Delhi District Court
State vs Joginder Singh on 27 January, 2026
DLCT110001142022
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT11-000114-2022
CC No.: 13/2022
FIR No.: 966/2014
U/S: 7/13 PC Act
r/w S. 506/201 IPC
PS: Shahbad Dairy
In the matter of:
STATE
VERSUS
Joginder Singh
S/o Sh. Shri Ram
R/o: B-36A, Utsav Vihar
Karala, Delhi
Also at:
VPO Sandal Khurd, PS Gannaur
District Sonepat, Haryana
Date of Institution : 28-02-2022
Date of reserving Judgment : 09-01-2026
Date of Pronouncing Judgment : 27-01-2026
Appearance
For the State : Sh. Ravindra Kumar
Ld. Chief PP for the State
For Accused : Sh. Yogesh Verma, Advocate
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 1 of 82
JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS Sr. No. Contents Pages
1. Brief Facts of the Case 2-9 2. Cognizance 9 3. Charge 10
4. Prosecution Evidence 10-21
5. Statement of Accused u/s 313 Cr.PC 21-22
6. Arguments 22-31
7. Analysis & Findings 32-73
8. Conclusion 73-74
9. Appendix-I 75-76
10. Appendix-II 77-80
11. Appendix-III 81-82
1. The above-named accused had been sent to face trial in respect of the offences u/s 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as the PC Act).
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 On 09.06.2014, one written complaint (Ex.PW5/A) was received from Sh. Amit (PW5) at PS Shahbad Dairy, vide DD No.29A, wherein, it was alleged that in the area of PS Shahbad Dairy, CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 2 of 82 Beat Officer Joginder [9818033170] i.e. the accused openly takes bribe to facilitate illegal work/crime; he is a corrupt official and does his duty with complete dishonesty. It further alleged that sting operation regarding an incident had been conducted, in which, he had taken a bribe of ₹4,800/- +₹200/- = ₹5,000/-, while assuring that one can now play and make others play satta. Thus, it requested for registration of FIR under the PC Act, 1988 and for taking strict legal action against him, so that no one else can betray the country.
2.2 The aforesaid complaint was marked to Vigilance Branch, Outer District, and after completion of enquiry and on their recommendation, the FIR in question was registered and the investigation was carried out.
2.3 It has been the case of prosecution that during investigation, statement of witness namely Md. Shamshad (PW9) was recorded on 01.05.2015, in which, he stated, inter alia, that in the summer of 2014, at around 8 a.m., he was traveling from his home to Khajuri to visit a relative. He initially took a bus from Bawana, however, he got off at Shahbad Dairy, and then took another bus to Khajuri. In the meantime, one policeman, whose name, he later on learnt, was Joginder, boarded the bus and searched him. The said police official began questioning CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 3 of 82 him, claiming that he was involved in theft related to gambling [gaddi baazi]. The said police official further claimed that he would lock him up while alleging that he used to come there every day and commit illegal acts. Then, the said police official demanded ₹10,000/- to release him. He repeatedly pleaded with said police official to let him go, but he refused and finding no other option, he took the said policeman's mobile phone and called his aunt namely Smt. Gudia (PW10) on her mobile no.9899651916 and explained her everything. After the conversation, he told the said police official i.e. the accused that he was a poor man, and did not have ₹10,000/-, on which, he agreed to let him go for ₹5,000/-. Then, he again called his aunt and told her about the incident. On this, she assured that she would be coming with money. He further stated in his said statement that said policeman had a car, and he drove him around in it and also spoke with her aunt on phone several times. About about 1-1/2 hours later, his aunt arrived at Shahabad Dairy Stand, accompanied by two other men, who were not known to him. He further stated that he sat in the back seat behind the driver of the said car, near the window and two boys, who had accompanied her aunt, also sat in the back seat with him, whereas, her aunt sat in front seat with the policeman. After talking, the boy sitting in the CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 4 of 82 middle of the back seat, offered to pay money to the said policeman and on asking of said policemen, he told the said amount to be ₹4,800/-, on which, the policeman demanded the full amount of ₹5,000/- and then, the boy took ₹200/- from him and gave it to the policeman. After taking ₹5,000/-, the said constable left him at a distance and thereafter, they all took a bus and came back to home. He also stated that on 01.05.2015,he had joined investigation of this case and was shown one video, by the IO, in office computer, in which transaction of money by said constable with them, was visible. The said constable shown in the video, was the same constable who had caught him, after getting him off the bus, and had demanded money and later took the money from them in his car. He further stated that he did not know who had made this video and why.
2.4 It has been further the case of prosecution that during investigation, one Pen Drive provided by complainant namely Sh. Amit (PW5), was seized and on 11.11.2014, the said Pen Drive was played in the office computer and transcript of audio contents thereof, was prepared. On 12.06.2015, spy camera used in the sting operation, was provided by one Dalbir Singh (PW7), and hence, it was seized. On 14.07.2015, voice sample of accused CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 5 of 82 and that of Ms. Gudia @ Akbari (PW10) were taken in FSL, Rohini, after taking their consent, and were deposited for comparison with the voice found recorded in the Pen Drive containing the sting operation. Thereafter, FSL Result was received, according to which, voice exhibits of speakers marked 'Exhibit Q1' and 'Exhibit S-1' are probable voice of same person i.e. Ct. Joginder (accused herein) and the voice exhibits of speakers marked 'Exhibit Q2' and 'Exhibit S-2' are probable voice of same person i.e. Ms. Gudia @ Akbari (PW10). It is, thus, stated that voice sample of accused was found matched with the voice of police official contained in audio- video footage of said sting operation.
2.5 During further investigation, on 07.08.15, the accused was interrogated, who stated that while performing driver duty on Gypsy during his posting in PS Shahabad Dairy, he came into contact with one pop corn seller at bus stand Shahbad Dairy, who told him that one boy had taken a loan of ₹5,000/- from him and was not returning the said amount now. His mother was sick and was staying at Bihar and he needed to send this money to her, as she was in urgent need and begged to help him. On this, he called the boy, who had taken the money and asked him to return the money and that CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 6 of 82 boy promised to return the money on the next day. After 4-5 days thereof, the said boy accompanied by 2-3 persons, came and after meeting him, sat in his car. Since the boy who had lent the money, was not present there at that time, he took the money from them so that this money could be further handed over to the said boy (Pop corn seller). Thereafter, he had handed over the money in question to the said boy (Pop corn seller) in the evening of the same day. However, during investigation, the accused could not produce the said boy (Pop corn seller).
2.6 During further investigation, notices U/s 91 Cr.P.C.
were issued to relevant persons/witnesses (Sting operators) for providing original memory card, in which the sting operation was originally recorded, but they failed to provide the same. Sh. Vijender Singh (PW15) stated that on 28.04.2014, the accused had come at the office (Satguru Property at Karala) of his brother Praveen Kumar (PW14) and after dismantling spy camera, he had taken away the original memory card with him and did not return back the same. The accused was interrogated in this regard, who denied the allegations of taking away the original memory card with him.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 7 of 822.7 During further investigation, original Duty Roster of April, 2014 of PS Shahbad Dairy showing the duty of accused in the jurisdiction of PS Shahbad Dairy as beat Ct. of Beat no.1, was seized by IO/ACP Dinesh Kumar Sharma of PG Cell, Rohini District, Delhi.
2.8 On 25.02.2020, the case file was handed over to IO/ACP Dinesh Sharma for further investigation. During such further investigation, Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act was obtained from Sh. Satender Dabas (PW6) for having full control over the spy camera during sting operation of accused. On 22.11.2021, another Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was taken from Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7) in respect of saving the video of sting operation in his Laptop, and then in the Pen Drive and CD.
2.9 On 01.12.2021, letters for providing certified Call Details Records [CDRs] of above mobile numbers, were sent to the offices of Vodafone and Airtel Company, however, same could not be provided on the premise that same were more than one year old, however, Customer Application Forms [CAFs] of mobile Nos. 9899651916 and 9818033170 were provided by respective Nodal Officers of the said companies, as per which, said numbers were found in the names of Sh. Lal Babu (husband of CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 8 of 82 Smt. Gudia) (PW11) and Sh. Abhishek Rana (Son of accused herein).
2.10 Requisite permission under S.19 of the PC Act was accorded by DCP/OND for prosecution of the accused. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted [without arrest] for offences punishable under S. 7/13 PC Act and 506 IPC.
COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of offences punishable under S. 7/13 PC Act and S. 506 IPC was taken against the accused and he was summoned to face trial, vide order dated 19.05.2022, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
4. It may be mentioned here that an application under S. 207 Cr.PC for supply of deficient copies of documents along with CD of conversation, was moved on behalf of accused. During pendency of said application, an application was moved by IO seeking direction to Director, FSL for preparing copy of CD. The said application was allowed and accordingly, Director, FSL was directed to get prepared one copy of aforesaid CD, vide order dated 19.07.2022, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. In compliance thereto, mirror copy of CD of conversation was prepared by FSL and then, same was supplied to CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 9 of 82 accused, as per proceedings dated 23.09.2022, available on record.
CHARGE
5. After hearing submissions made on behalf of both the sides, charges in respect of offences punishable u/s 7 & 13 (1)(d) PC Act, punishable under S. 13(2) of PC Act and S. 506/201 IPC were ordered to be framed, vide detailed order dated 16-01-2023, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Accordingly, charges for said offences were framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty seven witnesses.
Material Witnesses 6.1 PW5 Sh. Amit was the complainant, however, he turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case on material aspects despite his cross- examination at length conducted on behalf of State. However, he identified his signature on complaint dated 09.06.2014 [Ex.PW5/A], seizure memo [Ex.PW5/B] and Transcript of audio [Ex.PW5/C], plastic box [Ex.PW5/Article-1], Pen drive [Ex.PW5/Article-2], cut cloth pullanda CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 10 of 82 [Ex.PW5/Article-3], and CD [Ex.PW5/Article-4] during trial.
