Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 30 April, 2012

    IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL 
       JUDGE, CBI­05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.


CC No. :   24/12

RC no.  :  15A/2007/CBI/ACB/New Delhi

Unique Case ID no. : 02403R1012602007

Title :     State (CBI)
                       Vs.

    1.

Ravinder Pandit, S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal Pandit, R/o Flat no. 2, Police Station Vikas Puri Premises, New Delhi.

Permanent Address: Village & P.O. Biara, Tehsil Palampur, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kaushik, S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh, R/o 98, Ashok Garden, Avadh Puri, Near Railway Station, Gurgaon, Haryana.

Also at, Village Nurpur, Post Office Karawra Manakpur, P.S. Jatusana, Distt. Rewari, Haryana.

  
U/s      :  120­B IPC r/w Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
                  P.C. Act 1988


                 Date of Institution          :   31.07.2007
                 Date of reserving order  :   30.04.2012
                 Date of pronouncement :   30.04.2012




CC No. 24/12                   State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc.            Page no.1 of 71
 Appearance:

Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI.

Sh. N.K. Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Ravinder Pandit.

Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kaushik.

J U D G M E N T

1. The instant case was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 30.04.2007 of Sh. Praveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Chandan Singh, R/o A­370, Tughlakabad Village, Bhangra Mohalla, New Delhi 110044, wherein it is alleged that accused SI Ravinder Pandit posted at PP H­Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lacs only) from him for not stopping the construction work going on, on Plot no. H­118/17, Sangam Vihar, Ratia Marg, Near K.S.K. Public School and allowing to continue the construction.

2. The investigation had further disclosed that consequent up on registration of the case RC­DAI­2007­A­0015 dated 30.04.2007, pre­trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Sh. Girish Prasad, Typist Clerk and Sh. Satpal, Drvier Grade­II (SG) both of National Fertilizers Ltd. Corporate office, A­11, Sector - 24, CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.2 of 71 Noida and CBI team comprising of Sh. Brajesh Kumar, Inspector/TLO, Sh. D.K. Thakur, Inspector, Sh. S.S. Bhullar, Inspector, Sh. V.K. Pathak, Sub­Inspector, Sh. Anmol Sachan, Sub­Inspector and Subordinate staff. The witnesses went through the complaint and asked certain questions from Sh. Praveen Kumar to satisfy themselves of the genuineness of the complaint. In order to verify the demand of bribe it was decided to contact accused SI Ravinder Pandit on his mobile phone number 9899032364 from the complainant's mobile number 9891181004 by the complainant. Thereafter, digital voice recorder was arranged and after ensuring its blankness introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were recorded in digital Voice Recorder and thereafter complainant was asked to contact accused SI Ravinder Pandit on his abovesaid mobile phone from the mobile phone of the complainant at about 4:15 pm and after conversation complainant disclosed that accused SI Ravinder Pandit has stated that at present he is outside the court and will call back after reaching the Police Post. At about 5:25 pm a call was received from the mobile of accused SI Ravinder Pandit on the mobile of complainant and the complainant informed that accused SI Ravinder Pandit had called him to come near the shooting range T­Point. The said conversation was recorded in the Digital Recorder. Thereafter it was played and heard in presence of all, which confirmed the demand of bribe by accused SI Ravinder Pandit. The recorded conversation was CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.3 of 71 transferred in a new blank audio cassette with the help of compact cassette recorder, after ensuring its blankness. Then complainant produced a sum of Rs.20,000/­, all of denomination of Rs.500/­, whose numbers were noted in the Handing Over Memo. A leather bag had also been arranged. Empty clean glass bottles, tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, CBI seal, sealing material was kept in this bag.

3. Then Sh. D.K. Thakur, Inspector CBI, ACB, New Delhi treated the GC notes with phenolphthalein powder and gave a practical demonstration regarding the reaction that takes place between the phenolphthalein powder and colourless solution of sodium carbonate prepared in a glass tumbler filled with water. The independent witness Sh. Girish Prasad was asked to touch the tainted notes with his right hand fingers and wash them in the colourless solution of sodium Carbonate. On doing so by him, the colourless solution turned pink in colour and this pink coloured solution was thrown away after explaining the significance of the reaction. Personal search of the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar was conducted by Sh. Anmol Sachan, Sub Inspector and was not allowed to keep anything incriminating on his person, except his mobile phone. The bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ mentioned above duly treated with phenolphthalein powder was kept in the right side pant pocket of the complainant and he was directed to hand over this tainted bribe amount to the accused on his specific demand and not otherwise CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.4 of 71 or on his specific direction to some other persons.

4. All the members had washed their hands with soap and water. Sh. Satpal, the independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation. Sh. Praveen Kumar, complainant and shadow witness both were directed to give signal after completion of transaction of bribe amount by scratching their head with both their hands or by making a call/miss call from his mobile on the mobile number of Sh. D.K. Thakur (9818256993). Other witness Sh. Girish Prasad was asked to remain with the members of the trap team.

5. A digital voice recorder alongwith cassette recorder with two sealed blank audio cassettes was arranged for transferring the recorded conversation at the spot from digital recorder to audio cassette. Thereafter, the digital cassette recorder was played and with and it was confirmed that it did not contain any pre­recorded voice. The formal voices of both the witnesses were recorded in the said digital recorder which was to be handed over to the complainant after reaching at the spot. The functional part of the said Digital Recorder was again explained to the complainant. All the members except the complainant mutually searched each other to ensure that they do not carry any incriminating document/article.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.5 of 71

6. The pre­trap proceedings started at 4 pm and concluded at 5:45 pm. Thereafter the CBI team left the CBI office at about 6 pm. While the team was on its way to shooting range T Point, a telephonic call was received by the complainant on his mobile at about 6:06 pm from accused SI Ravinder Pandit and it was told to the complainant that accused SI Ravinder Pandit is waiting at Shooting Range, T Point. This conversation was recorded simultaneously in the digital recorder. The team arrived near the T Point near Shooting Range at about 6:30 pm The complainant and shadow witness were re­briefed about the signal and were allowed to proceed towards T Point on foot and rest of the team members took suitable position on the road near T Point. The complainant informed after about five minutes that accused Ravinder Pandit is not available at T Point. Upon this the complainant was directed to contact the accused on mobile, which he did and it was learnt by the complainant that accused Ravinder Pandit has gone to Police Post after waiting for him for about half an hour at the T Point because new SHO was likely to visit police Post. It was also directed to the complainant by accused Ravinder Pandit that he may hand over the money (bribe) to one Constable namely Vijender doing duty at the next check post. This call was simultaneously recorded in the digital recorder.

7. Accordingly next check post was visited but no constable was found there. It was decided after waiting for CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.6 of 71 some time that the complainant should contact accused Ravinder Pandit. However, an incoming call was received by him from Sh. Vijender. During this call, Sh. Vijender asked whether he is coming or not and Sahab was telling that he was to come to him; upon which the complainant informed that he was somewhere in Sangam Vihar and he will be coming to him, seeing accused SI Ravinder Pandit in Police Post. Accordingly, the complainant and shadow witness proceeded towards Police Post and rest of the team members followed them. Prior to proceeding ahead for Police Post, the complainant was handed over the digital recorder with the direction to switch it on as he meets the accused SI Ravinder Pandit.

8. Investigation further revealed that few minutes prior to reaching the Police Post, the complainant contacted accused SI Ravinder Pandit on his mobile and during that accused SI Ravinder Pandit told that he is in Police Post and to wait outside the Police Post, as accused SI Ravinder Pandit is sending one Constable namely Ashok. The CBI team members including the other independent witness took position nearby. A few moments later, the team members observed that a person in civil clothes came on a motorcycle and parked it a little ahead of the parked vehicle of the complainant. The said person alighted from the motorcycle and boarded the vehicle of complainant. After a few moments, the pre fixed signal was received from the complainant as well as shadow witness. Immediately there CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.7 of 71 upon the team members rushed towards the parked vehicle of the complainant. It was found that the shadow witness Sh. Satpal was sitting on the driver's seat whereas the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar was sitting on the left front seat. One person was found sitting on the left rear seat. Sh. Brajesh Kumar and Anmol Sachan, approached the vehicle from left and right side respectively. On inquiry the said person revealed his identity as Sh. Ashok Kaushik, Constable posted at PP Sangam Vihar. After disclosing the identity of the team members he was challenged as to whether he has received bribe of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant. On this he became a little perplexed. Then on being asked the complainant informed that Sh. Ashok Kaushik had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ with his right hand, counted the same with his both hands and kept the money in his right hand side below his hips. Accordingly, his left and right hands were caught by wrists by Sh. Brajesh Kumar and Anmol Sachan . The shadow witness corroborated the version of the complainant. Sh. Girish Prasad was directed to recover the said bribe amount, which he did. Then both the witnesses compared the GC numbers / denomination of the recovered bribe money with the details of GC notes already mentioned in the handing over memo and confirmed that the same tallied in toto. On being asked Ct. Ashok disclosed that he was sent by accused SI Ravinder Pandit to collect the money from Sh. Praveen Kumar, complainant outside the Police Post in Gali no. 16. Accordingly, on direction, Ct. Ashok Kumar CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.8 of 71 contacted accused Ravinder Pandit on his mobile and during this call Ct. Ashok Kumar confirmed that he has received the money, upon which accused Ravinder Pandit told ''le aa''. On this Inspector S.S. Bhullar was directed to proceed towards Police Post alongwith SI Vikas Pathak to apprehend accused Ravinder Pandit (Sub Inspector) which they did. Ct. Ashok Kumar was brought to the Police Post and on reaching the Police Post SI Ravinder Pandit was found present. He was challenged as to whether he had directed Ct. Ashok Kumar to collect the bribe amount from the complainant. On this he had kept mum. Ct. Ashok Kumar and SI Ravinder Pandit were put under arrest at about 7:40 pm to 7:55 pm

9. Thereafter a fresh solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a neat glass tumbler and accused Ct. Ashok Kumar was directed to dip his right hand fingers in the said solution, which he did. On doing so the colourless solution turned pink in colour. This was transferred into a neat and clean glass bottle and was marked as RHW and was sealed and signed by independent witnesses.

