder. In the present case, the recoding was done directly on the memory cards which were inserted in DVR and the memory cards were directly sent for forensic examination.
76. The accused has been charged for both, Sec 7 and Sec 13(1) CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.99 of 101
(d) of the PC. Act, 1988. It is to be seen that if on same set of facts, he can be held liable for both or not. The words used in Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 are "Accepts" or "Obtains" or "Agrees to accept" or "Attempts to obtain" and thus, from the words "Agrees to accept" or "Attempts to obtain", it can be inferred that for proving offence under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988, demand has to be there, acceptance may or may not be there. On the contrary, Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 used the words "Obtain" which signifies acceptance of the bribe amount.
77. Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 envisages criminal misconduct as the act of the public servant extending illegal pecuniary advantage to any person, including himself, by abusing his official po- sition or taking any personal advantage out of irregularities, committed by him or by violating the prescribed rules and proceedings and granting illegal favor to anyone, including himself, although his personal enrich- ment is not a necessary ingredient of this Section.
78. In State vs. A. Parthiban, (2006) 11 Scc 473 , Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon the Section 71 of the IPC and Section 220 of the Cr.P.C., held that a single act of accepting illegal gratification can fall under two distinct offences of Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 with the rider that the offender should not be punished with a CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.100 of 101 more severe punishment than the Court could award to the person for any of the offences. Thus, offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 can be proved on the same series of facts constituting the transaction of bribe amount and one can be convicted for these two of- fences on the same set of facts.
Conclusion
79. In view of the aforesaid observations, discussions and the cited case laws it is observed that incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. He being a public servant is not disputed, exchange of calls between the accused and the complainant on the day of verification and trap are not only proved but are not disputed as well, the conversations recorded have been proved to be authentic, voice contained therein have been duly identified, tran- scripts have been proved to be true version of the conversation, demand and acceptance of gratification by the accused stands proved. Recovery of the gratification amount has been proved to have been affected from the person of the accused. Further that the burden of presumption u/s 20 of the P.C Act, 1988 has not been discharged by the accused.
80. As such, the ingredients of offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 against the accused are CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh, Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06, RADC, New Delhi Page No.101 of 101 satisfied. The prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case against the accused on the basis of the testimonies of PWs and docu- ments proved through them.
81. The accused is thus held guilty for the offence punish- able under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 and is, accordingly convicted.
Digitally signedBHUPINDER by BHUPINDER SINGH Announced today the 18th day of SINGH Date: 2024.09.19 19:40:48 +0530 September, 2024.
(Bhupinder Singh)
Spl. Judge(PC Act) (CBI)-06
RADC /New Delhi/
18.09.2024
CBI Vs. Ravinder Kumar Bhupinder Singh,
Spl. Judge, CBI(PC Act)-06,
RADC, New Delhi