6.2 PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo from NGO 'War Against Corruption' is the witness, who had allegedly conducted the sting operation, however, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case on material aspects. He, however, proved the complaint given by Smt. Akbari to President, NGO as Ex.PW6/A, seizure memo of broken spy cam and CD provided to him by Smt. Akbari, as Ex.PW6/B, seizure memo of complaint of Smt. Akbari and photocopy of registration certificate of said NGO, as Ex.PW6/C, Memo of Identification of Voice and Face in respect of audio-video footage contained in CD, as Ex.PW6/D, and Certificate under Sh. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW6/E. He also identified the spy cam as Ex.P2, and CD as Ex.P3 during trial.
6.3 PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh, President of NGO War Against Corruption, is the witness who, according to the case of the prosecution, had allegedly facilitated the sting operation after receiving complaint from Smt. Akbari; having seen the contents of sting operation in the laptop; having prepared CD of sting operation contained in spy cam, and having accompanied Smt. Akbari and CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 11 of 82 others to PS to get the complaint registered, and also witness to the facts that the accused had given beatings to him and having snatched the laptop, spy cam, CD and complaint, etc. He, however, also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case on material aspects. In addition to other documents, he also proved attested copy of certificate of registration of said NGO, as Ex.PW7/A, and Certificate under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW7/B. He also identified the CD and spy cam during trial.
6.4 PW9 Mohd. Shamshad is the witness from whom the accused had allegedly demanded bribe of ₹5,000/- for releasing him and subsequently, sting operation was conducted, in which, the accused was seen demanding and accepting the bribe amount. However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case on material aspects. He even did not identify the accused being the police official who had demanded money from him and had given beatings to him.
6.5 PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari is the witness, who allegedly on being called by Mohd. Shamshad [PW9], had reached out to him with money, and was accompanied with 2-3 persons, who had conducted the sting operation. However, she also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 12 of 82 case, despite her cross-examination at length by Ld. Chief PP for the State. She also did not identify her voice in the audio cassettes [Ex.PW10/P1 and Ex.PW10/P2], and only identified Shamshad in the audio-video clip contained in CD [Ex.P3] during trial.
6.6 PW11 Sh. Lal Babu is the husband of Smt. Gudia @ Akbari [PW10] and maternal uncle of Shamshad [PW9]. According to the case of prosecution, he is the witness, who on being informed by his wife through telephonic call regarding apprehension of Shamshad and demand of bribe by accused, had arranged money through his acquaintance Dalbir, and provided money to his wife. However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, despite his cross-examination at length by Ld. Chief PP for the State.
6.7 PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar is the witness, who had allegedly made call to police at 100 number regarding beatings given by accused to his brother Dalbir in his office of property dealer, and snatching of bag by the accused. However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all, despite his cross-examination at length by Ld. Chief PP for the State.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 13 of 826.8 PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh is the witness who, amongst others, had allegedly conducted the sting operation. However, he also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all, despite his cross-examination at length by Ld. Chief PP for the State.
6.9 PW25 Sh. Brijendra Kumar Yadav, DIG
Puducherry, who was posted as Deputy
Commissioner of Police [DCP], Outer North District, Delhi during the relevant period, had accorded sanction under S. 19 of the PC Act for prosecution of accused for the offences under S. 7/13 PC Act and 506 IPC. He has proved the said Sanction Order as Ex.PW25/A and Bio-Data of accused as Ex.PW25/B during trial.
Formal/Official Witnesses 6.10 PW1 SI (since retired) Puran Chand, was working as Duty Officer during the relevant time and got the FIR in question registered through Ct. Ashok Kumar, CCTNS Operator, in the computer system on the basis of rukka. He proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A, his endorsement on the rukka, as Ex.PW1/B, Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW1/C and DD No. 29A dated 09.6.2014 regarding receipt of complaint, as Ex.PW1/D. CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 14 of 82 6.11 PW2 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., had provided attested copy of CAF with identity proof regarding mobile no.9899651916, which was subscribed in the name of Sh. Lal Babu s/o Sh. Abdul Kudus [husband of Smt. Gudia @ Akbari]. He has proved copy of said CAF with identity proof of subscriber and Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. He categorically deposed that CDRs of said mobile number was not available in their system, being more than one year old.
6.12 PW3 HC Raj Kumar was working as Chitha Munshi during the relevant time at PS Shahbad Dairy, and is a witness to the seizure of original Duty Roster. He proved seizure memo of said Duty Roster, as Ex.PW3/A and the original Duty Register, as Ex.P1 during trial.
6.13 PW4 ASI Umesh Kumar, was working as the then MHC (M) (Case Property) at PS Shahbad Dairy, with whom case properties were deposited and subsequent thereto, he got deposited the same with FSL, and made relevant entries in this regard in Register No.19. He proved relevant entry nos. 2295/14, 2299/15, 2381/15 and 2298/15 in Register No.19, as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/E respectively. He also proved acknowledgment handed over to him by HC CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 15 of 82 Ramesh after depositing the sealed exhibits at FSL, as Ex.PW4/D. He categorically deposed that the case properties were not tampered with in any manner till the same remained in his possession.
6.14 PW13 SI Ramesh Chander had got deposited three sealed exhibits at FSL Rohini, and thereafter, had handed over received copy of RC alongwith acknowledgment to MHC (M) concerned.
He deposed that exhibits remained intact till they remained in his possession.
6.15 PW18 ASI (the then Head Constable) Sanjay Shine, was working as MHC (M), with whom case property i.e. one pullanda duly sealed with the seal of 'KC' stated to be containing Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 alongwith copy of seizure memo, were deposited by IO/ACP Kailash Chandra and who had made relevant entry no.2295/14 [Ex.PW4/A] in this regard.
6.16 PW19 ASI Manbir Singh has proved copy of
dismissal order of accused passed by
Sh. Vikramjeet Singh, IPS, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police, Outer District, Delhi as Ex.PW19/A. 6.17 PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, had CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 16 of 82 examined the exhibits, and has proved his detailed report as Ex.PW20/A.
7. The prosecution has also examined the following witnesses, who had either conducted the investigation, or remained associated with the investigation with IO in one way or the other:-
7.1 PW8 HC Ajit Kumar deposed that he had played Pen Drive in the office computer of Vigilance Branch and in his presence, the complainant had identified the accused wearing police uniform and other persons. He has also deposed about preparation of CDs, seizure of said Pen Drive and CDs, identification of accused and other persons appearing in sting operation by PW Satender @ Magoo and preparation of transcript of audio video footage.
7.2 PW12 SI Prakash Chand (Retired) is the Enquiry Officer, who had conducted the enquiry and submitted his detailed report. He also joined the investigation, after registration of the FIR and is a witness of seizure of Pen Drive, two CDs, and also identification of conversation recorded in CD, Smt. Gudia, and voice of accused in the CD by PW Satender Dabas @ Magoo. He also identified the Pen Drive [Ex.PW5/Article 2], and CD [Ex.P3] during trial.CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 17 of 82
7.3 PW16 HC Sunny Malik is the witness, in whose presence, voice samples of Smt. Gudia and accused were taken at FSL Rohini, and 4 audio cassettes [2 originals and 2 copies thereof] were prepared.
He proved seizure memo of said audio cassettes, as Ex.PW16/A. He also identified 2 audio cassettes, one original and one copy, containing voice samples of accused, as Ex.PW16/Article-1 and Ex.PW16/Article-2 during trial.
7.4 PW17 HC Satish Kumar is also the witness in whose presence voice samples of Smt. Gudia and accused were taken at FSL Rohini in audio cassettes, which were seized by the IO.
7.5 PW21 Retired ACP Pratap Singh was Investigating Officer [IO] of this case for a short period from 26.08.2014 onwards, who merely wrote one letter to DCP, Outer District, Delhi to provide original complaint of Sh. Amit Kumar and had, accordingly, received the same. Besides the said complaint, he has also proved the said letter, as Ex.PW21/A. 7.6 PW22 Retired ACP Kailash Chandra was also the Investigating Officer [IO], who had conducted part investigation such as seizure of Pen Drive and preparation of 2 CDs therefrom, preparation of transcription of conversation contained in said CD.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 18 of 82He deposed that after seeing the contents of CD, PW Satender @ Maghoo, had identified the persons appearing therein and making statement to him that he (PW Satender @ Maghoo) had recorded the said video by spy camera.
7.7 PW23 Retired ACP Dharampal was also part Investigating Officer [IO], having conducted part investigation such as seizure of broken spy camera; seizure of registration certificate of NGO War Against Corruption and complaint given to said NGO; recording of voice samples of accused and Smt. Akbari at FSL, Rohini, Delhi; seizure of cassettes; and submission of exhibits with FSL for examination.
7.8 PW24 ACP Sh. Dharamvir Singh was also part Investigating Officer [IO] from 05.09.2016 till 20.03.2017, who had conducted part investigation such as getting the exhibits deposited through ASI Ramesh Kumar with FSL, Rohini, Delhi and placing the FSL Result in the case file.
7.9 PW26 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Retired ACP, also remained part Investigating Officer [IO] from 17.04.2017 till 29.12.2018. Apart from other documents, he has proved Notice under S. 91 Cr.P.C. to SHO, PS Shahbad Dairy for providing Chitha in respect of duty of accused for the relevant CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 19 of 82 period, as Ex.PW26/A, Notice dated 01.02.2018 to the then ACP, Mundka for providing attested copies of relevant DD entries, as Ex.PW26/B, and the provided attested copies of five DD entry nos. 43A dated 25.04.2014, 27A dated 26.04.2014, 60B dated 27.04.2014, 66B dated 27.04.2014 and 67B dated 27.04.2014, as Ex.PW26/C (Colly.) (running into 7 pages).
7.10 PW27 Sh. Dinesh Sharma, the then ACP, DIU, Outer North District, Delhi also remained part Investigating Officer [IO] from 25.02.2020 till the filing of charge-sheet in this case. Besides obtaining Certificate under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, from public witnesses namely Sh. Satender Dabas and Sh. Dalbir Singh, he had issued Notices under S. 92 Cr.PC [Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B] to concerned Nodal Officers of Airtel and Vodafone respectively, for providing certified copies of CDRs, CAFs, and Location Charts alongwith Certificates under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile connection nos.9818033170 [Airtel] and 9899651916 [Vodafone] and in pursuance thereto, had collected attested copies of CAFs alongwith ID proofs and Certificates under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of aforesaid mobile connection numbers. He also applied for and obtained the Sanction CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 20 of 82 [Ex.PW25/A] for prosecution of accused in terms of S.19 of PC Act and on completion of investigation, had filed charge-sheet before the Court.