10. Thereafter, another fresh colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a neat and clean glass tumbler and accused Ct. Ashok Kumar was directed to dip his left hand fingers in the said solution and on doing so the same turned pink colour. This pink colour solution was transferred into CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.9 of 71 another neat and clean glass bottle and was marked as LHW and sealed and signed by independent witnesses.

11. Thereafter another fresh colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a neat and clean glass tumbler and Ct. Ashok Kumar was directed to put take his wearing pant, which he did and the right hip portion of the pant was dipped into the said solution. On doing so the colourless solution turned into pink colour and this pink colour solution was transferred into a neat and clean glass bottle and was marked as OBPW and sealed and signed by the aforesaid independent witnesses. Ct. Ashok Kumar was provided another pant available in Police Post and was allowed to put on the same.

12. Thereafter the digital voice recorder was taken back from the complainant and the conversation recorded was heard, which confirmed the involvement of accused SI Ravinder Pandit. This conversation was transferred into a blank audio cassette after ensuring it's blankness, with the help of compact cassette recorder. The said audio cassette was marked as Q­2 and the investigation copy of the said conversation recording was also prepared at the spot. A rough site plan of the place of transaction of bribe amount and the position of the team members showing therein was prepared and signed by all concerned.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.10 of 71

13. Documents were prepared and charge sheet was filed against the accused after investigation u/s 120­B IPC r/w 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the CBI.

14. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C charge u/s 7 and 13(1)(d), 13(2) was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

15. CBI in support of their case have examined 10 witnesses.

16. PW 1 - Sh. Jyotish Mahrana, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Essar stated that in June 2007 he was working as Nodal Officer. He has proved letter dated 12.06.2007 (D­7) as Ex.PW1/A. He stated that through this letter he had sent call details of mobile number 9899032364 for the period 15.04.2007 to 15.05.2007 running into fourteen sheets. He also identified his signature on each page of call details which is now Ex.PW1/B. He has further stated that the said telephone number is in the name of accused Ravinder Pandit as per Customer Agreement Form, now Ex.PW1/C, which bears his signature at point a. He has also proved the photocopy of the I­card of the customer, bill of customer, Form 60, photograph of the customer as Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/G. On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel on behalf of accused Ravinder Pandit he stated that the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.11 of 71 software used for recording the abovesaid call detail was OSSAPPS. IT Department had operated this software during the relevant period. He further stated that he did not know the person who had operated the same. He also stated that he did not know if the original chip was seized by the CBI or not. He further stated that he did not know if the company has the permission to operate the computer from the Government. He has admitted that the call details were recorded automatically. He stated that he could not tell as to whether call details were recorded on one computer or successively on different computers.

17. PW 2 ­ Sh. Pawan Singh, deposed that in July, 2007 he was working as Nodal Officer with IDEA Cellular Limited. He has proved the letter dated 23.07.2007 (D­8) which bears his signature at point A same is Ex.PW2/A. He stated that he had sent this letter to the IO of the case alongwith application form and its enclosures of mobile number 9891181004. He has also proved the customer Service Agreement Form Ex.PW2/B, credit card standing instructions Ex.PW2/C, Election card Ex.PW2/D, Customer personal verification form Ex.PW2/E and service plan Ex.PW2/F. He has also stated that call details of the abovesaid mobile number were sent by him to the IO vide letter dated 08.06.2007 which bears his signature at point A and now is Ex.PW2/G. He also proved the call details running into thirty four sheets as Ex.PW2/H. CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.12 of 71 On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel on behalf of accused Ravinder Pandit he admitted that as per call details Ex.PW2/H at Sr. no. 829, at point X, a call was received from mobile number 98990332364 at 6.36.27 pm Thereafter, next call was received at 6.56.29 pm from mobile number 9810482520 at point Y. He further admitted that on 30.04.2007, call was received at 5.18.50 pm from mobile number 9899032364. Thereafter, next call was received on 30.04.2007 at 5.32.40 pm from mobile number 9873507778, these were marked at portion Z1 to Z1 on the call details Ex.PW2/H. He also admitted that on 30.04.2007 another call was received at 5.58.51 pm from mobile number 9899032364 and thereafter, an SMS was received on the same day at 6.21.08 pm from mobile number 919212575105.

18. PW 3 - Dr. Rajender Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and head of Physics and Forensic voice identification Division, CFSL deposed on oath that he has twenty years experience in the field of Forensic Voice Identification. He has stated that he had received four sealed parcels Exhibits Q­1, Q­2, S­1, S­2 and S­3 from SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi in intact condition. He stated that Ex.Q­1 contained a normal audio cassette which had questioned voice recording of accused Ravinder Pandit and the same was marked by him as Ex.Q­1(A). Ex.Q­2 also contained a normal audio cassette which had questioned voice recording of accused Ravinder Pandit, accused Ct. Ashok Kumar and Vijender CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.13 of 71 Singh and these were marked as Ex.Q­2(A), Q­2(B) and Q­2(C). He has stated that Ex.S­1 and S­2 contained normal audio cassette specimen voice recording of accused Ravinder Pandit and accused Ct. Ashok Kumar. These Specimen voice were marked by him as Ex.S­1(A) and S­2(A). Ex.S­3 contained a normal audio cassette which had specimen voice recording of Sh. Vijender Singh and the same was marked by him as Ex.S­3(A). He also stated that he had examined the questioned voice recording of accused Ravinder Pandit Ex.Q­1(A) and Q­2(A), questioned voice of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar Ex.Q­2(B) and questioned voice of Sh. Vijender Singh Ex.Q­2(C) by auditory and voice spectrography technique with respect to their specimen voices which was marked by him as Ex.S­1(A), S­2(A) and S­3(A) and he had found that questioned voice of accused SI Ravinder Pandit Ex.Q­1(A) and Q­2(A), questioned voice of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar as Ex.Q­2(B) and questioned voice of Sh. Vijender Singh exhibited as Q­2(C) tallied with their specimen voice marked S­1(A), S­2(A) and S­3(A) in respect of their linguistic, phonetics and other general spectrographic parameters. He has also proved his report in this regard as Ex.PW3/A. On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel on behalf of accused Ravinder Pandit he stated that he had seen forwarding letter dated 03.05.2007 with which the cassettes were received in CFSL for examination of voices (D­9). He stated that the cassettes were received in Physics Division of CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.14 of 71 CFSL by Sh. Arun Kumar, the Scientific Assistant on 03.05.2007. He stated that he had taken the cassettes for examination on or about 25th or 26th July, 2007 and till the cassettes remained in the almirah. He admitted that in para 1 and 2 in D­9 which are marked as B and C there is no mention about the recording of the question voice and specimen. He admitted that in column no. 4 of the chart given in D­9 and the serial no. 1 Mark D, the name of the accused whose conversation was said to have been recorded is not mentioned. Similarly at Serial no. 2 column no. 4 name of the accused is not given. He also admitted that when recording is done in a vehicle in which many persons are sitting or in an open place where persons are passing and there are environmental voices, disturbances may come in the questioned recording.

19. PW 4 - Sh. Satpal, who is shadow witness, stated that on 30.04.2007 he was called by the CBI officials. A complainant had come to the CBI office, his name was Praveen Kumar and he had made a complaint that Sub Inspector Ravinder Pandit of Police Station Sangam Vihar was demanding a bribe of Rs. One lakh in connection with on going construction at his house and he was threatened that if the bribe amount was not paid, the construction work would be stopped. Thereafter, Praveen Kumar had spoken to accused Ravinder Pandit on mobile phone in which accused Ravinder Pandit had told that he requires Rs. 1 lakh and had also told the place where the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.15 of 71 complainant would reach with money, to which Praveen Kumar had replied that he could arrange only Rs.20,000/­. Thereafter Praveen Kumar was directed to come with Rs.20,000/­ and he had taken Rs.20,000/­ to the CBI office and the CBI officers had applied some powder on the currency notes. The currency notes consisted of Rs.500/­ each and the number of currency notes were fed into a computer. Demonstration was given to him and hands of a person were got washed. On doing so, the colour of the water had turned pink. He further stated that the person was from the CBI office and when the demonstration was taking place, entire team of the CBI was present. He stated that the powder treated currency notes were handed over to the complainant and he was directed to hand over the currency notes to accused Ravinder Pandit only on his demand. He also stated that accused Ravinder Pandit did not meet them at the place where he had called the complainant, complainant was also given a digital recorder for recording the conversation in ON position. He further stated that before the CBI team could enter PS Sangam Vihar, an associate of accused Ravinder Pandit whose name was Ct. Ashok Kumar came on motorcycle, he alighted from the motorcycle and sat in the car of the complainant, the complainant handed over the money to Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar spoke to Ravinder Pandit regarding receipt of money, on this he gave a signal to the CBI team, on this CBI team arrested accused Ct Ashok Kumar, Ct. Ashok Kumar was asked about Ravinder Pandit and he told that he was CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.16 of 71 sitting in the Police station. He also stated that CBI team met accused Ravinder Pandit and had talked to him and questioned him about the acceptance of money, CBI team took fingerprints of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar and also obtained washes of hands of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar and pant, the colour of the hand wash turned pink. He also stated that the money was in the hands of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar and he was about to put the same in his pant pocket when he was apprehended. He stated that the currency notes were taken from the hand of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar by the CBI officials. He has proved the handing over memo (D­2) Ex.PW4/A, recovery memo (D­3) Ex.PW4/B, personal search memo (D­4) Ex.PW4/C of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar. He has also proved the arrest­cum­personal search memo (D­4) of accused Ravinder Pandit (Sub Inspector) Ex.PW4/F, Voice identification cum transcription memo (D­14) Ex.PW4/G, transcription dated 13.06.2007 (D­14) Ex.PW4/G1. He has also identified his signature on Ex.P­1, right hand wash bottle, Ex.P­2, left hand wash bottle, Ex.P­3, pant wash bottle, currency notes which were recovered from accused Ct. Ashok Kumar Ex.P­4 to Ex.P­43, Ex.P­44, P­45 and P­46. He has also correctly identified the pant of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar Ex.P­47, cassette Q­1 Ex/P­48, another cassette Q­2 Ex.P­49.

