Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Mrs. Sarla @ Sarla Devi on 29 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL
JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CC No. 263/19
RC No. DAI-2014-A-0041/CBI/ACB
U/s 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988.
CBI vs. Sarla @ Sarla Devi
Central Bureau of Investigation
vs
Sarla @ Sarla Devi
D/o Sh. Ram Lal Nimesh
R/o H. No. G-158, HIG Pratap Vihar
Ghaziabad, UP.
Date of FIR : 04.12.2014
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 21.05.2015
Arguments concluded on : 22.05.2024
Date of Order : 29.05.2024
Appearances
For prosecution : Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Senior Public
Prosecutor for CBI.
For accused : Sh.Sanjay Gupta and Sh.Raj Kamal
Arya, Ld. Counsel for accused.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 1 of 101
CC No.263/19
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Sarla @ Sarla Devi employed with Delhi Police as Sub-Inspector has been prosecuted for the offence punishable u/s 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having demanded and accepted the bribe.
ON FACTS:-
2. The case was registered by CBI, ACB, New Delhi on the basis of written complaint dated 03.12.2014 of Ms. Reenakshi Sharma. It was alleged in the complaint that on 05.09.2014 a case was registered against complainant vide FIR No.1796/14 PS Shakarpur in which she was granted bail by the court. The case was transferred from PS Shakarpur to Women Cell, Pataparganj and marked to Sub-Inspector Sarla for further investigation. On the direction of previous IO ASI Babli, on 02.12.2014 itself, the complainant went to CAW Cell, Patparganj, Delhi and met SI Sarla where SI Sarla demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe from her on the pretext that if she (complainant) does not pay the bribe amount, accused Sarla Devi would arrest her (complainant) after getting her bail cancelled.
3. After verification, the instant case was registered on 04.12.2014 at CBI, ACB, Delhi under Section 7 of PC Act 1988 against SI Sarla, Delhi Police, Women Cell, DCP Office, Patparganj, Delhi.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 2 of 101 CC No.263/19
4. The complaint of the complainant was entrusted to SI Raman Kumar Shukla. On the same day, the veracity of the allegations levelled in the complaint were verified by Raman Kumar Shukla in the presence of independent witness Narender Tyagi. During the process of verification, the demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/- was reduced to Rs.20,000/- by accused SI Sarla. A verification memo was prepared at CBI office which was signed by complainant, independent witness Narender Tyagi, Sher Mohd. and verifying officer SI Raman Kumar Shukla. Complainant Ms.Reenakshi Sharma and Narendra Tyagi were asked to come to CBI, ACB office on the next day. After verification, case was registered against Sub-Inspector Sarla vide RC-DAI-2014-A-0041 dated 04.12.2014.
5. A trap team was constituted headed by Inspector Ranvijay Singh as Trap Laying Officer (TLO) including two independent witnesses Narendra Tyagi and Shyam Sunder Sharma and the staff of CBI, ACB, Delhi. Complainant produced Rs.10,000/- comprising 10 numbers of GC Notes of Rs.1000/- denomination for giving to SI Sarla as bribe. The distinctive number of the G. C. Notes were mentioned in the handing over memo (pre trap memo). The said 10 numbers of GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder by Inspector Shitanshu Sharma. A proper demonstration was given to all the trap team members to explain the purpose and significance of use of phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction with sodium carbonate and water.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 3 of 101 CC No.263/19
6. The personal search of the complainant was conducted by Sub-Inspector Veer Jyoti. The bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was put in the purse of the complainant by independent witness Narender Tyagi after ensuring that nothing incriminating was left in the said purse. Complainant was not allowed to keep anything incriminating with her, except her mobile phone no.9210534695 and tainted bribe amount. She was directed not to touch the said bribe amount and to hand over the same to accused SI Sarla on her specific demand or to some other person on her specific direction. Digital Voice Recorder which was used on 03.12.2014 was produced by witness Narender Tyagi. A new memory card was also arranged and inserted in the DVR. All the members except the complainant mutually searched each other and a trap kit was also arranged. Independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to the complainant to overhear the conversation and to see the transaction of bribe money. The proceedings of handing over memo concluded and thereafter all the trap team members including complainant reached near Khichripur flyover.
7. Complainant with DVR in recording mode visited the Women Cell, East District to meet the accused where it was informed that SI Sarla had gone to the High Court. Complainant talked to accused over phone and she directed the complainant to wait for her call as she was busy at that time. Trap team along with complainant left the place and came near Commonwealth Games Village flyover and waited for the call of the accused. At CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 4 of 101 CC No.263/19 about 04.42 p.m, on receiving missed call from the accused, complainant immediately called her and she informed the complainant that she was busy in the High Court and she would not be able to meet her that day and asked her to meet at Karkardooma Court at 10.00 a.m on 05.12.2014. Trap team came back to CBI office at about 5.20 p.m. and all the trap team members were directed to join the trap proceedings on 05.12.2014.
8. On 05.12.2014, the trap team members including independent witnesses Shyam Sunder Sharma and Narender Tyagi, complainant Reenakshi Sharma assembled at CBI office at 9.50 a.m. Complainant made a call to SI Sarla wherein accused SI Sarla directed the complainant to meet her at Karkardooma Court near Police Chowki at 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, all the trap team members left for the spot. DVR was given to complainant in recording mode which she tugged inside her inner wear (kurta). Complainant was asked to give pre-decided signal to mobile number 9650094291.