8. Thereafter, on statement of Ld. Chief PP for the State that all the material prosecution witnesses had been examined, PE was closed, vide order dated 05-12-2025, passed by this Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.PC
9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under S. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and stated that he is innocent and was falsely implicated in this case. Though, he has not denied that he was posted from 15-04-2014 to 30-04-2014 at Beat No.1, Sector-27, Amar Jyoti Colony of PS Shahbad Dairy, however, he has categorically denied the incident of demand and acceptance of bribe by him from Mohd. Shamshad, as also about the alleged beatings / quarrel at the office of property dealer. He stated that he has not been identified by any of the material and independent witnesses, as also that it is a false case. He further stated that material and independent witnesses have not deposed against him and the police officials were interested in the success of the present case, and hence, they have deposed falsely against him. He further stated that he is innocent and has no concern with the alleged CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 21 of 82 incident. The prosecution has failed to produce original recording device and other material against him and he has been prosecuted only on the basis of false FSL Report, which was given at the behest of police officials. He further stated that the aforesaid Pen Drive, CDs etc. have been doctored by the police officials in order to create false evidence in this case and there is no such demand and acceptance of any illegal gratification, and/or alleged recovery of any alleged bribe money, from him. However, he did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
10. I have already heard Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of material available on record. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of accused and the authorities cited at the Bar.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE SIDES
11. While referring to the case of prosecution as mentioned in the Charge-sheet; testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial and the documents proved by them, Ld. Chief PP for the State argued that the prosecution has been able to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused beyond reasonable doubt. For the said purpose, he heavily relied upon relevant portions of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses namely Sh. Amit CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 22 of 82 (PW5), Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo (PW6), Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7), SI Prakash Chand (Retired) (PW12), FSL expert namely Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan (PW20), and main IO ACP Kailash Chandra (PW22) examined during trial.
12. Ld. Chief PP argued that PW5 Sh. Amit has supported the case of prosecution to the extent that he had lodged written complaint dated 09.06.2014 [Ex.PW5/A] and had submitted the Pen Drive (Ex.PW5/Article-2) at PS Shahbad Dairy. He contended that even if the said witness may not have supported the case of prosecution on all material points, yet, relevant portion of his testimony whereby he has deposed on the lines of prosecution story, can always be looked into and relied upon by the Court. He further submitted that it is nowhere the case of accused that PW5 Sh. Amit had any kind of previous animosity, so as to lodge a false complaint against him with the concerned police station.
13. Ld. Chief PP further argued that PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo, PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh and PW15 Vijender, who were Member, President and Vice President respectively of NGO namely "War Against Corruption", have also supported the case of prosecution on certain points, more particularly regarding the fact that PW6 and PW7 had identified the accused in the CD when played in their presence in PS Shahbad Dairy. He further argued that both the said witnesses have specifically testified that the CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 23 of 82 person seen in the said CD, while accepting the bribe money, was accused and both of them had identified the accused in said police station to be the same person, who was seen in the CD [Ex.P3].
14. Ld. Chief PP further argued that the accused had visited the office of property dealer in the name and style of Satguru Property Dealer being run by Sh. Praveen Kumar (PW14), who is real brother of Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7), where the accused not only threatened/ gave beatings to PW7, but also snatched his bag containing laptop, spy cam etc. and also caused damaged to the spy cam and broke the memory card present inside therein. Thus, the said acts of accused, according to the submissions made by Ld. Chief PP for the State, constitute valid reason for PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh and PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar for not deposing truthfully and completely before the Court when examined during trial.
15. He further submitted that PW20, who is an FSL expert, has also opined in his Report (Ex.PW20/A), that voice of speakers contained in 'Exhibit S-1' and 'Exhibit Q1' are probable voice of same person i.e. Ct. Joginder (accused herein) and also that voice of speakers in 'Exhibit Q2' and 'Exhibit S-2' are probable voice of same person i.e. Smt. Akbari @ Gudia.
16. Another argument raised by Ld. Chief PP has been that factum of phone calls made by Mohd. Shamshad (PW9) to CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 24 of 82 his mausi Smt. Akbari @ Gudia (PW10) stands corroborated from the CDRs of mobile phone numbers available on record. He, therefore, urged that the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused in respect of the offences under S. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of PC Act, beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Ld. Chief PP further submitted that the accused had visited the office of brother of Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7), President of NGO namely War Against Corruption on 28.04.2014 and not only snatched his bag containing laptop, spy cam, CD, complaint etc., but also broken the memory card containing video footage of the sting operation and spy cam, with intention to screen himself from legal punishment and therefore, he should also be convicted for the offence punishable under S. 201 IPC.
18. Per contra, while refuting the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of State, Ld. Counsel of accused vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. The main arguments, inter alia, advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel are delineated here as under:-
18.1 The star witness of prosecution namely PW5 Sh. Amit has completely disowned the prosecution story during trial. For this purpose, Ld. Defence Counsel referred to relevant portion of the testimony of PW5, whereby he not only did not CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 25 of 82 identify accused during trial, but also denied that there was any demand or acceptance of bribe from him by the accused, or having any knowledge about the sting operation. He, therefore, contended that written complaint (Ex.PW5/A) on which the entire case of the prosecution was based upon, remained unproved in the eyes of law;
18.2 Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non to attract the penal offences under S.7 & 13 PC Act and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of any illegal gratification by accused either from PW9 Mohd. Shamshad, or from any other person at any point of time.
For the said purpose, Ld. Defence
Counsel referred to relevant portions of the
testimonies of PW6 Satender Maghoo,
PW9 Mohd. Shamshad, PW10 Gudia @ Akbari and PW15 Vijender;
18.3 The testimonies of PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @
Maghoo, PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh and
PW15 Vijender, are based on hearsay and thus, cannot be relied upon for any purpose;
18.4 The testimonies of PW6 and PW7 are contradictory on the point of handing over and custody of electronic material. Not only this, both the said witnesses also admitted that they were not present CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 26 of 82 at the time of alleged demand by accused.
Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that there was considerable delay of one year in seizure of the spy cam and CD by the concerned ACP/IO;
18.5 Apart from contradictions appearing in the testimonies of PW6 and PW7, both these witnesses have admitted that spy cam was broken and original memory card was missing;
18.6 PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari, who was an important witness of the prosecution, has not supported its case in so far as demand and acceptance of bribe is concerned. There is no iota of evidence regarding acceptance of bribe, or recovery of any such bribe money either from the possession of, or at the instance of accused;
18.7 The memory card, in which alleged sting operation was conducted as per the case of the prosecution, was never produced during trial, without which, it cannot be said that the electronic data transferred from it to other devices viz. Pen Drive and CD has been proved in accordance with law of evidence. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW6 and PW7 have given contradictory versions regarding custody, preparation, storage of the electronic record and thus, the authenticity and CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 27 of 82 genuineness of the contents of said Pen Drive and CD is highly doubtful;
18.8 Ld. Defence Counsel further submitted that the Certificates under S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act were also issued at highly belated stage and even otherwise, same were not issued by the creators of original electronic record and therefore, the said certificates did not conform to the requirements of S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act and hence, should not be looked into;
18.9 The FSL Report, as is relied upon by the prosecution, gives only probable opinion regarding voice matching and said opinion is inherently weak and merely corroborative in nature. In this regard, Ld. Defence Counsel also submitted that the forensic opinion, by its very nature, cannot establish the commission of any offence under the P.C Act and thus, the accused cannot be convicted for any offence under the said Act merely on the basis of such opinion alone;
18.10 Sanction for prosecuting accused is not valid, in as much as it is not accorded by the Competent Authority within the meaning of S. 19 of PC Act. For this purpose, Ld. Defence Counsel referred to the testimony of PW25 Sh. Brijendra Kumar Yadav, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 28 of 82 [DCP], wherein he has admitted that accused was appointed by worthy Commissioner of Police, as also that as per Service Rule, only Appointing Authority can be the Dismissal Authority. He pointed out that PW25 had accorded such sanction while being posted as DCP. He, therefore, urged that PW25 was not competent to remove accused from service, since the Appointing Authority of accused was worthy Commissioner of Police and thus, power to accord sanction vested in the same Authority,unless lawful delegation of power is proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to place on record any Notification or document showing delegation of power by Commissioner of Police upon PW25 i.e. the DCP concerned and thus, the requisite sanction Ex.PW25/A is invalid in the eyes of law; and 18.11 Allegations of criminal intimidation punishable under S. 506 IPC are quite vague and could not be substantiated during trial. There is no iota of evidence showing that the accused had actually caused disappearance of material evidence by breaking memory card containing the alleged sting operation and thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge in respect of offences under S. 506 and 201 IPC;
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 29 of 8218.12 Investigation has not been done in fair and independent manner. For this purpose, Ld. Defence Counsel referred to the testimony of PW4 i.e. MHC (M) concerned, who has admitted that there were repetitive over-writings in the register; and no reason or explanation whatsoever is furnished by IO for delay in seizure of spy cam during investigation, as also for delay in obtaining voice samples of accused and Smt. Gudia @ Akbari (PW10).
19. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel urged that since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
20. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Ld. Defence Counsel also placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
20.1 'Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka'; bearing Criminal Appeal No.1172 of 2008;
20.2 'Anvar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer & Ors.' reported as [2014] 11 S.C.R. 399;
20.3 'P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Distt. Inspector of Police & Anr.' in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2009, decided on 14-09-2015;CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 30 of 82
20.4 'Nilesh Dinkar Paradhar v. State of Maharashtra';
Criminal Appeal No.537 of 2009, decided on 09-03-2011;
20.5 'Neeraj Dutta v. State of GNCTD'; reported as [2022] 5 S.C.R. 104;
20.6 'Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka'; Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2012, decided on 24-07-2015;
20.7 'N. Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu'; Criminal Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2021 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 4729-4730 of 2020], decided on 03-02-2024;
20.8 'Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi'; Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 703 of 2015], decided on 06-01-2016;
20.9 'B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.'; Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 2085 of 2012], decided on 28-03-2014;
20.10 'Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors.' reported as [2020] 7 S.C.R. 180;
and
20.11 'Dr. S. M. Mannan v. CBI', in Writ Petition
No.24119 of 2022 (GM-RES) decided
on 22.04.2024, by Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 31 of 82
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
21. As already mentioned above, the accused has been charged with two different classes of offences i.e. (i) the offences under S. 7 & 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of PC Act; and
(ii) offences under S. 506/201 IPC. Hence, it would be appropriate to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of both the sides with respect to aforesaid two different classes of offences separately.