He was declared hostile by the Ld. PP for CBI and on being cross examined he stated that his statement was not recorded by the IO. He also stated that he was made to hear the voices of accused Ravinder Pandit and the complainant Praveen CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.17 of 71 Kumar at CBI office but today he has not been able to identify the voices from the cassette played in the court since long time has passed. He denied that he is deliberately not identifying the voices at Ex.PW4/G­1 to G­2 which were prepared from Q­1 and Q­2 and also on the point of recovery of bribe amount.

On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Ravinder Pandit he stated that he had neither met accused Ravinder Pandit nor accused Ashok Kumar prior to 30.04.2007 nor he had spoken to them on telephone or otherwise, therefore, he cannot identify their voices. He admitted during his cross examination that he had not heard accused Ravinder Pandit demanding Rs.1 lakh from the complainant Praveen Kumar. He further admitted that whatever he was told by CBI to state, he had deposed the same in the court and it was recorded in his examination in chief. He also stated that he did not know accused Ashok Kumar and accused Ravinder Pandit and had not heard any conversation between them. He further stated that the currency notes were not taken from the hands of accused Ct. Ashok Kumar within his sight but the currency notes were picked up from the ground by the CBI officials. He stated that Ex.PW4/A, B, C, D, F and G were neither read by him nor were read over to him, he had signed these documents at the instance of CBI without understanding their contents. He also stated that the bottles were got signed by him by CBI officials in the PS Sangam Vihar and he had not seen the proceedings which had taken place inside PS Sangam CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.18 of 71 Vihar as he alongwith Girish Prasad were sitting outside.

The witness PW 4 was again examined by the ld. special PP for CBI in which he deposed that no conversation on phone had taken place in his presence between accused Ashok Kumar and accused Ravinder Pandit as recorded in his examination in chief. He denied that he had given a wrong statement in his cross examination regarding the documents which bear his signatures, in respect of tainted notes and has made false statement in his cross examination to help the accused persons.

20. PW 5 - Dr. N.M. Hashmi, Sr. Scientific Officer, CFSL deposed that the exhibits of this case i.e. three sealed glass bottles, marked as RHW, LHW and OBPW were received in CFSL vide letter of SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi dated 03.05.2007 now Ex.PW5/A and all the exhibits were chemically analyzed him him and gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. He has proved his report dated 17.05.2007 Ex.PW5/B . He has also correctly identified the three sealed bottles RHW, LHW and OBPW as Ex.P­1, P­2 and P­3.

On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, ld. counsel on behalf of accused Ashok he stated that when phenolphthalein powder, if comes into contact with water shall not turn pink. He also denied that his opinion Ex.PW5/B is not correct and his report is under the influence of CBI.

21. PW 6 - Sh. Girish Prasad deposed on oath that on CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.19 of 71 30.04.2007 he was working in National Fertilizers Limited, Ministry of chemical and Fertilizers, Government of India and on that day he was directed to report in CBI office, CGO complex and he reported in the office of CBI at about 9:30 am He also stated that in the CBI office he met with complainant Praveen Kumar and entire team of CBI. He stated that he had seen the complaint of complainant Praveen Kumar and the complaint was against accused SI Ravinder Pandit on the allegations that he was demanding Rs. 1 lakh. In order to verify the complaint a telephonic call was got made to accused Ravinder Pandit from the mobile phone of the complainant Praveen Kumar. On this accused Ravinder Pandit had told Praveen Kumar that he was outside the court and he would contact him later on. He also stated that a telephonic call was received from accused Ravinder Pandit on which complainant told him that he could arrange only Rs.20,000/­ and on this Ravinder Pandit asked him to meet him at T­Point, Shooting range and this conversation was recorded in digital voice recorder. He stated that currency notes of Rs.20,000/­ were counted and phenolphthalein powder was applied on these currency notes and a demonstration was given. The items included many things including some liquid and in demonstration the colour of the solution had changed. After making full preparation, a telephonic call was made by Praveen Kumar to accused Ravinder Pandit informing him that they were coming. This conversation was also recorded. Thereafter, the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar and shadow witness Sh. Satpal CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.20 of 71 were in Scorpio and rest of the trap party were in a separate CBI vehicle and had started for the spot and on reaching Shooting Range, Praveen Kumar had made a telephonic call to accused Ravinder Pandit informing him that he had reached there but accused Ravinder Pandit had told him that he had left since the SHO had come and had called him. Accused Ravinder Pandit had also informed him that one person by name of Vijender would meet him. On reaching the next check post, that person was not found. Praveen Kumar again made a telephonic call to accused Ravinder Pandit and accused Ravinder Pandit had asked him to come to Police Station Sangam Vihar itself and had also told him to stand outside the police station and he would send one Ashok Kumar to Gali no. 16 and had asked him to wait there. The Scorpio of complaint was parked there. He stated that they had stood a little away from the Scorpio of Praveen Kumar. Praveen Kumar and Satpal were directed in the CBI Office itself to give a signal by nodding their heads on completion of the transaction. Accused Ashok Kumar had come over there on a motorcycle and had parked the same over there and after parking the same, he sat in the Scorpio behind the passenger seat as Satpal was sitting on the driver seat and Praveen was sitting on the front passenger seat. Thereafter, Praveen Kumar had given a signal and CBI team had run over there and had encircled the Scorpio. He stated that he had given indication to the CBI team to reach at the spot. He stated that CBI team had apprehended accused Ashok Kumar. He CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.21 of 71 stated that he had seen accused Ashok Kumar was holding currency notes by his hands, below his hips. Accused Ashok Kumar had called accused Ravinder Pandit and had informed him that he had taken the money and on this, accused Ravinder Pandit had told him all right and had asked him to come to the Police Station. Accused Ashok Kumar had counted the currency notes with both his hands and had informed that they were Rs. 20,000/­.

The witness identified the hand washes and wash of the backside pant pocket of the accused Ashok Kumar Ex.P­1 to P­3 and clothes Ex.P­44, P­45 and P­46 wherein hand washes and the pant pocket wash were sealed. The pant Ex.P­47 was not identified by the witness.

Thereafter, upon request of the Ld. Special PP for CBI to cross examine the witness on certain points, the witness stated that he had not signed any blank paper. He stated that he does not remember whether memo Ex.PW4/B was read over and explained to him or not. He further stated that he does not remember whether site plan had already been drawn with he had signed the same. He denied that all the proceedings were carried out in his presence. He stated that he was sitting inside the Varandah whereas CBI Team was busy in completing the proceedings in the room.

On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused no. 1 Ravinder Pandit he stated that he had received written orders to go to CBI Office on 30.4.2007.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.22 of 71 He stated that his statement was not recorded by CBI. He again stated that they might have recorded his statement. He stated that the tainted currency notes were given to the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar. He further stated that after apprehending accused Ashok Kumar, they had gone to the Police Station with CBI Team but he did not know the name of the Police Station. He stated that he had gone to the Police Station in separate vehicle whereas accused Ashok Kumar was taken in separate vehicle. Nobody had met them in the Police Station. He stated that he does not understand English. He stated that document Ex. PW4/F i.e. Voice Recording Memo of voice samples of accused Ravinder Pandit, were got signed from him next date in the CBI Office. He stated that he does not remember whether any voice sample was taken in his presence. He stated that complaint was not written in his presence by the complainant. He stated that he does not remember whether the contents of the complaint were told to him by the Investigating Officer or any officer of the CBI. He stated that he had never spoken to accused Ravinder Pandit on phone or otherwise before 30.4.2007, he had never talked to accused Ravinder Pandit directly or through telephone. He stated that he does not remember the name of the CBI Officer who had told him that Praveen Kumar had talked to accused Ravinder Pandit over the phone. He further stated that he had no personal knowledge of telephonic conversation between complainant Ashok Kumar and accused Ravinder Pandit.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.23 of 71 In reply to the Court's question for clarifications, he stated that when Praveen Kumar had talked to accused Ravinder Pandit over phone from CBI Office, he was present near Praveen Kumar and was hearing the talk from the side of Praveen Kumar but he was not able to hear as to what was being said to Sh. Praveen Kumar from the other side of the phone. He stated that he cannot say whether any telephonic conversation was made or recorded from the Shooting Range. He stated that apart from the present case, he was also witness in another case of CBI.

On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Ashok Kumar, he admitted that recovery was not effected in his presence because he had reached the place of recovery after getting the signal.

