Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Pradeep Kumar on 23 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG
SPECIAL JUDGE:CBI01: CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI, DELHI
CC No. : 04/2013
Case ID : 02401R0507152013
RC : 15(A)/2013
PS : CBI/ACB/New Delhi
U/s: Section 7 & 13(2),
r/w Sec. 13(1) (d) of
The Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988.
CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Sh. Chuhru Ram,
R/o F2972, Netaji Nagar,
New Delhi110023.
Date of Institution : 04.10.2013
Judgment Reserved on : 13.01.2016
Judgment Delivered on : 23.01.2016
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, accused Pradeep Kumar has been sent up for trial for the offences Under Section 7 & 13 (2), read with Section 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 1 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
2. It has been stated in the charge sheet that a reliable source information was received against the accused Pradeep Kumar, wherein, it was stated that accused Pradeep Kumar was indulged in corrupt practices and was contacting the selected students for grant of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) (foreign students) by UGC and was asking them to deposit the money / bribe amount in his savings bank account No. 30489933550 at State Bank of India, South Campus Branch, Benito Juarez Marg, Moti Bagh South, New Delhi, for early processing of their scholarship amount.
3. It is further stated in the charge sheet that during investigations, it was revealed that the accused was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the University Grants Commission, on 27.02.1989 and was transferred to the Selection and AwardI Section (SAI) in 1999 and remained posted there till 2013. It is further stated that as an Assistant in Selection and AwardI Section, he used to deal with the files pertaining to grant of JRF / CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 2 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi RA scholarship to foreign as well as national students.
th
4. It is further stated in the charge sheet that vide the 11 Plan Guidelines, University Grants Commission has introduced a scheme, i.e. "Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Research Associateship (RA) for foreign nationals", for developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, keeping in view the political and cultural bilateral relations and enabling them to come to India and undertake advanced studies and research in sciences, humanities and social sciences in various Indian Universities. The University Grants Commission also gives some financial assistance to the selected foreign national candidates in the form of a fellowship on monthly basis.
5. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the accused Pradeep Kumar opened a bank account, bearing No. 30489933550 at State Bank of India, South Campus, Moti Bagh South, Benito Juarez Marg, New Delhi on 13.09.2008 and CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 3 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi provided his account number to various foreign national students, with directions to deposit the bribe money in his account, in the garb of processing fee for JRF / RA scheme.
6. It is further stated in the charge sheet that accused Pradeep Kumar, being a public servant, induced the foreign nationals erroneously to believe that his influence in the UGC has helped them in getting their JRF /RC scholarship released from the UGC and thus induced them to give him money in the garb of processing fee. He accepted the bribe as a reward for showing favour to the said foreign nationals.
7. It is further stated in the charge sheet that during the period w.e.f. 12.05.2010 to 08.09.2012, the accused received huge amounts vide credit entries from various non home branches of State Bank of India, ranging from Rs.3,000/ to Rs.25,000/, from different branches of State Bank of India at Hyderabad, Aligarh Muslim University, Pune University and Banaras Hindu University CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 4 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi etc. It is further stated that there were credit entries worth approximately Rs.95,000/, through cash / internet banking from the aforesaid nonhome branches of State Bank of India, which were made by the foreign nationals, namely Mr. Majid Mohammed Ali Mabkhut Musaad; Mr. Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed AnNashef; Mr. Ferass Saleh Ali Saeed; Mr. Marwan Abdu Ali Manea and Mr. Hatem Abdo Ali AlDois, all Yamen nationals and Mr. Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin of Palestine.
8. It is further stated in the charge sheet that accused Pradeep Kumar had abused his official position as a public servant and by corrupt and illegal means, he accepted the bribe amount from the aforesaid foreign nationals and thereby committed an offence, punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. Vide orders, dated 10.03.2014, charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1(d) of CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 5 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution Evidence
10. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, namely:
i) PW1 Sh. Ved Prakash, Chairman, University Grants Commission, New Delhi, who has granted the sanction under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused Pradeep Kumar, vide sanction order dated 01.10.2013, Ex.PW1/A.