Offences u/s 7&13(1)(d) read with S.13 (2) of PC Act Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act
22. First of all, this Court shall proceed to deal with the argument advanced on behalf of accused that the entire prosecution got vitiated for want of valid and competent sanction since it goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of the Court. In this regard, while referring to the testimony of PW25, Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently argued that the said witness has categorically admitted in his deposition that accused was appointed by Commissioner of Police and also that as per Service Rules, only the Appointing Authority can be the Dismissal Authority. He contended that since PW25 had accorded sanction for prosecution of accused, while working on the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Sanction Order [Ex.PW25/A] is non est and invalid in the eyes of law.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 32 of 8223. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited case of Nanjappa (supra), to the effect that in case of invalid sanction for prosecution of public servant, criminal trial conducted against such public servant is non est, null and void. It is also beyond dispute that Appointing Authority alone can be the Dismissal Authority of public servant and thus, such Appointing Authority would alone be competent to accord such sanction for prosecution of public servant within the meaning of S. 19 of PC Act.
24. Nevertheless, the aforesaid argument raised on behalf of accused lacks merit and is liable to be rejected. No doubt, PW25 has deposed that accused was appointed by Commissioner of Police, however, his deposition to that extent, is found contrary to the actual position based on record. PW25 has proved Bio-Data of accused, as Ex.PW25/B, the authenticity and genuineness of which is neither challenged, nor disputed by accused either during cross-examination of PW25 or even otherwise, during trial. A bare perusal of his Bio-Data Ex.PW25/B, would demonstrate that the Appointing Authority and Removal Authority of accused was officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police, as per relevant Column Nos.12 and 13 thereof. Moreover, S. 12 (b) of Delhi Police Act, 1978 clearly provides that Sub-Inspector of Police and other officers of sub-ordinate rank may be appointed by the Deputy Commissioners of Police, Additional Deputy CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 33 of 82 Commissioners of Police, Principal of the Police Training College or of the Police Training School, or any other police officers of equivalent rank. It is an admitted position that the accused was serving on the post of Constable at the time when sanction Ex.PW25/A was accorded by PW25. Thus, there is no iota of any doubt that PW25 was the Competent Authority to accord sanction for prosecution of accused in terms of S. 19 of PC Act, he being working on the post of Deputy Commissioner of Police during the relevant period and thus, the Sanction Order Ex.PW25/A, in the opinion of this Court, is valid one and does not suffer from the vice of any illegality.
25. Now, the Court shall proceed to analysis the evidence-oral as well as documentary, led during trial. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the prosecution has heavily relied upon two sets of evidence i.e. (i) oral evidence and (ii) electronic evidence. Hence, the Court needs to examine and ascertain as to whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of either of the offences charged against him, beyond reasonable doubt.
Oral Evidence:
26. As already noted above, the case of the prosecution, as put forth in the charge-sheet, had been that PW5 Sh. Amit had lodged written complaint dated 09.06.2014 (Ex.PW5/A) at CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 34 of 82 PS Shahbad Dairy, which was registered vide DD No.29A, wherein he had alleged that Beat Constable Joginder was indulging into criminal activities and was corrupt police official and openly takes illegal gratification, for which one sting operation was conducted wherein he is seen accepting ₹5,000/- as bribe and was openly saying that now, they can indulge into betting over there. Further, PW5 Sh. Amit had also annexed Pen Drive make Sandisk 4 GB alongwith the said written complaint.
27. Thus, it is evident that the case of prosecution basically originated from the aforesaid written complaint, which formed genesis of the prosecution story. However, it is relevant to note that complainant namely PW5 Sh. Amit did not support the case of prosecution during trial on any material point. No doubt, he deposed to have lodged complaint (Ex.PW5/A) at PS Shahbad Dairy, however, he testified that he had found said Pen Drive lying on the road, which he picked up and made an enquiry from nearby residents as to whom said Pen Drive belonged, but nobody came forward and thereafter, he went to one mobile shop and requested him to play the said Pen Drive on computer, wherein he found one video footage in which 2-3 persons were seen while taking money. He further deposed that somebody advised him to give said Pen Drive to the police and accordingly, he handed over said Pen Drive along with his written complaint (Ex.PW5/A). He further deposed that after 7-8 months, he CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 35 of 82 was called at the office of Vigilance, where enquiry was made from him about his working and his signatures were obtained on certain papers.
28. In view thereof, PW5 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the State. During said cross-examination, he categorically denied to have mentioned in complaint (Ex.PW5/A) that beat officer Ct. Joginder of PS Shahbad Dairy was indulging in illegal work, or used to work after accepting bribe, or that he was corrupt police official, or that sting operation of one incident was conducted, in which accused had taken bribe of ₹5000/-.He admitted to have been called by ACP, Vigilance on 11.11.2014, however, denied that his statement (Mark PW5/X1) was recorded by concerned ACP on that day. He is found to have denied all the relevant suggestions put to him on the lines of prosecution story, during his cross-examination. He categorically denied that HC Ajit Singh (PW8) had shown him recording of the Pen Drive on which date 24.04.2014 and time 09:54:58 to 09:58:19 (3 Min 24 seconds) and the name of file PICT 0001, 131 mb size was appearing, or that after seeing the said recording, he had told that he had seen the said recording of Pen Drive during enquiry. He also denied that HC Ajit Singh had prepared two CDs of that recording with the help of computer in his presence. While not disputing his signatures appearing on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW5/B, and transcript of audio video CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 36 of 82 footage Ex.PW5/C, he denied that said transcript was prepared after playing one open CD in office computer by HC Ajit Singh in his presence on 11.11.2014, or that said transcript was seized in his presence. He also categorically denied to have stated in his statement (Mark PW5/X1) that he had identified Ct. Joginder (accused herein) as the person who was sitting on driver's seat and having accepted the bribe on demand after seeing, or that during quarrel at the property office of Magoo (PW6) at Karala, where he (witness) had gone to intervene, the accused, who was in civil dress, was claiming himself as police official, or that the said Pen Drive came into his possession at that point of time.
29. Pertinently, PW5 identified his signatures appearing on plastic box (Ex.PW5/Article-1), Pen Drive (Ex.PW5/Article-2), as also on cut cloth pullanda (Ex.PW5/Article-3) and CD (Ex.PW5/Article-4) during trial, however, when said Pen Drive was played during trial and was shown to him, he testified only to the extent that said Pen Drive contains video file which he had seen on 24.04.2014 and money transaction was appearing therein, however, he neither deposed anything adverse against the accused in so far as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is concerned, nor he identified the accused to be the person seen in the video footage contained in said Pen Drive (Ex.PW5/Article-2).
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 37 of 8230. There is no merit in the argument advanced by Ld. Chief PP for the State that the testimony of PW5 and the contents of the said Pen Drive are beyond dispute merely because he had no occasion to lodge a false complaint against the accused. There is absolutely no credible evidence available on record showing that PW5 had witnessed the alleged incident of causing beatings, or committing criminal intimidation of PW6 Satender @ Maghoo by accused, so as to dissuade PW5 from deposing truthfully against accused during trial. In fact, PW5 has categorically denied having made any statement (Mark PW5/X1), on the basis of which, the prosecution is alleging that the accused had criminally intimidated PW6 Satender Maghoo in the office of property dealer in the presence of said witness, and/or having caused beatings to said Maghoo, even or to said witness at any point of time.
31. In so far as signatures of PW5 Sh. Amit appearing on seizure memo Ex.PW5/B and aforesaid case properties is concerned, PW5 has stated during his chief examination itself that he was called at the office of Vigilance after about 7-8 months of lodging of the complaint dated 09.06.2014, and his signatures were obtained on certain papers. He reiterated the same during his cross-examination on behalf of accused, when he also testified that said documents were not prepared in his presence and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. In view thereof, the possibility of fabrication of such CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 38 of 82 documents at subsequent point of time, cannot be ruled out.
32. For all these reasons, the Court finds that no incriminating evidence has come on record in the testimony of PW5 Sh. Amit, which may point out towards the guilt of accused regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
33. Apart from PW5, it was the case of prosecution that Mohd. Shamshad was examined during investigation on 01.05.2015, and he had brought certain new facts to the effect that when he was travelling in a bus for going to Shahbad Dairy, 3-4 police officials came in the bus and took him away in their vehicle to some unknown place and were demanding money from him as a condition to release him, on which, he had made a call to his Mausi namely Smt. Gudia @ Akbari (PW10) and having told her that the said police officials were demanding ₹10,000/- for his release. The prosecution story alleged that PW9 Mohd. Shamshad had made a call to his Mausi from mobile phone of said policemen and after negotiation, said police official agreed to let him go for ₹5,000/-. Thereafter, Smt. Gudia @ Akbari (PW10) reached over there alongwith two other persons, who were not known to him and all of them sat in the vehicle in which Mohd. Shamshad was detained. One of those two persons paid ₹4,800/- to the police official, however, he demanded full amount of ₹5,000/-, on which, he took ₹200/- from CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 39 of 82 Mohd. Shamshad and gave it to the police man and after receipt thereof, they all came back to home through bus. According to the case of the prosecution, the said two other persons were PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo and PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh.
34. In the aforesaid backdrop, PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo, PW9 Mohd. Shamshad, PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari and PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh were star witnesses of the prosecution, the entire transaction of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused allegedly took place in their presence. Now, it has to be seen as to how the above stated prosecution story has been unfolded by these four witnesses during trial.
35. PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo simply deposed during his examination-in-chief that one lady Smt. Akbari (PW10) had given original complaint [Ex.PW6/A] to President [PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh] of NGO War Against Corruption regarding demand of bribe by one constable and on being asked to produce some audio-video recording in support of allegations made in the said complaint, she came on the next day alongwith audio-video recording. Her husband namely Sh. Lal Babu (PW11) and Vijender Singh, Vice President had accompanied said Akbari for the purpose of conducting sting operation.