22. PW­7 Sh. Balbir Singh, proved letter dated 05.6.2007 addressed to Chowki In­Charge, Police Post H­ Block, Sangam Vihar Ex. PW7/A and identifies the signatures of Chowki In­Charge Sushil Kumar at point A. He stated that he identify the signatures of Chowki In­Charge Sushil Kumar since he has worked with him. He further stated that through this letter CBI had requested for some papers from the Police Post and on the directions of Chowki In­Charge, he had taken the papers as mentioned in Production­cum­Seizure Memo dated 11.6.2007 Ex.PW7/B and had produced the same before the CBI vide the said Memo. He also stated that document mentioned CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.24 of 71 at serial no. 2 of letter Ex.PW7/A was not provided to the CBI as no such document was in existence on the record of the Police Post. He also stated that he had not seen any illegal construction going on on Plot no. H­118/17 and H­118/07, Sangam Vihar, Ratia Marg. He further stated that he has retired from Delhi Police on 17.7.2009. He stated that he had the photocopies of the documents which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW7/B which were given to him by the then Chowki In­Charge, H­ Block Sangam Vihar, Sub Inspector Sushil Kumar with directions to deliver the same to the Investigating Officer. He had gone to CBI Office and had handed over the same to Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar of CBI which were seized. He proved the photocopies of those documents which were delivered to Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar by him as Mark A, B, C and D. He also stated that when illegal construction is being reported or noticed by the police officials, it is brought to the notice of the SHO concerned who may report the same to MCD for appropriate action.

On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Ravinder Pandit, he stated that he was posted in Police Post, H­Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi from the year 2001 to 2003. He stated that in the year 2006­2007, he was posted in Police Station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. He stated that he does not know whether there is any mention of any illegal construction in documents Mark A, B, C and D. He also stated that his statement was not recorded under Section CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.25 of 71 161 Cr.P.C. by CBI on 11.06.2007. He again said that his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer but it was not signed by him. He stated that neither he had visited plot no. H­118/7 Sangam Vihar, Ratia Marg near KSK Public School nor he had noticed any illegal construction at this plot. He also stated that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that during his visits to Police Post, H­Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and surrounding areas, he had also seen the said illegal construction going on on the aforesaid place. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW7/DA portion A to A wherein it was so recorded. He stated that at Mark D portion A to A the departure entry of accused Ravinder Pandit (Sub Inspector) has been recorded and as per the entry, he had left the Chowki at 9:10 am to attend a Court at Patiala House. He proved the relevant entry as Ex. PW7/DB. He stated that as per the entry in document mark D, made by accused Ravinder Pandit; the entry has been made about his return at 5:35 pm on 30.4.2007 and thereafter, in the same entry, his departure has been recorded for the area patrolling vide Ex.PW7/DC.

On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Ld. Counsel for accused no.2 Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Kaushik he stated that photographs and reports of premises plot no. H­118/7, Sangam Vihar, Ratia Marg were not sent to MCD/DDA by him since he did not notice any illegal construction at the said plot in the year 2007.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.26 of 71

23. PW­8 Sh. Praveen Kumar, who is the complainant, stated that on 27.4.2007, 4­5 police personnels had come to his plot situated at H­118/17, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. They had threatened him that if he will not stop the construction work and if he will not pay them money, they will send him to jail. Thereafter he had gone to CBI office as he did not want to give them bribe.

He had informed the CBI officials that 4­5 policemen had demanded illegal gratification from him. He stated that he had told them that he did not know their names. They had asked him as to who was the Chowki In­Charge of the concerned area. He had told them that accused Ravinder Pandit was the Chowki In­Charge of the said area. They had advised him to write complaint against accused Ravinder Pandit since the complaint had to be specifically in someone's name.

He further stated that accused Ravinder Pandit had spoken to him on phone 2­3 times as he wanted him to produce documents relating to the plot on which construction was taking place. The CBI officials had asked him to give a phone call to accused Ravinder Pandit and accordingly, he had made a telephone call on the mobile number of the accused Ravinder Pandit. He further stated that accused Ravinder Pandit had told him that he was in court and will reach Sangam Vihar Chowki after 2­3 hours. He had again called up accused Ravinder Pandit on the asking of CBI officials in the afternoon. Accused CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.27 of 71 Ravinder Pandit had told him that he will send Ct. Vijender and he should meet him. The complainant further stated that thereafter, CBI officials had told him that they will accompany him to meet Ct. Vijender who had fixed the place of meeting at Check Post, Kaya Maya at the asking of accused Ravinder Pandit. When they had reached there, Ct. Vijender was not there. The complainant further stated that he had again called up accused Ravinder Pandit on the asking of CBI officials informing him that Ct. Vijender was not there. Accused Ravinder Pandit had asked him to meet him at Police Chowki. He had told him that he was outside the Police Chowki after reaching there. Thereafter, he had seen a policeman coming outside the police chowki and had thought that he has been sent by accused Ravinder Pandit. He came to know that his name was Ct. Ashok. He further stated that he had tried to give him the bribe amount. He did not accept the bribe amount and it had fallen on the ground. The same was picked up by the CBI officials. CBI officials had apprehended accused Ashok Kumar (Constable). Thereafter, he was asked to wait outside the Police Chowki in the car. The CBI officials had taken accused Ashok Kumar (Constable) inside the Chowki. He stated that he did not know whether any proceedings had taken place inside the Police Chowki and his statement was recorded in CBI office on the next day.

Thereafter, the witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Special PP for the CBI and with permission of the Court, he CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.28 of 71 was allowed to cross examine the said witness.

On being cross examined by Sh. B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI, he denied that he had told the CBI officials in his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. that he had mentioned in his complaint that SI Ravinder Pandit had demanded bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ from him for not stopping the construction going on plot no. H­118/17, Sangam Vihar, Ratia Marg, Near S.K.S. Public School and allow him to continue with the construction. He further stated that Complaint Ex.PW8/B was written in his hand and bears his signatures, however, he denied having named accused Ravinder Pandit or the fact of accused demanding money from him for allowing him to continue construction work. He further denied that it was accused Ravinder Pandit himself who had come to his plot and had demanded Rs.1 Lakh from him for continuing construction on the plot and he was concocting a new story to help accuseds. He further denied that Inspector Brajesh Kumar had arranged two witnesses namely, Sh. Girish Prasad and Sh. Satpal and his complaint was shown to them who after going through the same had asked certain questions from him to ascertain the genuineness of his complaint. He further denied that he had told Inspector Brajesh Kumar that he could arrange Rs.20,000/­ further in order to verify the demand of accused Ravinder Pandit or that it was decided to contact him on his mobile phone number which was given to him when he had visited his plot on 27.4.2007. He admitted that a digital recorder was arranged CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.29 of 71 and after assuring that it was altogether blank, the introductory voices of both the witnesses were recorded in the digital voice recorder and thereafter, he was asked to contact accused Ravinder Pandit and accordingly, he had contacted the accused. He further admitted that accused Ravinder Pandit had told him during conversation that he will meet him at T­point of Shooting Range. He denied that conversation recorded in the digital voice recorder was replayed and heard by all the trap team members which confirmed the demand of bribe by accused Ravinder Pandit. He further denied that the recorded conversation was transferred into a blank cassette which was marked as Q1. He stated that no pre­trap proceedings in respect of demonstration were given by applying powder on the currency notes in the amount of Rs.20,000/­ and thereafter, explaining that whoever would touch the powder treated notes and dip his finger in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, it will turn into pink colour. He admitted that the powder treated notes were given back to him with the directions to give the same to accused Ravinder Pandit on his specific demand or on his direction to some other person. He admitted that one person was with him whose name he did not remember. He denied that that man was directed to over hear the conversation and see the transaction between him and the accused . He further denied that shadow witness and himself were directed to give signal by scratching their head or making a missed call to D.K. Thakur, inspector, CBI in the event of completion of transaction.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.30 of 71 He further denied that the digital recorder was handed over to him after reaching at the spot and its functions were also explained to him. He stated that Memo Ex.PW4/A bears his signatures on all the pages. He stated that he did not know as to what was written in the memo when he had signed the same. He denied that the contents of Memo were signed by him after understanding the same and taking the contents to be correct. When they had reached the meeting point, he was having his own car which was a black coloured Scorpio bearing no. HR­51 X­7999. He stated that a man was sitting with him but he did not know as to whether his name was Satpal or not. He denied that he was deliberately avoiding to reveal the name of Satpal who was with him in his car on the day of trap. He denied that accused Ravinder Pandit had called him and had told him that he was waiting for him at T­Point. He stated that he does not know as to whether the same conversation was recorded simultaneously in the recorder. He denied that he had informed CBI officials that accused Ravinder Pandit was not available at T­point on which he was directed to contact him and on doing so when he had contacted him, accused Ravinder Pandit had informed him that he was in the Police Post. He denied that he was directed by accused Ravinder Pandit that he may hand over the bribe amount to Ct. Vijender who was doing duty on the next Check post. He further stated that he does not know as to whether the conversation of himself and the accused Ravinder Pandit was recorded in the recording devise. He admitted that CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.31 of 71 when it was found that accused Vijender was not found on the next Check Post, it was decided after waiting for some time to contact accused Ravinder Pandit. He admitted that he had received a call from Ct. Vijender who had asked as to whether he was coming or not and had further told him that Sahab had told that he was to come to him upon which he had informed him that he was somewhere in Sangam Vihar and will be coming to him. Thereafter, they had proceeded towards Police Post, and on the way to Police Post he had made a call to accused Ravinder Pandit. He denied that during that conversation accused Ravinder Pandit had told him to wait outside police post as he was sending one constable, namely, Ashok. He admitted that the CBI officials had taken suitable position and he had parked vehicle at Gali no. 16. He admitted that after a few minutes a person had come on a motorcycle and had parked the same a little ahead of his vehicle. After alighting from the motorcycle, accused Ashok Kumar had sat in my car. Again said, he did not sit in his car. He denied that he had stated that accused Ashok after alighting from his motorcycle had boarded his vehicle. He further denied that while accused Ashok Kumar was sitting in the rear seat of his vehicle, he had handed over the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ to him on his demand which he had accepted with his right hand, counted the same with both his hands and had kept the said money in his right hand side below his hips. He further denied that after completion of transaction, a signal was flashed to CBI Team CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.32 of 71 Members, who on receipt of the signal had rushed towards his vehicle and had challenged the accused Ashok Kumar that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from him. He also denied that the accused Ashok Kumar had kept mum on being challenged and witness Girish was directed to recover the tainted amount. He also denied that accused Ashok Kumar was made to contact accused Ravinder Pandit on his mobile phone and during that call accused Ashok had confirmed that he had received the money upon which accused Ravinder Pandit had said "le aa". He denied that accused Ashok Kumar had disclosed that he was sent by accused Ravinder Pandit to collect the money from him. He stated that the said fact did not happen in his presence because he was sitting in another vehicle. He denied that he, Satpal and accused Ashok Kumar were sitting in his vehicle when the CBI team had rushed towards his vehicle on receiving signal of completion of the transaction of bribe amount. He further denied that he was deliberately not giving the correct answers to the suggestions put to him in the confronted portion of his statement.