ii) PW2 Sh. Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed, a Yamen national, who came to India to pursue his Ph.D in linguistic from The English and Foreign Language University, Hyderabad and he had applied for Jr. Research fellowship in the year 2009 to UGC. He has proved the demand of money by the accused Pradeep Kumar, as 'processing fee'. He has also proved the payinslips, as Ex.PW2/A; Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW2/C, regarding deposition of CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 6 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi money in account No. 30489933550 of the accused.
iii) PW3 Sh. M.A. Raheem, who was posted as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Toli Chowki Branch, Hyderabad in July 2013. He provided original credit vouchers and computer generated statement of account of the accused bearing account No. 30489933550, to the CBI.
iv) PW4 I.V.S. Prasad, who was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kukatpalli Branch, Hyderabad in July 2013.
He also provided various documents, including the computer generated transaction inquiry regarding, entry dated 13.05.2011 for Rs.5,000/, in account No. 30489933550, of the accused, to the CBI.
v) PW5 Sh. Rohtash Bahota, who was posted as Assistant Manager, State Bank of India, Delhi University South Campus Branch, New Delhi in September 2008. He has proved the account opening form, pertaining to account number 30489933550 of the accused, as Ex.PW.5/A.
vi) PW6 Sh. Mehmoud L.S. Altarabin, a Palestine National, who CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 7 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi had also come to India to pursue his Ph.D (Translation) from School of Humanity, Hyderabad, in the year 2009. He has also proved the demand and acceptance of money, by the accused, as 'processing fee'. He has also proved the payinslip, dated 08.12.2011 of SBI, University Campus Branch, Hyderabad, as Ex.PW.6/A and the withdrawal form, dated 08.12.2011, as Ex.PW.6/B.
vii) PW7 Sh. K.K.V. Rama Krishna, who was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, at Ramanthapur Branch, Hyderabad in July, 2013. He has proved the original payinslip voucher and statement of account, for the period 01.06.2010 to 08.06.2010, pertaining to account No. 30489933550 of the accused.
viii) PW8 Sh. Gopal Singh Negi, who was posted as Section Officer at Finance Division, UGC, Bahadur Shah Zaffar Marg, New Delhi, during the year 200910. He has deposed about the procedure for payment of scholarship amounts to the foreign national students. He has proved the grantinaid bills dated CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 8 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 25.01.2011, 25.11.2010 & 08.08.2011 as Ex.PW.8/B, Ex.PW8/D & Ex.PW.8/F and the requisition slips as Ex.PW.8/C, Ex.PW.8/E & Ex.PW.8/G.
ix) PW9 Sh. Haridwar Singh, who was posted as Manager, Branch Operations at INS Branch, SBI, BHU, Varanasi, w.e.f. 2010 to January 2013. He has proved the computer generated statement of account of PW14 Manae Marwan Abdu Ali, bearing account No. 20033202024 for the period w.e.f. 01.07.2012 to 31.07.2012 and the computer generated statement of account of Shri Hatem Abdo Ali Al Dois, bearing account No. 20045140516, for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2010 to 08.09.2012, as Ex.PW.9/B & Ex.PW.9/C, respectively. He has also proved the debit slip / voucher, dated 03.11.2010, for a sum of Rs.5,000/, as Ex.PW9/E and the payinslip dated 03.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.5,000/ as Ex.PW.9/F.
x) PW10 M.V.G.S.M. Prabhakar Rao, who was posted as Chief Manager, SBI, Lalaguda Branch, Secunderabad, during the period w.e.f. 23.09.2012 to 12.04.2014. He has proved the CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 9 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi statement of account of the account No. 30489933550 of the accused for various periods as Ex.PW.10/B and Ex.PW.10/C.
xi) PW11 Ms. Reeta Gupta, who was working as Relationship Manager, at SBI, Hyderabad University Campus Branch, Hyderabad in July 2013. She has proved the statement of account of PW6 Mohamoud Altarabin bearing account No. 30873518061, for the period w.e.f. 29.08.2009 to 21.07.2013 as Ex.PW.11/B and has deposed that an amount of Rs.10,000/ was transferred from this account on 08.12.2011, to the account No. 0030489933550 of the accused Pradeep Kumar.