36. However, PW6 has testified that Smt. Akbari had given one broken camera in which memory card was missing, CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 40 of 82 and one CD of the recording. Further, when the said CD was played in the office of NGO, some transaction of money was found appearing therein. However, the husband of Akbari came and told him that there was some personal money transaction between them and therefore, they did not file the complaint. Subsequent thereof, he was called by the police and he also deposited the broken spy cam and the CD which was provided to them by Akbari, to the police and same were seized, vide memo Ex.PW6/B. He also deposed that during investigation, the CD was played at PS in his presence and memo of identification Ex.PW6/D regarding identification of face and voice of accused Joginder was prepared and he had issued certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW6/E) to the police. He also deposed that broken spy cam was handed over by Dalbir to the police in his presence. He had identified the said broken spy [Ex.P2] cam and CD [Ex.P3]. Thereafter, he was declared hostile and his cross-examination was conducted by Ld. Chief PP of the State, during which, he denied to have accompanied Sh. Vijender Singh (PW15) and complainant for conducting sting operation with the help of spy cam in the year 2014 at PS Shahbad Dairy or having conducted any sting operation of Ct. Joginder while accepting the bribe. In other words, he had completely denied that any such sting operation was conducted either by him or even in his presence either by complainant or Vijender Singh or any other person of his NGO.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 41 of 8237. No doubt, PW6 admitted that CD was played in his presence in the office computer of Vigilance Branch, wherein there was video footage recording of 3 minutes and 24 seconds, but, he denied that after hearing and seeing contents of the CD, he had told the IO that same was exact recording of sting operation conducted by him. He admitted that person seen in the CD Ex.P3 in police uniform was accused Ct. Joginder and also that boy seen behind the seat of accused Joginder was boy having been apprehended by accused Joginder for playing satta but he changed his version immediately thereafter and deposed that he was not the same person who was apprehended for playing satta. He categorically denied having stated before the IO that on the day of incident, he had put spy button cam on his shirt or that Joginder came in a car or that his colleague Dalbir remained seated in his car or that thereafter they all three sat in the car of Ct. Joginder in which one boy was also sitting or that he and Vijender sat on the back seat of the car. He further categorically denied that on that day he had given bribe of ₹4,800/- to accused Ct. Joginder at first instance and thereafter on his asking, he again gave him ₹200/-, total ₹5,000/- as bribe to accused Joginder.
38. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he admitted that he did not read contents of relevant memos, which were signed by him. He also admitted that transcript [Ex.PW5/C] was not prepared in his presence CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 42 of 82 and he had not gone through the said transcript when CD [Ex.P3], was played in his presence.
39. So called person, who was allegedly detained by the accused and for whose release, demand of bribe was allegedly made, has been examined as PW9 Mohd. Shamshad during the trial. He has supported the prosecution story only to the extent of incident of his detention, he having been taken away from the bus by some police officials, being detained by them in a car and demand of ₹10,000/- for his release. However, he nowhere deposed that the accused herein had made demand of bribe either from him or from his mausi Smt. Gudia @ Akbari, or having received any bribe amount from any person in his presence. Rather, he demolished the case of the prosecution by testifying that his Mausi had reached at the spot, and after about 5 minutes, he was permitted to leave the vehicle and his mausi did not inform him how she got him released from the police officials. He also feigned ignorance that his mausi had paid any amount to the police official. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the State. During such cross-examination, he categorically denied that he had given ₹200/- for adding in the ₹4,800/- brought by his mausi for giving as bribe to the said police official. He also did not identify the accused Ct. Joginder during the trial to be the same person who had either demanded or accepted bribe amount of ₹5,000/- for his release. It would be CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 43 of 82 appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of his testimony in this regard and same is extracted here as under:-
"xxxx I did not tell the name of the police official who demanded money from me as Ct. Joginder and I told the name of Ct. Joginder to police officer who made enquries from him. Confronted with the statement Mark-PW9/A from portion C to C where it is so recorded.
At this stage, accused is pointed out to the witness again specifically that he was the person who caught you in the bus and demanded ₹10,000/- from you for your release to which the witness say that accused was not the person who caught him in the bus and demanded money from him.
xxxx"
40. Thus, it is quite evident from above reproduced portion of his testimony that he completely ruled out identity of the said police official having demanded and accepted bribe amount of ₹5,000/- to be that of Ct. Joginder, accused herein. His cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused would further make it clear, inasmuch as he admitted that no money transaction took place in his presence, as also that his Mausi did not talk to the police official about the money.
41. Likewise, PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari has also not supported the case of the prosecution on material points/ aspects. She simply deposed that on receipt of phone call from Mohd. Shamshad, who informed her that he was apprehended by police official and to get him release from the custody of the police, she went to Shahbad Dairy, where Mohd. Shamshad was present in a car with some police official near the bus stand Shahbad Dairy and when CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 44 of 82 she requested the police official to release Shamshad by saying they were poor person, the police official released him and then went to house of bua of Shamshad. She did not identify accused herein, to be amongst those police officials who were having custody of Mohd. Shamshad on that day. Not only this, she also refused to identify two audio cassettes [Ex.PW10/P1 and Ex.PW10/P2] containing her voice samples prepared at FSL Rohini. Thus, this witness also did not support the prosecution story during trial and nothing incriminating against the accused, could be elicited from her during cross-examination conducted on behalf of State. During such cross-examination, she categorically denied that accused had demanded any money to release Shamshad or that accused had accepted bribe money of ₹5,000/- in lieu of release of Shamshad.
42. PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh also failed to support the case of the prosecution on any material point during trial. He feigned ignorance about any money transaction between any person in this case. Rather, he testified that when he was called in the office of ACB and was asked about the incident, he had told to concerned ACP that he was not aware about any such money transaction and also that he was not knowing any particular lady whose name was perhaps told to him by said ACP. When he was cross-examined on behalf of State, after being declared hostile, he denied to be Vice-President of any NGO with CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 45 of 82 the name of 'War Against Corruption' and also that any lady namely Gudia had come to his shop for purchasing medicine in the month of April, 2014 and having told him that one Ct. Joginder of PS Shahbad Dairy having apprehended her nephew and making demand of ₹5,000/- in lieu of releasing him. He also denied to have accompanied said lady and Satender to the accused or about the alleged money transaction of ₹5,000/- having taken place between accused and Satender or any sting operation been conducted at that time. During his cross- examination on behalf of accused, he explained that he had signed the relevant memos Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C at the time when they were blank.
43. Thus, it is quite evident from above discussion that all the star witnesses of prosecution have not supported its case during trial. None of them deposed that there was either any demand of illegal gratification from the side of accused, or acceptance of any such illegal gratification by accused from any person. Neither, PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas testified that he ever paid the amount of ₹5,000/-, which was allegedly demanded by accused for releasing Mohd. Shamshad, nor either of the aforesaid witnesses deposed that any bribe was paid to the accused either by them or in their presence.
44. It is trite law that in a case under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the foundational facts and also that demand and acceptance of CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 46 of 82 illegal gratification are sine qua non for proving the charge in respect of offences punishable under S. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of unamended PC Act. In this regard, reference with advantage can be made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'A. Subair v. State of Kerala' reported as [(2009) 6 SCC 587], wherein while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.
45. In the cited case of Neeraj Dutta (supra), with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) &
(ii) of the PC Act, Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal position here as under:-
"68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)
(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence, which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 47 of 82 by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer, which emanates from the bribe giver, which is accepted by the public servant, which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.
On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 48 of 82 rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
46. In another case of 'State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede', Crl. Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was also observed that while invoking the presumption under Section 20 of PC Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in this regard:
"16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 49 of 82 gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt."
47. As regards the raising of presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in ' Mukut Bihari Vs. State of Rajasthan', 2012 (11) SCC 645 as under:-
"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 50 of 82 complainant is an interest and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused persons."(Emphasis supplied).
48. In 'State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma', (2013) 14 SCC 15, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations as regards the burden of proof upon the prosecution and the accused in the light of presumption under Section 20 PC Act:-
"11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab [(1972) 3 SCC 652 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1973 SC 498] ,T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 :
(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401] , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 51 of 82 [(2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714] and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136] .)" (emphasis supplied).
49. Having examined the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the legal principles laid down in above- referred decisions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been successful in proving the charges framed against the accused on the basis of ocular evidence of the aforesaid public witnesses. There is absolutely no whisper of any evidence that there was any demand of bribe made by accused. Not only testimonies of all the relevant prosecution witnesses namely PW5 Sh. Amit, PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo, PW9 Mohd. Shamshad, PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari and PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh are found to be silent regarding demand and acceptance of bribe qua accused, but also, all the said witnesses have categorically denied this fact even during their respective cross-examination conducted on behalf of State. Pertinently, all the said witnesses have deposed entirely contrary to the case of prosecution and all of them denied to have any knowledge of the alleged sting operation.
50. As noted above, PW5 even denied to have made any statement under S. 161 Cr.PC (Mark PW5/X1) to the IO during investigation. Apart from written complaint (Ex.PW5/A), the case of prosecution was also based upon the said statement, which recited about the demand and CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 52 of 82 acceptance of bribe by accused and also regarding identity of accused to be the person having so demanded and accepted such bribe. Instead, PW5 failed to identify the accused during trial, to be the same constable Joginder against whom he had made the complaint Ex.PW5/A. Not only this, PW9 Mohd. Shamshad also failed to identify the accused during trial, to be the same police official who had forcibly detained him or had made demand of bribe for his release or having accepted bribe money of ₹5,000/- for his release. Same is the case with regard to testimonies of PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari.