He further denied that right hand, left hand washes of accused Ashok Kumar were taken in freshly prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate which had turned into pink colour and were sealed in neat and clean bottles. He also denied that any pant wash was taken in his presence. He also denied that the voice recorder was taken back from him and the conversation recorded in that recorder was heard which had confirmed the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.33 of 71 involvement of accused Ravinder Pandit. He also denied that the said conversation was transferred into a blank cassette which was marked as Q2 and the same was sealed in a cloth wrapper. He stated that no site plan was prepared at the spot. He also denied that a Recovery Memo was prepared at the spot, however, the same bear his signatures at point C on all the pages. The witness stated that he was made to sign the same at the CBI office on the next day. He also stated that he had signed the Memo Ex.PW4/B without understanding the contents of the same. He denied that he was deliberately stating that Memo was signed by him in the CBI office on the next day without understanding the contents thereof. He denied that Memo Ex.PW4/B was signed by him at the spot in the presence of all Trap team members after understanding the contents of the same. He also denied that on 13.6.2007 he was called to CBI office where he was made to hear the recorded conversation and the transcript thereof was prepared and he had identified the voices of himself and that of accuseds. He denied that on 13.6.2007 he was called to CBI office where he was made to hear the recorded conversation and the transcript thereof was prepared and he had identified the voices of himself and that of accuseds and a Memo Ex.PW4/F, regarding the same was prepared. He had also not identified the currency notes. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the currency notes shown to him. He stated that he can identify accused Ravinder Pandit and accused Ashok Kumar. The witness CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.34 of 71 correctly identified both the accuseds who were present in the Court. He stated that he had not received any summon to appear in the Court personally. He also stated that he could not say whether any of his family members had received it or not. However, message was conveyed at his residence for his appearance in the Court by CBI. He denied that he had appeared in the court on the asking of the accused persons without receiving any summons requiring his appearance in the Court. He proved Identification cum Transcript Memo Ex.PW4/G. Thereafter the cassette already Ex.Q1 and Q2 were played. The witness after hearing the audio cassettes stated that he could not identify any of the voices coming out of the recorder. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying his voice and voice of the accused Ravinder Pandit to help him. He denied that at the time of preparation of the transcript by the CBI officials, he had identified the voice of himself and that of accused Ravinder Pandit correctly and he was deliberately avoiding to do the same to help the accuseds.

He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons despite being given opportunity for the same.

24. PW­9 Inspector Manoj Kumar, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated that the present case was entrusted to him on 03.5.2007 for further investigation. At that time he was posted as Sub Inspector and had got permission u/s. 17 of the PC Act for investigating the case. He stated that the said permission is in CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.35 of 71 judicial record. He further stated that during further investigation, he had recorded statements of witnesses, collected exhibits and washes from CFSL. He had also collected the call details, result of audiography and spectrography from CFSL. He had also received dismissal order of both the accuseds issued from the office of DCP, South District, New Delhi through SP, CBI. He stated that he had also collected documents from the Police Station Sangam Vihar. He had recorded statements of all the witnesses without any addition or subtraction. Thereafter, he had filed the Charge Sheet in the Court against both the accuseds.

On being cross examined by Sh. N.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Ravinder Pandit he stated that he was unable to identify the initials in order Ex.PW9/DA dated 03.5.2007. He stated that under the initials, Special Judge, CBI/03, 3.5.07 has been typed. He admitted that there is no seal of the Court affixed on the document. He voluntarily said that he had himself moved the application dated 03.5.2007 Ex.PW9/DB which bears signatures of Sh. S.K. Palsania, the then SP, CBI, ACB. He stated that he identifies the signatures of Sh. S.K. Palsania as he has worked with him. He stated that the said application was moved by him in the Court of Smt. I.K. Kochchar who was the then Special Judge, CBI and it was she who had passed order Ex.PW9/DA. He denied that he was not competent to investigate the present case for want of proper order. He further stated that he had recorded the statement of Sh. Brajesh Kumar, Inspector, CBI on 31.5.2007. He also stated CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.36 of 71 that both of them were, at that time, working in ACB, CBI. He stated that he could not record statement of Sh. Brajesh Kumar, Inspector earlier after taking over the investigation as he was busy in other official works. He further stated that he had correctly recorded the statements Ex. PW­4/X and PW­4/Y of Satpal and Ex.PW­D/X of PW Girish Prasad without making any addition or omission. Similarly, he had recorded the statement of Inspector Brajesh Kumar, Ex. PW10/DA without adding or omitting anything. He stated that the copy of the FIR had already been sent to the Special Judge, CBI prior to taking over the investigation by him. He stated that he cannot, however, say as to when the copy of the FIR was so sent. He also stated that he cannot say as to who had delivered the copy to the Ld. Special Judge, CBI. He stated that he had not recorded statement of any such person u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. He also could not say when it was delivered to the Ld. Special Judge, CBI. He stated that had not seized the entry of the Malkhana Register vide which the case properties of this case were deposited. He had also not recorded the statement of the Malkhana Moharrar in this regard. He also did not seize the entries of Malkhana vide which the cassettes and wash bottles were sent to CFSL. He stated that he had not recorded the statement of the official of CFSL who had received the properties there. He stated that he had not done any investigation to find out as to where the case properties of the present case had remained from the time of receiving the same from CBI and till the examination of the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.37 of 71 same by the concerned experts. He admitted that the Daily Diary dated 30.4.2007 already marked as Mark D shows departure of accused Ravinder Pandit (Sub Inspector) at 9:10 am from the Police Post. He also admitted that the said DD shows the return of accused Ravinder Pandit at 5:30 pm and then again his departure from the Police Post at the same time for patrol duty in the area.

He stated that the Charge Sheet in the court was filed under his signatures and the same was forwarded by SP Sh. S.K. Palsania. He denied that he had not investigated the case properly and on correct lines. He also denied that he had simply detoured the line of Inspector Brajesh Kumar.

On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Ashok Kumar, he admitted that he had collected and placed Ex.PW9/1 which was DD entry bearing no. 30 dated 29.4.2007 vide which accused Ashok Kumar (Constable) had made a departure alongwith Sub Inspector Rajesh Bharati, for the investigation of case FIR no. 338/07, u/s. 363/366 IPC P.S. Sangam Vihar. He also admitted that he had collected and placed on record Ex.PW9/2 which is a copy of DD no. 7 vide which accused Ashok Kumar had returned to Police Station alongwith Sub Inspector Rajesh Bharati on 30/4/2007 at 10:20 am. He denied that there was not even a whisper of evidence against accused Ashok Kumar and that he has been challened without any cogent and legally admissible evidence. He also denied that the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar had CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.38 of 71 disclosed to him in his statement u/s. 161 that he had tried to give him bribe amount which accused Ashok Kumar did not accept and it had fallen on the ground and was subsequently lifted by the CBI officials. He further denied that he was deposing falsely.

25. PW ­10 Inspector Brajesh Kumar, who is the Trap Laying officer in the present case, stated that on 30.04.2007 while he was working as Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB New Delhi, Sh. S.K. Palsania was his SP whose signatures he identified on FIR Ex.PW10/A since he had seen him signing and writing during the course of official business. He was called by SP on that day and complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar alongwith his complaint dated 30.04.2007 was introduced to him. He was asked to verify his complaint and lay a trap. Accordingly, he had arranged two independent witnesses namely Sh. Girish Prasad and Sh. Satpal both from National Fertilizer Ltd. Corporate Office, Noida. The complaint was shown to both the independent witnesses and they had satisfied themselves about the genuineness of the complaint by asking some questions from the complainant. The complainant informed the independent witnesses that accused Ravinder Pandit had demanded Rs. 1 lakh from him for not stopping the construction work going on on the plot of the complainant and also threatened the complainant to pay the bribe at the earliest. Complainant informed that he could arrange only Rs.20,000/­ which he had CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.39 of 71 brought. In order to verify the demand, the complainant was made to talk to the accused on his mobile phone from his mobile phone. The conversation was recorded in a digital recorder and the conversation confirmed the demand of bribe. The conversation also revealed that the accused was present outside the court and had informed the complainant that he will call back after reaching the police post. Thereafter, it was decided to wait for the call of accused Ravinder Pandit and at about 5:25 pm a call was received from accused Ravinder Pandit on the mobile of the complainant in which he had informed that he was near the Shooting Range T­Point. He stated that the said conversation was simultaneously recorded in the digital voice recorder. The conversation from the digital recorder was transferred into a blank cassette which was marked as Q­1 and sealed which was signed by both the independent witnesses.