xii) PW12 Shri Nityanand Mishra, who was working as Branch Manager, SBI, South Campus, Delhi University, New Delhi. He has proved the computer generated statement of account of account No. 30489933550 of the accused, for the period w.e.f. 13.09.2008 to 08.09.2012 as Ex.PW.12/B, collectively.
xiii) PW13 Shri Ashok Kumar Ladla, who was working as Branch Manager, SBI, South Campus, New Delhi. He has proved the computer generated statement of account of the account No. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 10 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 30489933550 of the accused, for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to 16.09.2013 as Ex.PW.13/B, collectively.
xiv) PW14 Sh. Manea Marwan Abdu Ali, who also came to India to pursue his Ph.D in Agronomy from B.H.U., Varanasi (UP). He has also deposed about the receipt of money by the accused from him. But, he has deposed that the said amount was gifted by him, to the accused.
xv) PW15 Sh. Anuj Bhatia, who was working as Nodal Officer, Vodafone Services, New Delhi in August 2013. He has proved the certificates, u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of the CDRs pertaining to mobile phone No. 8142481415 & 9670202003, in the names of Majid Mohammed Ali Mabkhud Musaad and Hatem Abdo Ali Al Dois, respectively, as Ex.PW15/B & Ex.PW15/C. He has also proved the CDRs of mobile phone No. 8142481415 & 9670202003 as Ex.PW15/F & Ex.PW15/G, respectively.
xvi) PW16 Vishal Gaurav, who was working as Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., New Delhi in September 2013. He has proved CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 11 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi the certificate, u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the CDRs pertaining to mobile phone No. 9177219551, in the name of Khalid Naser Ali, as Ex.PW.16/B & Ex.PW.16/D respectively. He has also proved the certificate, u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the CDRs pertaining to mobile phone No. 9818789022, in the name of the accused, as Ex.PW16/F & Ex.PW16/H, respectively.
xvii) PW17 Sh. Shishir Malhotra, who was working as Nodal Officer, Aircel Ltd., New Delhi in September 2013. He has proved the certificate, u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, in respect of the CDRs, pertaining to mobile phones No. 8801524878 & 9700246992, as Ex.PW17/B. He has also proved the CDRs of mobile phones No. 9700246992 & 8801524878, as Ex.PW17/E & Ex.PW17/F respectively.
xviii) PW18 Shri D.S.Baniwal, who was working as Section Officer, University Grants Commission, New Delhi. He has proved the files pertaining to Ferass Saleh Ali Saeed, Fawwaz Mohd. Ahmed Al Nasher, Hatem Abdo Al Aldois, Marwan Abdu CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 12 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Ali Manea, and Majid Mohd. Ali Mabkhut Musad, as Ex.PW.18/C; Ex.PW.18/D; Ex.PW.18/E; Ex.PW.18/F & Ex.PW.18/G, respectively.
xix) PW19 Dr. Archana Thakur, who was working as Deputy Secretary at Scholarship Section of University Grants Commission, New Delhi, w.e.f. July 2012 to April 2013. She had approved the scholarships to various Junior Research Fellows and the Senior Research Fellows. She has categorically stated that there was no 'processingfee' for the purpose of granting scholarship for JRF scheme.
xx) PW20 Ms. Raksha Pahwa, who was working as Under Secretary at University Grants Commission, New Delhi, since 2010 to 2013. She used to supervise the files relating to grant of scholarships to foreign national students.
xxi) PW21 Sh. R.I.S. Bhardwaj, who was working as Section Officer (Admn.) at University Grants Commission, New Delhi. He provided certified copies of the files of JRF/SRF scholarships to the CBI, vide seizure memo, dated 14.08.2013 as Ex.PW.21/A. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 13 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi xxii) PW22 Inspector Anil Bisht, who was the IO of the case. He has proved the various documents, seized by him during the investigations.
xxiii) PW23 Sh. Vivek Priyadarshi, SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, who registered the FIR Ex.PW.22/A in the present case and entrusted the investigation to Inspector Anil Bisht (I.O.).