Electronic Evidence
51. Ld. Chief PP for the State has placed heavy reliance upon electronic evidence in the form of one Pen Drive [Ex.PW5/Article-2] and CD containing the footage of alleged sting operation [Ex.PW5/Article-4]. It has been the case of the prosecution that PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas alongwith PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari and PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh had gone to meet the accused while he was having the custody of PW9 Mohd. Shamshad, with a view to conduct sting operation in question. It was also the case of the prosecution that PW6 had conducted the sting operation with the help of one spy cam containing one memory card, in the presence of PW9, PW10 and PW15. However, PW6 categorically denied having conducted any such sting operation himself. The testimonies of PW10 and PW15 are also found to be totally silent that either of them CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 53 of 82 had conducted any such sting operation of accused at any point of time, meaning thereby that the prosecution completely failed to establish during trial as to who had conducted the alleged sting operation of accused. Apart from this, there is no iota of evidence available on record to show about the date, time or the place when such alleged sting operation was conducted.
52. Be that as it may, it is an undisputed fact that the original source through which the alleged sting operation was recorded i.e. the memory card, never saw light of the day throughout the trial. Though, Ld. Chief PP for State argued that since accused himself had broken the said memory card by going to the office of Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7) and causing damage to the spy cam (Ex.P2) and thus, no fault can be attributed to the prosecution in this regard, however, the said argument deserves to be rejected in toto. Said Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7) nowhere testified during chief examination that accused had ever visited his office of property dealer in the name of Satguru Property Dealer at any point of time or having given any beatings to him. He also nowhere deposed that the accused had broken the said memory card or caused any damage to any such spy cam at any point of time. Rather, he turned completely hostile on all the relevant aspects, including on the aforesaid aspects of accused having visited the office of his brother Praveen (PW14) being run in the name of Satguru Property or having CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 54 of 82 snatched his bag containing laptop, spy cam, CD, complaint etc. on 28.04.2014, as were suggested to him on behalf of prosecution. In fact, PW7 has completely denied that any such incident happened in any such office on that day.
53. Likewise, PW14 namely Sh. Praveen Kumar also demolished the case of the prosecution on these aspects, inasmuch as, he categorically testified during chief-examination that no quarrel took place between his brother Dalbir Singh (PW7) and any other person in his presence. He also put dent on the case of prosecution by deposing that he was running the business of property dealer in the name and style of Swastik Real Estate and had no knowledge about Satguru Property Dealer. Even during his cross-examination conducted on behalf of State, he categorically denied that accused had visited his office of property dealer or having given beatings to his brother or taking away of such spy camera from him. In fact, he deposed that neither he knew accused, nor any such incident took place in his presence.
54. Thus, in the absence of any reliable or credible evidence to show that accused had actually caused beatings to PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh or had snatched spy cam or had broken its memory card, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to put forth any justification or plausible explanation for non-production of said memory card allegedly containing the sting operation of accused.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 55 of 8255. Moreover, the prosecution story alleged that PW5 Sh. Amit had annexed the aforesaid Pen Drive [Ex.PW5/Article-2] alongwith written complaint [Ex.PW5/A], however, it is neither provided in the said written complaint, nor any other material was placed alongwith charge-sheet to disclose the name of the person who had converted the electronic data of alleged sting operation from memory card of spy cam, into it. Rather, PW5 has testified during chief-examination itself that he had found said Pen Drive lying on the road, while he had gone to village Shahbad Dairy. That being so, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the contents of electronic data contained in said Pen Drive.
56. Be that as it may, once PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @ Maghoo, PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari and PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh denied the factum of conducting any such sting operation of accused, with the help of spy cam (Ex.P2), the transfer of any electronic data into Pen Drive or copying such electronic data in the form of CDs or supplying those CDs and Pen Drive to the police / investigating agency, would hardly be of any relevance as no evidentiary value can be attached either to said Pen Drive or even to the said CDs, in the eyes of law.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 56 of 8257. In the cited case of Anvar P. V. (supra), it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court, as under:-
"xxxx
13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 57 of 82 to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), Pen Drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
16. xxx
17. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. Xxxx
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 58 of 82 admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
23. The appellant admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs, Exhibits-P4, P8, P9, P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground.
xxxx"
58. In another cited case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar ( supra), it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court, as under:-
"xxxxx
20. Proof of electronic record is a special provision introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65-B is sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law, the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.
21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu a two-Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue on production of electronic record as evidence. While considering the printouts of the computerised records of the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at para 150 as follows: (SCC p. 714) "150. According to Section 63, "secondary evidence" means and includes, among other things, 'copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies'. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 59 of 82 such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in dispute that the information contained in the call records is stored in huge servers which cannot be easily moved and produced in the court. That is what the High Court has also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by a responsible official of the service-providing company can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a provision dealing with admissibility of electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act, namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63 and 65."
It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible official had duly certified the document at the time of production itself. The signatures in the certificate were also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic record."
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections 65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu case, does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 60 of 82 in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.
23. The appellant admittedly has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 65-B in respect of the CDs, Exts. P-4, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-12, P-13, P-15, P-20 and P-22. Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus, the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground. Xxxxx
34. Despite the law so declared in Anvar P.V. (supra), wherein this Court made it clear that the special provisions of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are a complete Code in themselves when it comes to admissibility of evidence of information contained in electronic records, and also that a written certificate under Section 65B(4) is a sine qua non for admissibility of such evidence, a discordant note was soon struck in Tomaso Bruno (supra). In this judgment, another three Judge Bench dealt with the admissibility of evidence in a criminal case in which CCTV footage was sought to be relied upon in evidence. The Court held:
"24. With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant. Electronic documents stricto sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible as a document, paper printout of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfilment of the CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 61 of 82 conditions specified in sub- section (2) of Section 65-B. Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW 13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it.
25. The production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 9 SCC 1], wherein production of transcripts of internet transactions helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the links between the slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack were established only through phone call transcripts obtained from the mobile service providers."
35. What is clear from this judgment is that the judgment of Anvar P.V. (supra) was not referred to at all. In fact, the judgment in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 was adverted to, which was a judgment specifically overruled by Anvar P.V. (supra). It may also be stated that Section 65B(4) was also not at all adverted to by this judgment. Hence, the declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno (supra) following Navjot Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of the contents of a document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible would be in the teeth of Anvar P.V., (supra) and cannot be said to be a correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly overruled.
xxxx"
59. Although, Ld. Chief PP for the State contended that FSL expert having examined and compared voice sample of accused and Smt. Gudia @ Akbari with the voice found appearing in the CD [Ex.PW5/Article-4], did not find any evidence of tampering or alteration in such audio-video files and has also opined that sample voice of accused and CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 62 of 82 the voice of person appearing in said CD, is the probable voice of accused and thus, the guilt of accused stands established from the ocular testimony of FSL Expert (PW20) and his report (Ex.PW20/A), however, the said argument needs to be recorded only for being rejected for the following reasons :-
59.1 Opinion of FSL expert can only be used as a corroborative piece of evidence and not as a substantive piece of evidence and thus, would not be sufficient in itself to establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the case of " Ashish Kumar Dubey v. State Thr. CBI" reported as 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1437, wherein the cassette recorder which was used by a witness to record the conversation, was not sent to CFSL and only cassette was sent. After discussing the case of 'Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh' 1985 Supp. SCC 611;
and Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra), it was held in the case of Ashish Kumar Dubey (supra) that the cassette was an inadmissible piece of evidence. Further, it has been held in the case of Ram Singh (supra) that the voice of speaker must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who recognized his voice which is first condition for admissibility and where voice is denied by the maker, it would require very strict proof to CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 63 of 82 determine whether or not it was really the voice of the speaker. It was also held that accuracy of tape recorded statements has to be proved by the maker of the record satisfactorily and every possibility of tampering with or eraser of a part of tape recorded statement, must be ruled out; the recorded cassette must be carefully seized and and kept in safe or official custody. It was also held that voice of speaker should be clearly audible and not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances. In the case of Nilesh (supra), it was held that it is all the more necessary since tape recording may be altered by the transposition, excision and insertion of words or phrases and such alternation may escape detection and even elude it on examination by technical experts;
59.2 The FSL Expert (PW20), though, deposed that the worksheets were prepared while preparing the report Ex.PW20/A, however, he admitted that no such worksheet was attached with the said report. He could not say if the data in the Pen Drive was the original source or not, and since, spy camera was in damaged condition, it was not examined by him;
59.3 Deposition of FSL Expert to the effect that the Pen Drive (Ex.PW5/Article-2) cannot be attached with the spy camera (Ex.P2) would not leave any scope CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 64 of 82 of doubt that the electronic data, if any, contained in said Pen Drive, would not be original source; and 59.4 There is a candid admission on the part of FSL expert that usually, Pen Drives contain secondary data. On being further questioned, he admitted not to have asked the IO for providing the original source.
60. In the case in hand, it is an undeniable fact that the memory card contained in spy cam allegedly used for conducting sting operation of accused, was never sent to FSL for examination. Thus, in the absence of examination thereof by FSL expert, the possibility of tampering of the electronic data available either in the form of Pen Drive or in the form of CDs being relied upon by the prosecution, cannot be ruled out, since, one of the important requirements as held in the case of Ashish Kumar ( supra) was not satisfied. Moreover, PW10 Smt. Gudia @ Akbari has not only disowned the prosecution story during trial, but has also failed to identify her voice in audio cassettes (Ex.PW10/P1 and Ex.PW10/P2). Further, PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh categorically denied during his cross-examination on behalf of State that he had saved the recording of sting operation of accused from any spy cam into the laptop or that later on, he had saved the recording in one Pen Drive and in CD or that there was no tampering with said Pen Drive and CD till the time of their custody with him. In CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 65 of 82 this backdrop, it would be totally unsafe to place any reliance or to attach any evidentiary value to the electronic data contained therein, as the possibility of tampering in the data contained therein, cannot be ruled. Consequently, it cannot be said that the opinion of FSL expert, which is based upon comparison of such electronic data contained either in such Pen Drive and CD, would be conclusive. This is more so when the sting operation allegedly took place on or before 09.06.2014 and those Pen Drive and CD were seized on 11.11.2014, which is after a considerable gap of more than 5 months or so. For all these reasons, it also cannot be said that the Certificates under S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act [Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW7/B] purportedly given by PW-6 Sh. Satender Dabas and PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh respectively, are in conformity with the provisions contained therein, for the simple reason that none of them was creator of the electronic data contained in said Pen Drive/ CD. Pertinently, the Certificate [Ex.PW6/E] has been issued in respect of button spy camera lying in damaged condition, whereas, Certificate [Ex.PW7/B] has been issued in respect of Pen Drive and CD, which PW7 has categorically denied to be prepared by him with the help of his laptop. Moreover, both the said certificates have been issued by PW6 and PW7 on 13.08.2021 and 22.11.2021 respectively, i.e. after a considerable delay of about 7 years from the date of coming into existence of said Pen Drive and CD.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 66 of 82No explanation whatsoever has been furnished from the side of prosecution for such inordinate delay.