He further stated that the complainant had produced Rs.20,000/­ consisting of 40 GC notes of Rs.500 each the details of which was recorded in the Handing Over Memo. The practical demonstration was given by Inspector D.K. Thakur in which phenolphthalein powder was applied on the above mentioned GC Notes. Sh. Girish Prasad, independent witness was asked to touch the abovesaid GC Notes with his right hand fingers which he did. The wash of right hand fingers was taken in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour and the same was destroyed. All the trap team members were explained the reaction between phenolphthalein powder CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.40 of 71 and sodium carbonate solution. The remaining phenolphthalein powder was returned to the Malkhana. The powder treated notes were given to the complainant, who had kept the same in his right side pant pocket, after searching him with the direction to give the said powder treated notes to the accused only on his demand or to anybody else on his direction. All the trap team members had washed their hand with soap and water. Witness Satpal was directed to act as shadow witness for the purpose of over hearing the conversation between accused and complainant and to see the transaction of bribe amount and to give the signal in the event of completion of transaction of bribe amount between the complainant and the accused. He was to give signal by giving a missed call on the mobile phone of Sh. D.K. Thakur or by scratching his head with his both hands.

He stated that a digital recorder was arranged alongwith two blank cassettes for the purpose of recording the conversation at the spot and transferring the same in the audio cassette. Formal voices of the independent witnesses were recorded in the digital recorder and it was decided to hand over the same to the complainant on reaching the spot. The function of the digital recorder was explained to him. All the members took their mutual search to ensure that they do not carry anything on their person except their mobile and ID card. All the pre­trap formalities were recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW4/A which bears his signatures.

Thereafter they had left for the spot in two CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.41 of 71 government vehicles and one complainant's vehicle. He stated that while on the way, a call was received by the complainant which was said to be of accused Ravinder Pandit. Complainant was allowed to talk and thereafter, he had disclosed that accused Ravinder Pandit was waiting near the Shooting Range T­Point. This conversation was recorded at about 6:30 pm. The team reached near the Shooting Range T­point. Every one had alighted from their vehicles. The complainant and shadow witness were re­briefed about the signal and thereafter, they were allowed to proceed on foot towards shooting range, T point. After five minutes complainant came back and stated that accused Ravinder Pandit was not available on the T­Point. On this he was asked to contact accused Ravinder Pandit and talk to him. The complainant disclosed that accused Ravinder Pandit had told that after waiting for about half an hour for him at T­ Point he had returned to Police Post and also because new SHO was likely to visit the police post. Accused Ravinder Pandit further directed that he should give the money to one Vijender who was doing duty on the next check post. This conversation was recorded simultaneously in the digital recorder. He further stated that, thereafter the team had visited the next check post and it was found that there was no constable on duty. Then it was decided to have a conversation between the complainant and accused Ravinder Pandit. As the complainant was trying to contact accused Ravinder Pandit, a call was received on his mobile from Sh. Vijender. After talking with him the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.42 of 71 complainant disclosed that Sh. Vijender was asking whether he was coming to him as it was told by accused Ravinder Pandit to him. On this the complainant told him that at that time he was in Sangam Vihar and he will come to him after seeing accused Ravinder Pandit in the police post. This conversation was also recorded. Thereafter it was decided to proceed towards the police post of H Block, Sangam Vihar. The shadow witness and the complainant had proceeded in the complainant's vehicle and rest of the team members had followed them. Prior to reaching the Police post, the complainant had contacted accused Ravinder Pandit on his mobile and had talked to him. When complainant had informed accused Ravinder Pandit about his arrival accused Ravinder Pandit had told him to wait outside and he was sending one constable Ashok to him. Accordingly, the vehicle of the complainant was parked at the main road of Gali no. 16 and rest of the team members took their suitable positions on the road. After some time a person in civil clothes was seen on the motorcycle and had parked the motorcycle a little ahead of the vehicle of the complainant. Thereafter, he had gone inside the car (Scorpio) of the complainant. He further stated that after sometime the signal was flashed by the complainant and was seen by him and the same was communicated to rest of the team members. Everyone had rushed towards the car of the complainant. The shadow witness Sh. Satpal was found sitting on the driver seat and complainant was sitting on the left side of the shadow witness and one CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.43 of 71 person was sitting behind the complainant on the back seat. On inquiry the person had identified himself as Sh. Ashok Kumar Kaushik, Constable, H­Block, Police Post, Sangam Vihar. After disclosure of the identity of the team members he was challenged on which he became perplexed. The complainant disclosed that accused Ashok Kumar had accepted the money from his right hand and after counting with his both hands had kept the money below his right side hip. Sh. Girish Prasad, independent witness was directed to recover the bribe money kept below right side hip of Ashok Kumar. The same was recovered and compared with the details of the GC notes already recorded in the handing over memo and had tallied. He further stated that in the presence of witnesses, Ashok Kumar had disclosed that he was sent by accused Ravinder Pandit to collect the money from the complainant. He further stated that, thereafter it was decided to have conversation between Ashok Kumar and accused Ravinder Pandit. He further stated that on direction, accused Ashok Kumar had contacted accused Ravinder Pandit on his mobile phone and had informed him about the receipt of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant. On this accused Ravinder Pandit had told him to bring the same (le aa). He further stated that the same was recorded in the digital recorder. Thereafter, Sh. S.S. Bhullar Inspector and Sh. V.K. Pathak Sub Inspector were directed to proceed to police post to apprehend accused Ravinder Pandit. Later on, accused Ashok Kumar was also brought to the police post. Accused Ravinder CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.44 of 71 Pandit was found present and he was challenged whether he had directed Ashok Kumar Constable to collect the money from the complainant and on this accused Ravinder Pandit kept mum. The wash of right hand, left hand and the right hip portion of the pant was taken separately in the solution of sodium carbonate and water. Each time the colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter pink washes were transferred in three separate bottles which were sealed and were marked as RHW, LHW and OBPW and signed by both the witnesses. He further stated that both the accuseds i.e. Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Pandit were put under arrest at about 7:40 pm and 7:55 pm and the intimation about the arrest was given to SHO Sangam Vihar. The search of the office table of accused Ravinder Pandit and his car was conducted but nothing incriminating was found and seized. The search of motorcycle of Ashok Kumar was also conducted and nothing was recovered. He further stated that rough site plan Ex.PW4/E was prepared. All the proceedings were incorporated in the Recovery Memo Ex.PW4/B by Sub Inspector Vikas Pathak under his supervision and direction. The recovery memo was read over and explained to all the trap team members who signed the recovery memo as witness. He further stated that he had also made certain addition in his handwriting in the Recovery Memo at point D. He further stated that both the accuseds were personally searched and arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/ D. He further stated that on the next day specimen voice of both the accuseds were taken vide memo CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.45 of 71 Ex.PW4/F. He stated that he had sent their question and specimen voices and question washes to the CFSL for comparison and thereafter the case was transferred to Sh. Manoj Kumar Sub Inspector for further investigation.

On being cross examined by Sh. N. K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused Ravinder Pandit he stated that he was working as Inspector in ACB New Delhi from 2005 to September, 2007. Investigation of the present case was entrusted to him on 30.04.2007. He had handed over the investigation of this case to Sh. Manoj Kumar, the then Sub­ Inspector, on 03.05.2007 who was also posted in ACB New Delhi. He further stated that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded in the present case on 31.05.2007 by Sh. Manoj Kumar. He further stated that he can not give any explanation as to why there was delay in recording his statement.

He stated that he was called by the SP at about 10:30

- 11:00 a.m. Again said he did not remember exact time, at that time only complainant Praveen Kumar was with the SP and no one else was there. He was made TLO by the SP. He admitted that at that very time he was handed over the FIR and the complaint of Praveen Kumar. The FIR had been recorded prior to his making verification of facts alleged in the complaint of Praveen Kumar. He further stated that he had not recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of the officials who had written the FIR. Corresponding entry of the FIR was made in the general diary. He stated that had not taken in possession the said GD CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.46 of 71 entry. He had stayed in the room of SP for about 10­15 minutes. SP himself had constituted the raid / trap team. Sh. Girish Prasad and Sh. Satpal, independent witnesses were called through the duty officer in the afternoon of 30.04.2007. He had not recorded the statement of duty officer in this respect. Both the witnesses had reported in his room at about 4 pm. He stated that he does not remember whether they were brought to his room by some CBI officials or they had come on their own. He stated that he did not remember as to when the CBI trap team was constituted but it was done in the afternoon on 30.04.2007.