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded, u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further deposed that he has not received any amount from any foreign national student towards any processing fee of their scholarship amount. The amount deposited by various foreign national students in his account, were deposited by them, towards the cost price of the books, which they had purchased from his wife. He has further deposed that his wife was running a business of supply of books in the name and style CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 14 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi of S.P. Books Company, at Palam, New Delhi and she had supplied the books to these foreign national students and after receiving the books from her, these foreign national students deposited the cost of the books in his account. He has also examined his wife Smt. Shashi as DW2, in support of his above contentions. Smt. Shashi has also corroborated the above submissions of the accused. The accused has also examined DW1 Shri Dhirender Prasad Thapliyal, from Vijaya Bank, Bhikajicama Place, New Delhi, who has produced the statement of account of M/s. S.P. Books company, bearing account No. 6020003000003351, for the period w.e.f. 11.03.2002 to 09.10.2015.
12. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Shri Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI and Shri Y.K.Kahol, Advocate, for the accused.
CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 15 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Arguments on behalf of the CBI / Prosecution
13. It has been argued by Shri Praneet Sharma, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI that the accused was working as Assistant in the University Grants Commission at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, as GroupB employee and he was processing the files of foreign national students for releasing of the scholarship amounts for Junior Research Fellows and Research Associates during the relevant period. He has further argued that the case files pertaining to several foreign national students, including PW2 Sh. Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed; PW6 Sh. Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin and PW14 Sh. Manea Marwan Abdu Ali were also processed by the accused and he made specific demands from them for releasing of the scholarship amounts to them.
14. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that PW8 Shri Gopal Singh Negi has deposed about the procedure of processing of the files for releasing the scholarship amounts to the Junior Research CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 16 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Fellows and Research Associates and the depositions of PW2 Sh. Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed; PW6 Sh. Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin and PW14 Sh. Manea Marwan Abdu Ali, have proved that the accused had demanded money from these foreign national students for releasing of their scholarship amounts to them. He has further argued that the bank officials have proved the receipt of various amounts in the bank account of the accused, from these foreign national students and therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, from these foreign national students and therefore, the presumption, under Section 20 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, has to be drawn against the accused.
15. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that the accused has himself admitted that he received various amounts from these research fellows in his bank account. But, he has disputed only the purpose of receiving these amounts in his account. He has CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 17 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi stated that these amounts were received by him in his bank account, as the amount of the cost of the course books, purchased by the foreign national students from his wife, who was running a business of sale of UGC books to these research fellows in the name and style of S.P. Books. Therefore, now the onus shifts upon the accused to prove these facts. But, the accused has miserably failed to prove these facts as no document has been produced by him in his defence and no document was produced even by his wife, who was examined as DW2, to prove that she supplied the course books of UGC to these research students and received the payments of costs of books in the bank account of her accused husband.
16. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that the wife of the accused has also failed to disclose any reason, as to why she received various amounts from these research fellows, in the bank account of the accused, despite having her own separate bank account in the name of her firm M/s. S.P.Books. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 18 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
17. Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has further argued that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt and therefore, the accused be held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
18. The Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his contentions:
(i) State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Rajmangal Ram, reported as AIR 2014 Supreme Court 1674;
(ii) State of Maharashtra Through C.B.I. vs. Mahesh G. Jain, reported as (2013) 8 SCC 119.
Arguments on behalf of the accused
19. On the other hand, Sh. Y.K.Kahol, Advocate, for the accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any case against the accused. He has argued that the accused had never CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 19 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi met the foreign national students, who had received scholarships from the UGC and he had never made any phone call to them at any point of time. He has further argued that none of the foreign national students had lodged any complaint against the accused for any demand or acceptance of any money from them. He has further argued that the scholarships to these foreign national students had already been sanctioned in the year 2010 itself and therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to demand any money from these research fellows, regarding processing of their scholarship amounts. He has further argued that even the scholarship amount had been credited in the account of these research fellows prior to deposition of the alleged bribe amount in the account of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the bribe amount was demanded and accepted by the accused, prior to sanctioning or disbursement of the scholarship amounts.
20. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the accused had received various payments from the foreign national research CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 20 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi fellows on various occasions on account of the payment of the amount of the cost price of the books, which his wife had supplied to these students. He has further argued that his wife DW2 Smt. Shashi was running the business of supply of UGC books to these students, under the name and style of M/s. S.P.Books and these research fellows had purchased books from her and therefore, they had deposited the cost amount of these books in the account of the accused. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that this fact has been corroborated by the testimony of DW2 Smt. Shashi, in her deposition before the court on 06.01.2016.
21. The Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that the sanction for prosecution of the accused, as granted by PW1 Sh. Ved Parkash, Chairman, University Grants Commission, vide sanction order Ex.PW.1/A, is not a valid sanction, as the sanction order was passed without any application of mind and was passed in a routine, mechanical manner. He has further argued that PW1 CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 21 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Shri Ved Parkash has not gone through any document and a draft of the sanction order was provided to him, which he signed in a casual manner and therefore, the sanction order Ex.PW.1/A is not a valid sanction order. The Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments, in support of his above contentions:
(i) State of Tamil Nadu vs. M.M.Rajendran, reported as (1998) 9 SCC 268;
(ii) CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported as 2014 Crl.
L.J. 930.
22. The Ld. Defence counsel has prayed that the material contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, from the documentary evidence on record and a defective sanction order makes the entire prosecution case doubtful. Furthermore, the accused has not demanded or accepted any bribe money from the foreign national students and he had received the payments from them, only as the cost price of the books supplied to them, by his wife. Therefore, the accused may be acquitted for the offences alleged against him. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 22 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi OBSERVATIONS / FINDINGS
23. I have carefully perused the case file and I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. PP for the CBI and the Ld. Defence counsels and I have also perused the various judgments, cited by them.
24. Perusal of the record shows that in order to prove the demand and acceptance of the money by the accused, the prosecution has examined the Junior Research Fellows Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed, a Yamen national as PW2; Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin, a Palestine national as PW6; and Manea Marwan Abdu Ali as PW14.
25. PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed has deposed in the court that he came to India in January 2009 to pursue his Ph.D in Linguistic from The English and Foreign Language University, CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 23 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) and he applied for the Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in the year 2009 to the University Grants Commission (UGC) and got acceptance letter for his scholarship in the month of September, 2010 from the UGC, which was received by him in the month of November, 2010.
26. This witness has further deposed that he got the phone number of the accused Pradeep Kumar from his friend in India, who had also got his scholarship from the UGC and Aligarh Muslim University. He has further deposed that his friend told him that he had to contact the accused to get his scholarship approved and thereafter, he contacted the accused on his mobile phone and during talks, accused Pradeep Kumar told him that he had to pay a total sum of Rs.40,000/, as the processing fee, on which, he was shocked to hear the huge amount as processing fee, on which, accused Pradeep Kumar told him that he was not required to make the entire payment on one time and accused Pradeep Kumar further told him that the said amount can be CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 24 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi deposited by him at different times in various installments. Thereafter, the accused faxed him the photocopy of the approval of his scholarship and directed him to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/ in his bank account. Thereafter, he deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/ in the said bank account and after about 34 weeks, accused Pradeep Kumar again directed him to deposit another amount of Rs.5,000/, on the pretext that his scholarship has been sanctioned and approved. A copy of the approval letter was also faxed to him and thereafter, he again deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/, in the same bank account, on the directions of accused Pradeep Kumar.
27. PW2 has further deposed that after depositing the second installment of Rs.5,000/, he received the copy of the approval order of his scholarship from accused Pradeep Kumar and accused Pradeep Kumar told him that the utilization certificate was to be filled up by him and the same was required to be deposited at his university office and thereafter, he directed him to CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 25 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi deposit a further amount of Rs.5,000/ in the same bank account. Thereafter, as directed by accused Pradeep Kumar, he filled up the utilization certificate and deposited the same with his university and as per the directions of accused Pradeep Kumar, he again deposited the third installment of Rs.5,000/ in the same bank account. This witness has proved the payinslips, dated 06.07.2010; 22.11.2010; and 21.10.2010, as Ex.PW.2/A, Ex.PW2/B & Ex.PW.2/C, respectively, regarding deposition of amounts by him in the bank account No. 30489933550 of accused Pradeep Kumar.
28. PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin has also deposed that he came to pursue Ph.D (Translation) from The School of Humanity, Hyderabad, in July 2009 and he knew accused Pradeep Kumar through his friends and his friends had told him that accused Pradeep Kumar was the incharge of processing the fellowship. He has further deposed that his friends had provided the mobile phone number of accused Pradeep Kumar to him and he made CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 26 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi inquiries from the UGC several times about his scholarship and lateron, he contacted accused Pradeep Kumar about his scholarship and during conversations, accused Pradeep Kumar told him that a sum of Rs.10,000/ was to be paid by him as processing fee and only then his fellowship amount would be released. He has further deposed that accused Pradeep Kumar provided him the number of his bank account, in which, he deposited the said amount. He has categorically stated that the said amount was deposited by him at SBI, Hyderabad University Campus Branch. This witness has also proved his payinslip, dated 08.12.2011 and the withdrawal form, dated 08.12.2011 as Ex.PW.6/A and Ex.PW.6/B, respectively.
29. PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali has also deposed that he came to India in July, 2009 for pursuing Ph.D in Agronomy from Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (UP) and he came to know about accused Pradeep Kumar from his brother Hatem Abdo Ali Al Dois, who was also doing Ph.D from I.T. BHU, in Mechanical CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 27 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Engineering and was also getting JRF scholarship. He has further deposed that he contacted accused Pradeep Kumar on the telephone number, which was provided to him by his brother. He has further deposed that he personally contacted accused Pradeep Kumar at UGC. This witness has also identified accused Pradeep Kumar in the court, but, he has stated that the accused had not demanded any money or any gift from him for processing the scholarship. He has further stated that on the contrary, he had given gift to him, himself. He had further stated that he transferred a sum of Rs.5,000/, each, on three different dates, through internet banking and one time through normal banking procedure.
30. Perusal of the testimony of PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed and PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin has established on record, beyond a reasonable doubt that accused Pradeep Kumar had demanded and accepted the money on various occasions from these foreign national students, in the garb of release of their CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 28 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi scholarship amounts to them. However, PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali had deposed that no demand of money was ever made by accused Pradeep Kumar from him, rather, he deposited the amount of Rs.5,000/ each on three different occasions as a gift to him. But, during the recording of his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Pradeep Kumar has himself admitted the receipt of various amounts from all the aforesaid three witnesses. Furthermore, accused Pradeep Kumar has denied that he received any amount from PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali, as a gift. In reply to the question put to him in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had categorically stated that he had not received any amount from PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali, as any gift and the said amount was received by him in his account as the cost price of the books, which were purchased by him from his wife.
31. Perusal of the testimonies of PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed and PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin further indicates that CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 29 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi both these witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel at length, but, no material discrepancy has come on record in their crossexamination, to discard their testimonies. Furthermore, during his crossexamination, PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed has categorically deposed that during his studies in India, he had to purchase the books of his course from the market. He had denied the suggestion by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused Pradeep Kumar told him that his wife was in the business of selling the books of his course. He has furtther denied the suggestion that he made the payment to accused Pradeep Kumar, for the purchase of his books.
32. During his crossexamination, PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin has also denied the suggestions of the Ld. Defence counsel and has categorically stated that he was having no knowledge that the wife of accused Pradeep Kumar was running a business of supplying books to the students. He has also categorically denied the suggestion that he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/, in the CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 30 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi bank account, number of which was provided to him by the accused, for purchasing books from his wife.
33. The deposition of these three witnesses makes it abundantly clear that accused Pradeep Kumar had demanded and accepted various amounts from the foreign national students towards the release of their scholarship amounts to them, in the garb of the processing fee.