61. As mentioned earlier, the entire case of prosecution revolved around sting operation allegedly conducted by PW6 alongwith PW10 and PW15 and in the presence of PW9. However, none of the said witnesses supported the prosecution story during trial and it could not be proved that any such sting operation was in fact conducted on the alleged date, time and place. Rather, the evidence available on record, runs contrary to the prosecution story inasmuch as PW6 testified that PW10 and her husband had given one broken camera in which the original memory card was missing. Not only this, PW6 also went to the extent of deposing that he did not read the contents of seizure memo of spy cam and the transcript (Ex.PW5/C) of the CD was not prepared in his presence. In view thereof, the authenticity and/or genuineness of the contents of said transcript, is also under cloud. Pertinently, said broken spy cam (Ex.P2) and CD containing alleged sting operation (Ex.P3), are shown to have been handed over by PW7 to the concerned IO after a considerable gap of one year.
62. As already mentioned above, the original memory card through which alleged sting operation was conducted, never came to surface and was neither seized during investigation, nor produced during trial. In the absence of original source contained electronic evidence of said alleged sting operation, the Pen Drive as well as CD, the CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 67 of 82 authenticity and genuineness of which also remained under cloud, could not be proved during trial and thus, no evidentiary value can be attached thereto in the eyes of law.
63. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and while applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions, this Court finds considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of accused that the audio-video recordings contained in aforesaid Pen Drive and CD, would neither constitute any material piece of evidence, nor would be sufficient in themselves to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite law that only when the maker of such audio-video file affirms to have made such audio-video, his/her own participation and the participation of the offender, such audio-video can be taken to be of some evidentiary value. For all these reasons, it is held that the aforesaid Pen Drive [Ex.PW5/Article-2] and CD [Ex.PW5/Article-4] are inadmissible in the eyes of law and thus, no evidentiary value can be attached to them.
64. Thus, the entire case of prosecution fell down like a pack of cards in view of testimonies of PW6, PW9 and PW10, as all of them have categorically denied during trial that there was any demand of bribe or acceptance of bribe money of ₹5,000/- by the accused at any point of time. Not CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 68 of 82 only this, PW6 denied to have conducted any sting operation from any spy cam.
65. There are other aspects/reasons which further create doubt in the case of prosecution. Although, it was alleged in the charge-sheet that several calls were exchanged between the mobile phones of accused and the mobile phone of Smt. Gudia @ Akbari, as also between the mobile phones of Mohd. Shamshad and Smt. Gudia @ Akbari sometime before the release of Mohd. Shamshad by the accused. It was also alleged in the charge-sheet that CDRs of said mobile numbers were asked through notices from Nodal Officers of concerned Service Providers, however, CDRs were not provided as period of one year had already expired. In this regard, it is relevant to note that such CDRs were sought by the investigating agency only on 01.12.2021. FIR in question was registered on 25.08.2014 and thus, it is not explained by the prosecution as to why the investigating agency caused enormous delay of more than 7 years in seeking the CDRs of relevant mobile numbers. Anyhow, in the absence of such CDRs and their Cell ID Location Charts, it could not be established that any call whatsoever had exchanged between mobile numbers of accused and Smt. Gudia @ Akbari on the alleged date and time. Further, PW4 ASI Umesh Kumar, the then MHC(M), had admitted about the presence of repetition and overwriting in the Malkhana Ragister. Though, he made feeble attempt to explain that same was CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 69 of 82 on account of clerical mistakes and thus, stood corrected by making over writings. However, he admitted that he never gave in writing to ACP that due to some mistakes, there was over-writings in the relevant entries appearing from Sr. No.2282 dated 06.11.2014 till Sr. No.2295 dated 11.11.2014.
66. Admittedly, it is nowhere the case of prosecution that any trap was laid down or that there was demand and recovery of any alleged bribe amount from the accused or that there was any independent public witness involved in the trap proceedings. It is also an undisputed fact that the alleged bribe amount of ₹5,000/- was never recovered from the accused. Apart from above public witnesses, the remaining prosecution witnesses examined during trial, are police officials, who either conducted investigation of this case or remained associated with the investigation in one way or the other. Hence, in the absence of any cogent or reliable evidence being brought on record during trial, the Court is of the considered view that the prosecution remained unsuccessful in establishing that there was any demand and acceptance of illegal gratification against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that charge in respect of offences under S. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with S. 13(2) of PC Act is not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, accused Joginder is entitled to be acquitted for the said offences.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 70 of 8267. Now, coming to the charge in respect of offences under S. 506/201 IPC framed against the accused. Indisputably, there is no iota of evidence led during the trial to prove that the accused had criminally intimidated Sh. Praveen Kumar (PW14), who was brother of Sh. Dalbir Singh (PW7) to settle the matter and/or threatened to kill the family members of Rakesh s/o Sh. Baljeet. It is important to note that PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar completely turned hostile during trial and has not supported the case of the prosecution on any material point, despite being put to cross-examination at length on behalf of State. He categorically testified that no quarrel took place between his brother Sh. Dalbir and someone else in his presence and also that he does not know any police official namely Joginder. Not only this, when the accused was pointed out to him during trial, he still denied the suggestion that accused was the same police official, who had come to his office on 28.04.2014 and had snatched bag from his brother Sh. Dalbir after giving beatings to him. Similar is the case with Sh. Dalbir Singh examined as PW7 during trial. It is important to note that no person with the name of Rakesh s/o Sh. Baljeet has been produced as a witness from the side of prosecution during trial and thus, there is absolutely no incriminating evidence whatsoever against accused for establishing his guilt in respect of offence punishable under S. 506 IPC.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 71 of 8268. As regards offence punishable under S. 201 IPC, the prosecution has also remained unsuccessful in proving the said charge during trial. PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh and PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar were the only two relevant material witnesses examined during trial for proving such charge. As already noted above, both the said witnesses completely turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution to the effect that it was accused herein, who had visited the office of property dealer being run by PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar in the name of Satguru Property Dealer on 28.04.2014 or having snatched the bag of PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh, containing laptop, spy cam, CD etc. or having broken said spy cam or any memory card containing footage his sting operation, with intention to screen himself from legal punishment. Rather, the testimony of PW14 would demonstrate that he denied that he was doing business of property dealing in the name of Satguru Property Dealer or any such incident having been committed by the accused on that day. Likewise, PW7 also denied the commission of any such incident by the accused in the office of his brother Sh. Praveen on that day. Thus, both the said public witnesses have completely demolished the case of prosecution during trial.
69. Be that as it may, though, it is the case of the prosecution that PW14 Sh. Praveen Kumar had made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone no.9999349469 after the alleged incident took place on that day, still, no effort is CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 72 of 82 shown to have been made by the Investigating Officer to find out as to whether or not any PCR call at 100 number and/or police complaint was made/ lodged by PW14 or by PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh. It was not difficult for IO to collect the relevant record with respect to said alleged PCR Call from the concerned office of PCR Unit. Neither, any PCR Form with respect to said alleged PCR Call has been filed alongwith charge-sheet, nor any police official for proving the said document, has been examined during trial. No material has been placed on record to show as to whether any action was taken by local police on the said alleged PCR Call and the final outcome thereof. This face assumes more importance in the backdrop of testimony of PW14, whereby he categorically testified that no quarrel took place between his brother Sh. Dalbir and someone else and also denied to have made any PCR call at 100 number.
70. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused in respect of offences punishable under S. 506/201 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
71. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against accused, beyond reasonable CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 73 of 82 doubt. Consequently, the accused namely Ct. Joginder is hereby acquitted of all the charges.
72. Considering the fact that the accused has already furnished Bail Bonds in terms of S. 437 A Cr.PC, his previous bail bonds stand cancelled and his previous surety stands discharged. Original document(s), if any, of said previous surety be released, after cancellation of endorsement, if any, as per the Rules. File be consigned to record room, after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by VIDYA PRAKASH Announced in the open Court VIDYA Date:
PRAKASH On 27th Day of January,2026. 2026.01.27 15:39:48 +0530 (VIDYA PRAKASH) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01 RADC/NEW DELHI CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 74 of 82 APPENDIX-I SPECIMEN CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED [In compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat' bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.] PW No. Name of witness Description PW1. Retd. SI Puran Chand Duty Officer PW2. Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd.
PW3. HC Raj Kumar He is witness to the seizure of
original duty roster of accused
PW4. ASI Umesh Kumar MHC (M)
PW5. Sh. Amit Complainant
PW6. Sh. Satender Dabas @ From NGO 'War Against
Maghoo Corruption' and had allegedly
conducted the sting operation
PW7. Sh. Dalbir Singh, President of NGO War Against
Corruption- facilitated the sting
operation after receiving complaint
from Smt. Akbari
PW8. HC Ajit Kumar Joined investigation
PW9. Mohd. Shamshad The accused had allegedly
demanded bribe of ₹5,000/- from
him for releasing him
PW10. Smt. Gudiya Relative of Mohd. Shamshad, and
was allegedly part of the sting
operation.
PW11. Sh. Lal Babu Husband of Smt. Gudiya [PW10]
and maternal uncle of PW Samshad
[PW9]
PW12. SI Prakash Chand Enquiry Officer
(Retired).
PW13. SI Ramesh Chander Deposited exhibits in FSL
PW14. Sh. Praveen Kumar He had made call to police over
100 number regarding beatings
given by accused Joginder to his
brother Dalbir in his office and
snatching of bag by the accused.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 75 of 82
PW No. Name of witness Description
PW15. Sh. Vijender Singh Part of sting operation.
PW16. HC Sunny Malik Voice samples of Smt. Gudiya and
accused Joginder taken.