He stated that he can not tell as to whether the copy of FIR of the case was sent to the Special Judge, CBI and if it was sent when it was so sent and who delivered the same to the Special Judge and when so delivered. He did not record the statement of any CBI official who may have delivered the copy of FIR to the the Special Judge, CBI. He admitted that the trap team was formed by the SP at the time when he had gone to his room having been called by the SP. He further stated that as far as he remembers the SP CBI Sh. Palsania had issued a written order naming the officials and witnesses who were to be joined in the trap team. He stated that there was no such order on the judicial record of the case. He had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that he was asked to verify his complaint and lay a trap. He voluntarily stated that the said fact was mentioned in complaint. He stated that he did not CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.47 of 71 remember whether he had told in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that he had arranged two independent witnesses. He stated that he did not remember as to what questions were put to the two independent witnesses to satisfy themselves about the genuineness of the complaint. He also stated that he did not remember whether he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that the complainant had informed the independent witnesses. He further stated that he did not remember whether he had stated in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C that the accused had also threatened the complainant to pay the bribe at the earliest. He denied that the complainant had told him that on 27.04.2007 , 4­5 police personal had come to his plot at H­118/17, Sangam Vihar and that they had threatened him that if he will not stop the construction work and if he did not pay them money, they will send him to jail. He further denied that on his asking Praveen Kumar had told him that he did not know the names of police officers who had come to his plot on 27.04.2007. He denied that he had asked the complainant as to what was the name of Chowki In­Charge of the concerned area. He further denied that thereupon the complainant had told him that Ravinder Pandit was the Chowki In­Charge of the said area. He denied that he or anyone else from CBI had advised him to write complaint against accused Ravinder Pandit since the complaint had to be specific in some one's name.

He further stated that the first call was made at 4:15 p.m on 30.04.2007 by the complainant to the accused Ravinder CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.48 of 71 Pandit during the verification process of the complaint. He had not himself made the call but had heard the voice coming from the other side and the speaker was on. He further stated that he never had an opportunity to meet and talk to accused Ravinder Pandit personally or through telephone. He admitted that he was not in position to identify the voice of accused Ravinder Pandit on his own since he never had an opportunity to talk to him earlier. He admitted that Sh. Praveen Kumar did not tell him as to with whom he had talked during the first call. He stated that he did not recollect the number of Praveen Kumar when he was said to be talking to accused Ravinder Pandit. He also stated that he did not remember the number of accused Ravinder Pandit on which Praveen Kumar was said to have made call. The said call, the duration of which he did not recall was simultaneously recorded on a digital recorder. He stated that the said call was not transferred from digital recorder to the ordinary cassette at that time. Thereafter, at about 5:25 pm a call was received on the mobile of Praveen Kumar. He stated that he does not remember from which number that call had come. That call was also recorded simultaneously on the digital recorder. After that both the recorded conversations were transferred into a cassette. He stated that he did not remember the make of the cassette to which the two conversations were transferred. The said cassette was sealed with the CBI seal. He further stated that he did not remember as to what was inscribed on the said seal. The seal after use was kept in trap kit CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.49 of 71 bag. The bag was with some CBI officer, member of the team. Prior to sealing of the said cassette, a copy thereof was made for investigation purposes. That copy for investigation purposes was directly made from the digital recorder. He denied that fingers of Girish Prasad witness were not dipped in the solution at the time of demonstration. The Phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate were obtained from Malkhana, CBI. He stated that he did not know whether any entry was made in CBI Malkhana about taking out or return of the said chemicals. He stated that he had, however, not recorded the statements of Malkhana Moharrar on this score. He further stated that they had started from the CBI office at 6 pm and had reached Shooting Range T­ point. On the way, a call was received on the mobile of the complainant at 6:05 pm. At that time they were in their vehicles. There were three vehicles. He stated that he did not remember the RC numbers of the said vehicles. He stated that he was in the vehicle in which the complainant was sitting. This call was also recorded in the same digital recorder. At that time it was not transferred to the cassette. He stated that he did not remember the duration of the call. He had himself heard the conversation as the speaker was on. He admitted that up to that time he was not personally familiar to the voice of accused Ravinder Pandit. He stated that he did not remember as to what was the approximate area of Shooting Range T­Point. Complainant Praveen Kumar and shadow witness Satpal had gone inside and had returned after about five minutes. From CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.50 of 71 that place the complainant had made a call the time of which he did not remember. Conversation was recorded simultaneously. He denied that at that time the complainant had not told him as to with whom he had talked and what he had talked. The next call was received on the mobile of the complainant when they had reached the next check post but he did not remember the time of the said call. He stated that the same was also recorded. He stated that the conversation between complainant and Vijender were also recorded. Thereafter, before reaching the Police Post Sangam Vihar there was another conversation which too was recorded on the digital recorder. The witness again said that he was not sure about the recording of the said call as he was in a separate vehicle. Upon asked a Court question he stated that he did not remember as to how many conversations were recorded after the CBI team had left CBI office and till they had reached outside Sangam Vihar Police post. Two calls were copied into cassettes marked as Q­1. He did not remember the exact number of conversation calls which were copied in cassette Q­2. He stated that he did not remember the make of cassette Q­2. Q­2 was sealed in the room of In­Charge Police Post Sangam Vihar. He stated that he did not remember the exact time when it was sealed. The seal was with CBI team and after use on that day it was handed over to witness Girish Parsad. The seal was taken back from witness Girish Prasad on the next day. He stated that they had reached in front of Sangam Vihar Police Post in three vehicles after 7:30 pm. By that time it CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.51 of 71 was completely dark. He admitted that the Sangam Vihar Police Post was in a lane and there were shops on both the sides. The shops were open. They did not try to join any witness from there. He stated that he did not remember the position taken by each of the team members or as to which vehicle was parked at the place nearest to the lane leading to Police post. He also stated that he cannot say as in which sequence the other vehicles were parked. In the vehicle of the complainant i.e. Scorpio, complainant and shadow witness Satpal were there. He stated that he was on the road by the side of said vehicle and at a distance of about 4­5 steps. He stated that he was on the driver side of the said vehicle and the persons in the said vehicle could see him easily. The other team members were at the distance of 8/9 steps from him. He further stated that he had made accused Ashok Kumar make a telephone call to accused Ravinder Pandit. He stated that he himself had heard the talk between the two. The speaker of mobile of Ashok was put on ''ON'' condition and he had heard the conversation. He admitted that till that time he was not personally acquainted with the voice of accused Ravinder Pandit. He was told by accused Ashok Kumar that he had talked to accused Ravinder Pandit. He stated that he had got the recovery memo Ex.PW4/B written by Sub Inspector Vikas Pathak and the signature of Vikas Pathak were obtained. He denied that he had made certain addition in the said recovery memo after the recovery memo was completely got written before getting the signature of the concerned.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.52 of 71 Although certain additions were in fact made. He further stated that the digital recorder on which all the conversations were recorded was portable. He did not know whether chips used for recording in the digital recorder were removable or not. He admitted that that digital recorder containing the original conversation was neither taken in possession by him nor made case property of this case. The originals were also not sent to the voice expert for voice comparison. He further stated that he had himself typed specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW4/F. He stated that he had not recorded the separate statements of both the accuseds that they have voluntarily given specimen voice. A rough script of one or two paragraphs were given separately to both the accuseds. Those two rough paragraphs had not been placed on record of the case. Both the accuseds were made to read the said material 2 or 3 times. All the times when they read the material supplied, recording was done. He further stated that he had not made the two accused speak extempore or to read any newspaper or any general paper. Their specimen voices were not recorded through telephones. He denied that he had not investigated the case correctly or that it was on his advise that the complainant drafted complaint Ex.PW8/B and had added the name of accused Ravinder Pandit as he was In­Charge Police Post Sangam Vihar at that time. He denied that he had falsely implicated accused Ravinder Pandit.

On being cross examined by Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Ashok Kumar he admitted that the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.53 of 71 place of occurrence was a thorough fare where lot of traffic used to move on. He admitted that the vehicle of PW­8 Sh. Praveen Kumar was not an open vehicle and was covered one. He admitted that there was lot of noise on the road at the time when Praveen Kumar had reached there. He further stated that at the time of transaction he was on the road, near to the vehicle of the complainant. He admitted that whatever had transpired between the complainant and the accused Ashok Kumar was not visible to him. He stated that he also could not hear the conversation, if any, in between the two. He denied that when he had reached the spot Praveen Kumar had told him that he had tried to give bribe amount to Ashok Kumar but he did not accept the same, and it had fallen on the ground or that the same was picked up by the CBI Officials from the ground. He stated that he had not joined Ct. Vijender during the investigation of this case, to whom the complainant was supposed to meet at the next check post. He further stated that it had not come to his knowledge that Ct. Vijender and the complainant were of the same caste and were in fact related to each other. He denied that the complainant had given a false information to him that Ct. Vijender had not reached the appointed place as he did not want to involve him falsely in this case. He admitted that the arrival of Ashok Kumar was a chance development resulting in reaching at the spot and the complainant had shook hand with Ashok Kumar and thereafter escorted him to his vehicle. He denied that Ashok Kumar had CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.54 of 71 kept mum on being challenged or that in fact he was agitated and was saying that he has nothing to do in this case. He further denied that the washes of his right hand and left hand and the back side portion of his pant pocket were manipulated in the office of CBI. He further stated that he did not remember as to when he had deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He denied that the case property was not deposited by him on the date of raid or that it was deposited after manipulation subsequently. He did not record the statement of the Malkhana In­Charge in this respect. He admitted that the Malkhana In­ Charge is not a cited witness in this case. He stated that the case property was sent to CFSL on 03.05.2007. He had also not seized the copy of the relevant entry vide which the case property was taken out from the Malkhana and sent to CFSL. The property was deposited by some constable to CFSL. He stated that he did not remember the name of the said constable nor his statement has been recorded in this case. He denied that accused Ashok Kumar has been falsely implicated in this case . He further denied that no recovery was effected from accused Ashok Kumar or that he did not count the amount of Rs. 20,000/­ with his hands. He further denied that accused Ashok Kumar was not at all connected with the facts of this case or that he has been wrongly challaned in this case without any admissible evidence.

26. Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed by Sh.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.55 of 71 B.P. Singh, Ld. Special PP for CBI.

27. Statement of accuseds were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which accuseds had stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They refused to lead any evidence in their defence.