34. In support of its case, the prosecution has also examined PW19 Dr. Archana Thakur, who was working as Deputy Secretary in the Scholarship Section of the UGC at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. She was looking after the approval of the scholarships of the NET qualified students and she had categorically stated that there was no 'processingfee' in the UGC, for the purpose of granting scholarships for JRF scheme. CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 31 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi
35. In order to prove the procedure of approval and release of the scholarship amounts to the various foreign national research fellows, the prosecution has examined Shri Gopal Singh Negi as PW8. This witness has narrated the entire procedure and has deposed that for getting the scholarship from the UGC, for higher studies under the JRF Scheme of Finance Division, a bill alongwith the sanction order, duly signed by the competent authority, is received from the selection award division for making payment to the beneficiaries and the same is scrutinized by the concerned dealing assistant and the entry of the bill is made in grantinaid bill register and thereafter, it is submitted to the Section Officer of the finance division for taking and forwarding to the Under Secretary, Finance DivisionIII. Thereafter, the Under Secretary checks the same and if it is found complete in all respect, he signs the bill and the grantinaid register and thereafter, the file is sent to the concerned Section and thereafter, the requisition slip is prepared by the Finance DivisionIII Section and the same is forwarded to the Finance DivisionII Section for CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 32 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi making payment to the beneficiaries. This witness has further deposed that in Finance DivisionII Section, the documents are checked and entered into the cash book and a cheque is prepared in favour of the bank and on the basis of this cheque, the bank prepares the bank draft in favour of the Registrar / Principal of the College, as the case may be, for making payment to the beneficiaries and after paying to the institution or the college, the bank sends the payment confirmation slip to the UGC and thereafter, the relevant entries are made in the respective grantinaid register and the documents are sent back by the Finance DivisionIII Section to the Finance DivisionII Section for record purpose.
36. PW8 Sh. Gopal Singh Negi has proved the grantinaid bill dated 25.01.2011 in respect of PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed, as Ex.PW.8/B and grantinaid bill dated 25.11.2010 in respect of PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali, as Ex.PW.8/D. He has also proved the grantinaid bill dated 08.08.2011 in respect CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 33 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi of Ferass Saleh Ali Saeed, as Ex.PW.8/F.
37. The prosecution has also examined Shri D.S.Beniwal, Section Officer from UGC as PW18. This witness has produced the original files before the court regarding the processing and release of the scholarship amounts to Ferass Saleh Ali Saeed (not examined during the trial); Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed An Nashef (PW2); Hatem Abdo Ali AlDois (not examined during the trial); Manea Marwan Abdu Ali (PW14); and Majid Mohammed Ali Mubkhut Musaad (not examined during the trial). The case files pertaining to PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed; PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin and PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali have been proved on record as Ex.PW.18/D and Ex.PW.18/F, respectively. PW18 has categorically stated that all these files were processed by accused Pradeep Kumar.
38. In order to prove the deposits of various amounts by the foreign national students in the bank account of accused Pradeep CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 34 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi Kumar, the prosecution has examined PW3 Sh. M.A.Raheem; PW4 Sh. I.V.S.Prasad; PW5 Sh. Rohtas Bahota; PW7 Sh. K.K.V.Rama Krishna; PW9 Sh. Haridwar Singh; PW10 Sh. MVGSM Prabhakar Rao; PW11 Ms. Reeta Gupta; PW12 Sh. Nityanand Mishra; and PW13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Ladra. All these bank officials have provided the original credit vouchers; payin slips; deposit vouchers and statement of accounts etc., to the IO, PW22 Inspector Anil Bisht, during the investigations. During their depositions in the court, these witnesses have proved various original credit vouchers and the statement of account of the bank account No. 30489933550 of accused Pradeep Kumar, for various periods. These witnesses have also proved that PW2 Fawwaz Mohammed Ahmed; PW6 Mahmoud L.S. Altarabin and PW14 Manea Marwan Abdu Ali had transferred various amounts from their account to the bank account of accused Pradeep Kumar, bearing account No. 30489933550. As the accused Pradeep Kumar has himself admitted the receipt of various amounts, from these foreign national students, in his aforesaid CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 35 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi bank account, I find no need to discuss the evidence regarding deposition of various amounts, in the account of the accused, in great detail. It is for the accused to prove the purpose and the circumstances, under which he received these amounts from these students.
39. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Pradeep Kumar has taken a defence that he has not received any amounts from these foreign national students towards any processing fee of their scholarship amounts. But, he has admitted that these amounts were received by him in his bank account. He has stated that these amounts were received by him from various foreign national students in his account towards the cost price of the books, which they had purchased from his wife. He has further stated that his wife was running a business of supply of books in the name and style of M/s. S.P.Books at Palam, New Delhi and she had supplied the books to these foreign national students and after receiving the books from her, these foreign CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 36 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi national students deposited the cost of the books in his bank account. The accused Pradeep Kumar has examined his wife Smt. Shashi, as DW2. But, the deposition of DW2 Smt. Shashi does not inspire any confidence as she has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of her deposition. No document has been produced by her to prove that she was running a business of supply of UGC course books to various research students in the name and style of S.P.Books company. This witness was even asked some questions by the court, during her deposition in the court, regarding her business activities and in those court questions, she had admitted that she was not in possession of any document to show that she was running the business of supply of course books to foreign national students. It was further admitted by her that her firm was not registered with any authority and she had not mentioned the bank account or her income from her business activities in her incometax return. She has also stated that the amounts received from the research students in the bank account of her husband were also not shown CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 37 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi by her in her incometax return. During her crossexamination by the Ld. Sr.PP for the CBI, she had admitted that her firm was having no concern with the bank account number 30489933550 at SBI, Moti BaghII, New Delhi. This account was in the name of accused Pradeep Kumar. Furthermore, this witness has failed to disclose any reason as to why she got the payment of the books supplied by her to the various research students, in the bank account of her husband, instead of her own bank account. From the deposition of DW2, it is clear that DW2 Smt. Shashi has deposed in the court only to save her husband, who is the accused in the present case.
40. Another contention of the Ld. Defence counsel has remained about the validity of the sanction for prosecution of accused. Perusal of the record shows that the prosecution has examined the competent authority Professor Ved Parkash, Chairman, UGC, as PW1, who has granted sanction for prosecution of the accused, under Section 19 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 38 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi 1988, for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, vide his sanction order Ex.PW.1/A. He has categorically stated in the court that he was the competent authority to appoint and remove GroupB employees of the Commission, vide circular dated 10.05.2013 and accused Pradeep Kumar was Assistant in the UGC as GroupB employee. He has further deposed that while granting the sanction for his prosecution, he had considered the CBI report, statements of the witnesses and other related documents, including the e.mails, which were forwarded to the UGC from some foreign citizens, wherein, it was alleged that accused Pradeep Kumar was demanding the money from the foreign national students for the award of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF). This witness has proved his sanction order dated 01.10.2013 as Ex.PW.1/A.
41. When the sanction order Ex.PW.1/A is perused, it is observed that in the sanction order, the complete details of the facts and CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 39 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi circumstances of the case have been duly mentioned and it has been specifically mentioned by PW1, that after fully and carefully examining the material i.e. the FIR, statement of account No. 30489933550, maintained at SBI, South Campus Branch, New Delhi; credit slip of different banks of SBI, situated at Hyderabad and Pune; relevant scholarship files of foreign nationals and guidelines, relating to Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) and Research Associateship (RA) for foreign nationals from the office; statement of witnesses and other documents relating to the case number RC 15(A)/2013, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, collected during the investigations and placed before him, in respect of the said allegations and circumstances of the case, he considered that accused Pradeep Kumar should be prosecuted in the court of law for the aforesaid offences.
42. The perusal of the sanction order Ex.PW1/A clearly indicate that the competent authority had gone through the entire relevant documents and has considered all the relevant facts and CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 40 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi circumstances of the case and has applied its mind before granting sanction for prosecution of accused Pradeep Kumar, in the present case. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, the sanction order Ex.PW1/A cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity and it cannot be said that the sanction for prosecution of accused Pradeep Kumar was granted by the competent authority in a mechanical manner, without application of mind. The sanction order Ex.PW.1/A is a valid and legally sustainable sanction order and therefore, the contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that the sanction order Ex.PW.1/A is not a valid sanction order, cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected.
43. In view of the above discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused, for the offences punishable under Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond a shadow of doubt. Accordingly, CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 41 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi accused Pradeep Kumar is hereby held guilty and convicted for the said offences.
It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in open Court on 23 day of January, 2016 rd BRIJESH KUMAR GARG Special Judge:CBI01 Central District. Delhi CBI Vs. Pradeep Kumar (CC No. 04/2013) Page 42 of 42 Special Judge, CBI01, Central, Delhi