PW17. HC Satish Kumar Voice samples of Smt. Gudiya and
accused Joginder were taken.
PW18. ASI Sanjay Shine, MHC(M)
PW19. ASI Manbir Singh Proved dismissal order of the
accused.
PW20. Sh. V. Lakshmi Examined exhibits in FSL.
Narasimhan, Assistant
Director (Physics), FSL,
Rohini
PW21. Retired ACP Pratap Singh Part Investigating Officer PW22. Retired ACP Kailash Part Investigating Officer Chandra PW23. Retird ACP Dharampal Part Investigating Officer PW24. ACP Sh. Dharamvir Singh Part Investigating Officer PW25. Sh. Brijendra Kumar Granted sanction under S. 19 of PC Yadav, DIG Puducherry, Act.
the then Deputy
Commissioner of Police
[DCP], Outer North
District, Delhi
PW26. Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Part Investigating Officer Retired ACP PW27. Sh. Dinesh Sharma, ACP Part Investigating Officer (VIDYA PRAKASH) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01 RADC/NEW DELHI CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 76 of 82 APPENDIX-II SPECIMEN CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS [In compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat' bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.] Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR Ex.PW1/B Endorsement on Rukka Ex.PW1/C Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the PW1 Rtd. SI Puran genuineness and authenticity of FIR Chand, Duty Officer.
Ex.PW1/D DD No.29A dated 09.6.2014
regarding arrival of the complaint
Ex.PW2/A Attested scanned copy of CAF reg. PW2 Sh. Pawan Singh,
mobile no. 9899651916, with Nodal Officer, Vodafone identity proof of subscriber namely Idea Ltd. and PW27 Sh. Babu Lal s/o Sh. Abdul Kudus IO/ACP Dinesh Sharma Ex.PW2/B Certificate under S. 65B of Indian PW2 Sh. Pawan Singh, Evidence Act. Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. And PW27 IO/ACP Dinesh Sharma Ex.PW3/A Seizure memo of original duty PW3 HC Raj Kumar and roster of accused. IO/ PW26 ACP (Retd.) Dinesh Kumar Sharma Ex.PW4/A Entry no.2295 dated 11.11.2014 in PW4 ASI Umesh Register No.19 Kumar, the then MHC (M), and PW18 ASI Sanjay Shine, MHC(M) Ex.PW4/B Entry No.2299 dated 12.06.2015 in Register no.19 Ex.PW4/C Entry No.2381 dated 14.07.2015 in Register No.19 PW4 ASI Umesh Kumar, the then MHC Ex.PW4/D Acknowledgment/receipt of deposit (M) of sealed exhibits at FSL, Rohini.
Ex.PW4/E Entry No.2298/15 in Register No.19 CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 77 of 82 Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by Ex.PW5/A Complaint dated 09.06.2014 PW5 Sh. Amit and PW21 ACP (Retd.) Pratap Singh Mark Statement of PW5 under S. 161 PW5 Sh. Amit PW5/X1 Cr.PC Ex.PW5/B Seizure memo of Pen Drive and PW5 Sh. Amit, PW8 HC CDs Ajit Kumar, IO/ PW22 ACP (Retd.) Kailash Chandra Ex.PW5/C Transcript of audio-video PW5 Sh. Amit, PW8 HC Ajit Kumar, PW12 SI (Retd.) Prakash Chand, PW22 ACP (Retd.) Kailash Chandra Ex.PW6/A Original complaint given by Smt. PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas Akbari to President, NGO - War @ Maghoo, PW23 ACP Against Corruption. (Retd.) Dharampal Ex.PW6/B Seizure Memo of broken spy cam PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas and CD provided to PW6 by Smt. @ Maghoo, PW15 Akbari. Sh. Vijender Singh, PW23 ACP (Retd.) Dharampal Ex.PW6/C Seizure Memo of complaint of Smt. PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas Akbari and photocopy of @ Maghoo, PW15 Sh. registration certificate of the said Vijender Singh, PW23 NGO. ACP (Retd.) Dharampal Ex.PW6/D Memo of Identification of Voice PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas and Face in respect of accused @ Maghoo, PW8 HC appearing in audio-video footage Ajit Kumar, PW12 SI contained in CD. (Retd.) Prakash Chand, PW22 ACP (Retd.) Kailash Chandra Ex.PW6/E Certificate under Sh.65B of Indian PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas Evidence Act. @ Maghoo and IO/PW27 ACP Dinesh Sharma CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 78 of 82 Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by PW7/A Attested copy of certificate of PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh, registration of NGO. President of NGO- War Against Corruption, and PW23 ACP (Retd.) Dharampal Ex.PW7/B Certificate under S. 65B of Indian PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh, Evidence Act. President of NGO- War Against Corruption, and IO/PW27 ACP Dinesh Sharma Ex.PW16/A Seizure memo of 4 audio cassettes PW16 HC Sunny Malik, [2 originals and 2 copies] containing PW17 HC Satish Kumar, voice samples of accused and Smt. PW23 ACP (Retd.) Akbarti, recorded and prepared by Dharampal FSL Ex.PW19/A Copy of dismissal order bearing PW19 ASI Manbir No.5985-6085/HAP/ OP(P-1) dated Singh 16.05.2016 of accust/ Ct. Joginder Singh, Belt No.780/OD PIS No. 28883003 [running in seven pages] Ex.PW20/A FSL Report PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi Ex.PW21/A Letter written by PW21 to DCP to IO/ PW21 ACP [Retd.] provide original complaint of Sh. Pratap Singh Amit Kumar Ex.PW25/A Sanction order under S. 19 PC Act PW25 Sh. Brijendra for prosecution of accused Kumar Yadav, the then DCP, Outer North District, Delhi and IO/PW27 ACP Dinesh Sharma Ex.PW25/B Bio-Data of accused PW25 Sh. Brijendra Kumar Yadav, the then DCP, Outer North District, Delhi CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 79 of 82 Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by Ex.PW26/A Notice under S. 91 Cr.P.C. to SHO, PS Shahbad Dairy for providing Chitha in respect of duty of accused Joginder Singh for the relevant period Ex.PW26/B, Notice dated 01.02.2018 to the ACP, Mundka for providing the PW26 Sh. Dinesh duly attested copies of DD entries in Kumar Sharma, Retired present case FIR, as ACP /IO Ex.PW26/C Attested copies of five DD entry (Colly.) nos. 43A dated 25.04.2014, 27A (running dated 26.04.2014, 60B dated into 7 27.04.2014, 66B dated 27.04.2014 pages). and 67B dated 27.04.2014, Ex. PW27/A Notices to Nodal Officers of and concerned service providers Ex.PW27/B PW27 IO/ACP Dinesh Ex.PW27/C Notice issued to public witness Sharma namely Sh. Satender Dabas Ex.PW27/D Notice issued to public witness namely Sh. Dalbir Dabas (VIDYA PRAKASH) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01 RADC/NEW DELHI CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 80 of 82 APPENDIX-III SPECIMEN CHART FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/ Muddamals [In compliance of directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat' bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.] Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by / attested by Exhibit Ex.P1 Original duty PW3 HC Raj Kumar register Ex.PW5/Article-1 Plastic box (of PW5 Sh. Amit, PW8 HC Ajit spectacles) Kumar, PW10 Smt. Gudiya @ Akbari, PW12 Retd. SI Prakash Chand, PW-20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and PW22 Retd. ACP Kailash Chandra.
Ex.PW5/Article-2 Pen drive [Sandisk, PW5 Sh. Amit, PW8 HC Ajit 4GB] Kumar, PW10 Smt. Gudiya @ Akbari, PW12 Retd. SI Prakash Chand, PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and PW22 Retd. ACP Kailash Chandra.
Ex.PW5/Article-3 Cut cloth pullanda PW5 Sh. Amit, PW12 Retd. SI Prakash Chand, PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and PW22 Retd. ACP Kailash Chandra.
Ex.PW5/Article-4 CD make PW5 Sh. Amit, PW12 Retd. SI Moserbaer Pro Prakash Chand, PW20 Sh. V. bearing Exhibit-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and PW22 Retd. ACP Kailash Chandra.
Ex.P2 Spy cam PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @
Maghoo, PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh,
PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh,
PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi
Narasimhan, Assistant Director
(Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and
PW23 Retd. ACP Dharampal.
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 81 of 82
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by / attested by
Exhibit
Ex.P3 CD make PW6 Sh. Satender Dabas @
Moserbaer Pro Maghoo, PW7 Sh. Dalbir Singh,
bearing Exhibit-2A PW8 HC Ajit Kumar,
PW10 Smt. Gudiya @ Akbari,
PW12 Retd. SI Prakash Chand,
PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh and
PW22 Retd. ACP Kailash
Chandra.
Ex.PW10/P1 Audio Cassette PW10 Smt. Gudiya @ Akbari,
bearing FSL No. PW15 Sh. Vijender Singh, FSL-2015/P-5219/ PW17 HC Satish Kumar, Phy.-268/15 and PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi Ex.3B, containing Narasimhan, Assistant Director voice sample of (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and PW10 PW23 Retd. ACP Dharampal.
Ex.PW10/P2 Audio Cassette PW10 Smt. Gudiya, make T-Series HF PW16 HC Sunny Malik, PW17 HC 90 bearing 'C Satish Kumar, and PW23 Retd. Akbari @ Gudia' ACP Dharampal.
Ex.PW16/Article-1 Audio Cassettee PW16 HC Sunny Malik,
bearing FSL No. PW17 HC Satish Kumar,
FSL-2015/P-5219/ PW20 Sh. V. Lakshmi
Phy-268/15 and Narasimhan, Assistant Director
Ex-3A, and also 'O (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, and CONST PW23 Retd. ACP Dharampal.
JOGINDER
Ex-3A' containing
original voice
sample of accused
Joginder Singh
Ex.PW16/Article-2 Audio Cassette PW16 HC Sunny Malik, PW17 HC
baring 'C CONST. Satish Kumar, and PW23 Retd.
JOGINDER' ACP Dharampal.
containing copy of
voice sample of Ct.
Joginder
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RADC/NEW DELHI
CC No.13/2022, FIR No.966/2014, PS: Shahbad Dairy State v. Joginder Singh Page 82 of 82