28. I have heard arguments at the bar and have carefully gone through the case file.

29. Ld. Counsels for the accuseds state that neither the complainant nor the shadow witness have supported the case of prosecution. Both the witnesses have turned hostile. They have neither supported the prosecution on facts nor on recovery. It is stated that they have not identified the alleged conversation which forms the basis of the case of prosecution.

30. Ld. Special PP for CBI, on the other hand, has submitted that accused Ravinder Pandit had demanded an amount of Rs.1 Lakh from the complainant as bribe, however, the complainant could arrange only Rs.20,000/­. It is further submitted that accused Ashok Kumar was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.20,000/­ from the complainant PW­8 Sh. Praveen Kumar. It is further submitted that PW­4 Satpal was a shadow witness and he has also corroborated the prosecution version. My attention has also CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.56 of 71 been invited to the transcriptions to show that accused was demanding bribe from the complainant. My attention has also been invited to the chemical examination report regarding the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in the washes obtained on the spot. My attention has also been invited to the call details to show that accused and complainant were in touch with each other.

Ld. Special PP for CBI has further stated that not considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses who have been declared hostile is contrary to law and the Court should take into account the deposition of the witnesses if otherwise credible. For this purpose, reliance was taken on Sat Paul Vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294. It is further submitted that selective portion of depositions of witnesses by considering only their examination­in­chief and not taking into account the cross­examination is permissible. It is stated that the entire testimony of such witnesses also cannot be discarded by the Court.

It is further stated that only on the basis of testimony of the Trap Laying Officer and the Investigating Officer, conviction of the accused can take place.

31. I have heard arguments and have gone through the testimony of the witnesses and the documents which have been filed on record.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.57 of 71

32. No doubt that the contention of the Ld. Special PP for CBI that the portion of statement or testimony which is in favour of the prosecution can be read in evidence and the entire testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded at the threshold, however, the evidence thereof has to be read in its entirety and the incriminating portion of the testimony and the cross examination regarding the same has to be read together for just decision of the case.

33. While dealing with question of appreciation of evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in an authority reported as Syed Ibrahim Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 VI AD (SC) 593 observed in paragraph no. 11, as under:­ Stress was laid by the accused appellants on the non­acceptance of evidence tendered by PW1 to a large extend to contend about desirability to throw out entire prosecution case. In essence prayer is to apply the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in everything). This plea is clearly untenable. Even if CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.58 of 71 major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of any accused, his conviction can be maintained.

It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff.

Where chaff can be separated from grain, if would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fat that evidence has been found to be deficient, out to be not wholly credible. Falsity of material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has no application in India and the witness or witnesses cannot be branded as liar (s). The maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has not received general acceptance nor CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.59 of 71 has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to , is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but is it not what may be called 'a mandatory rule of evidence'.

(See Nisar Ali Vs. The state of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1957 SC 366]). In a given case, it is always open to a Court to differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were convicted where there are a number of accused persons.

(See Gurcharan Singh & Another Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1956 SC 460]). The doctrine is a dangerous one CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.60 of 71 specially in India for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead­stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however, true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the Court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respect as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.61 of 71 the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. See Sohrab S/o. Beli Nayata abd Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1972 (3) SCC 751] and Ugar Ahir and Ors.

Vs. The State of Bihar [AIR 1965 SC 277]. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood.

Where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricable mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details present by CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.62 of 71 the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made is to discard the evidence in toto. (Zwinglee Ariel Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {AIR 1954 SC 15} and Balaka Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab {1975 (4) SCC 511}. As observed by this Court in State of Rajasthan V s. Smt. Kalki and Anr. {1981 (2) SCC 752}, normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however, honest and truthful a witness may be.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.63 of 71 Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."

34. Similarly, in an authority reported as Sunil Kumar Vs. State 2007, IV AD (Delhi) 417, while dealing with a case under Section 7 and Section 13(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed in paragraphs 12, 13, 28 and 29 as under:­ "12. All cases of corruption have two important aspects and they are (i) demand and (ii) acceptance. Unless demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant charged with under the Prevention of Corruption Act are proved by the prosecution beyond doubt, the CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.64 of 71 presumption provided for in Section 20 of the Act cannot be drawn. Three cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence are well settled and they are as follows:­

i) that the onus lies affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version while proving its case;

ii) that in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty; and

iii) that the onus of the prosecution shifts.

13. The Evidence Act also does not contemplate that the accused should prove his case with the same strictness and rigour as the prosecution is required to prove a criminal charge. In fact, CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.65 of 71 from the cardinal principles referred to above, it follows that it is sufficient if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the Evidence Act as a result of which he succeeds not because he proves his case to the hilt but because probability of his version throws doubt on the prosecution case.

28. In Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 707, it was held by the Supreme Court that in a bribery case the complainant is an interested witness and his evidence must be considered with great caution and it can be accepted when this is corroborated by other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

29. In view of the latest trend of the Supreme Court CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.66 of 71 in its judgments particularly in State of UP Vs. Zakaullah's case (supra), the complainant's evidence does not require any corroboration and the court can act upon the testimony of the complainant provided the same is trustworthy to be acted upon."

35. Having gone through the testimony of witnesses I am of the view that to constitute the offences under Section 7 of PC Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that there was demand of the money and the same was voluntarily accepted, either by the accused or by someone on his behalf. Therefore, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the demand and acceptance of the money for doing a favour in discharge of its official duty is sine qua non for the conviction of the accused. Therefore, firstly there must be a demand and secondly there must be acceptance since the accused had obtained illegal gratification. There has to be clinching evidence to show that if the money has been received on behalf of the accused there has to be a tacit approval of accused that the money had been taken on his behalf is illegal gratification.

When the testimony of all the witnesses is seen in the light of the law, it is clear that in the instant case there were five CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.67 of 71 material witnesses. The shadow witness in this case Sh. Satpal has stated in his cross examination that the recovery of the tainted amount was not effected in his presence. He has also stated in his cross examination that the post trap proceedings had not taken place in his presence since he was not sitting at that place. He has not identified the voices of accused which had taken place in his presence. He has clearly mentioned that at the time of conversation which had allegedly taken place between the complainant Praveen Kumar and the accused, he could only hear as to what complainant Praveen Kumar was saying but could not hear as to what the person on the other side was saying and whom it was spoken to.

The other independent witness in this case has also stated that the money was recovered from the hands of accused but has stated that the money had fallen down on the ground and was picked up by the CBI Official. None of the witnesses examined, including the complainant Sh. Praveen Kumar himself, had identified the voice of the accused from the alleged conversation. Therefore, no independent witness including the complainant, has deposed in the witness box that accused had demanded any bribe amount from him. No witness has deposed that the bribe money was handed over by the complainant to the accused Ravinder Pandit or to accused Ashok Kumar on his behalf. No witness except PW 10 Inspector Brajesh Kumar has deposed that bribe money was recovered from the accused Ashok Kumar. Now the question is whether the statement of CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.68 of 71 PW­10 Inspector Brajesh Kumar can be accepted as reliable regarding recovery of bribe money from the accused? There is no corroboratory evidence available on the file. Ld. Special PP for CBI has submitted that his statement is cogent, consistent and in conformity with the material on record and as such, there can be no hesitation in accepting the same. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsels have urged that in the absence of any corroboration and various deficiencies in his own statement, the same cannot be acted upon.

36. A perusal of the testimony of PW­8 Sh. Praveen Kumar shows that he has nowhere stated that the accused Ravinder Pandit had demanded bribe from him. He has also not stated that any of the accuseds had accepted bribe amount from him. On the contrary, he has stated that 4­5 policemen had come to his plot asking him to pay bribe but he had complained to CBI since he did not want to pay any bribe. He has categorically, denied that accused Ravinder Pandit had demanded money from him. He has also stated that on the asking of CBI officials, he had handed over the money to a policeman whose name he had later on come to know as Constable Ashok Kumar to whom he had tried to give bribe amount. However, he had not accepted the bribe amount and the same had fallen down on the ground. He also mentioned that the amount was picked up by CBI Officials who had apprehended Constable Ashok Kumar.

CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.69 of 71 He has also stated that the proceedings had not taken place in his presence. Despite being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI, he not only denied the demand but also acceptance thereof. He has denied in entirety, the pre­trap and post­trap proceedings. He has specifically denied the he had handed over the bribe amount to accused Ashok Kumar. Therefore, neither the demand nor the acceptance have been proved in this case to result in conviction of the accused persons. Regarding the call details and conversation, the complainant has not identified the intercepted conversation when it was played in Court and regarding call details he has stated that accused had called him as he wanted to see papers of plot. Even to base conviction on the testimony of Trap Laying Officer and Investigating Officer, there has to be corroboration from some witness which is entirely missing in this case, as is clear from the discussion of testimony of the Independent witnesses and the complainant himself.

37. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 120­B IPC r/w 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act beyond reasonable doubt. I, accordingly, grant benefit of doubt to the accuseds and acquit them of the charges framed against them.

38. Bail bonds of the accuseds are cancelled and their CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.70 of 71 sureties are discharged. Documents of the sureties be returned to them, after cancellation of endorsement, if any, thereon. Case property if forfeited to the State to be destroyed or disposed of after the time of appeal is over. The amount of Rs.20,000/­ or equivalent thereof be forfeited to the State since the complainant has refused to identify the said GC notes before the Court and has also nowhere stated that the said amount belonged to him or was arranged by him to be given to the accused.

39. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court on 30th April, 2012.

( SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE, (CBI­05), NEW DELHI / 30.4.2012 CC No. 24/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ravinder Pandit etc. Page no.71 of 71