9. Complainant entered into the court premises and shadow witness followed her. The other trap team members also entered the court premises. After sometime SI Sarla was seen by SI Narender Tyagi while she was entering to the police post and informed TLO. The other members of trap team also remained outside the said police post. After sometime TLO and some other trap team members saw accused Sarla coming out from the police post in a hurried manner. The team could not apprehend CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 5 of 101 CC No.263/19 her as no signal was received from the complainant regarding transaction of the bribe money.
10. After sometime, complainant came out from the police post and informed TLO that accused demanded the bribe money through gesture and she handed over the bribe amount to accused SI Sarla. Complainant narrated that after accepting the bribe money accused walked out with instructions to her not to leave the spot for another 10 minutes and asked her to switch off the mobile, hence she could not give the pre-decided signal after transaction of bribe money. After sometime, complainant was asked to make a call to accused on mobile and to tell her that her lawyer wants to meet her. Accordingly, accused received the call and asked the complainant to wait for her in the canteen. After sometime SI Sarla came to the canteen where the complainant, both lady constables and shadow witness were waiting for her. It was seen that a lady who was wearing jeans and having short hair entered into conversation with the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant indicated towards that lady, on this Inspector /TLO Ranvijay Singh challenged the accused about having demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. Complainant had informed that SI Sarla had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from her and after accepting the bribe, she counted the same with both hands and kept the same in her black color handbag. Lady constables caught hold the accused, while Narender Tyagi was asked to recover the tainted bribe amount from her purse. However, the same could not be recovered. Lady constables frisked the accused, however, the tainted bribe CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 6 of 101 CC No.263/19 amount could not be recovered from the accused. The spot was a public place and it was not suitable to conduct thorough body search of a lady, therefore, it was decided that body search shall be conducted in the CBI office in order to maintain the privacy /decency of the woman (accused).
11. The hand washes of the accused and wash of inner pocket of purse of accused were taken separately and were sealed in bottles. Two case files including a case file pertaining to the case of complainant were also recovered from the possession of accused Sarla and the same were seized. Two rough sketches, not to scale, of the places of occurrence viz. Police post and canteen were prepared in the presence of both independent witnesses. Thereafter, the trap team along with SI Sarla left the spot and it was decided to complete the remaining proceedings at CBI office. At CBI office, thorough body search of accused was conducted by lady constables in a separate wash room. Lady constable Champa recovered tainted bribe money from inner garment / sanitary pad worn by the accused SI Sarla. Bribe amount was handed over to recovery witness Narender Tyagi.
12. The sanitary pad was kept in a yellow color envelope and sealed with CBI seal. The said envelope was marked as 'ISCMP' denoting 'Inner Sanitary Cloth used as Menstrual Pad' by accused. The memory card was taken out from the DVR and sealed with the seal of CBI. The specimen voice of accused was taken in the separate memory card and the same was also sealed in a different packing. The DVR used in trap proceedings was CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 7 of 101 CC No.263/19 also sealed. Black color ladies purse and recovered bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- marked as 'Trap Money' kept in brown color envelope in sealed condition.
13. The expert opinion about the hand-washes and voice recordings were obtained during the investigation. The transcripts of recording conversations were also prepared. During investigation, case files of Delhi Police bearing FIR No.433/14 PS Jagatpuri and FIR No.1796/14 PS Shakarpur pertaining to the case of complainant Reenakshi Sharma which were seized from the possession of the accused SI Sarla were returned to DCP, East. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
14. On the basis of the charge-sheet submitted before the court on 21.05.2015, cognizance was taken on 28.05.2015 against the accused.
ON CHARGE
15. Vide order on charge dated 21.08.2015, charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
16. During the trial, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. The sum and substance of evidence of witnesses is as follows:-
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 8 of 101 CC No.263/19 Complainant / PW-1 Reenakshi Sharma deposed in her statement that FIR was registered at PS Shakarpur wherein she was named as an accused.
She was granted anticipatory bail in the said case. On investigation being transferred from SI Babli to SI Sarla (accused), she received a call from accused asking her to meet. When complainant met SI Sarla (accused) at DCP office, accused informed her that she had the power to get her anticipatory bail cancelled. Accused also used unparliamentary language and started putting pressure on her. According to PW-1, accused further assured to help her and asked to arrange Rs.50,000/-. The complainant on showing her inability to arrange such big amount, sought time from her. PW-1 further deposed that she was not willing to pay any amount to accused and therefore she discussed the matter with her counsel and thereafter lodged a complaint with CBI.
The complainant next appeared before the court for her deposition on 19.04.2016 but she disowned her own complaint and denied having filed the complaint Mark PW1/A. According to the complaint, she had given a typed complaint prepared by her counsel.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 9 of 101 CC No.263/19 PW-1 was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor for CBI as she was resiling from her earlier statement, during which PW-1/ complainant denied that her complaint was verified by CBI officers in her presence. The verification memo is disputed. The complainant further denied to have lodged the complaint against SI Sarla for demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/- and rather stated that she lodged typed complaint against SI Babli. Complainant admitted that her complaint was verified by SI Raman Shukla of CBI along with two independent witnesses Narender Tyagi and Shyam Sunder Sharma but denied that same was done in her presence. Complainant denied having made any call to SI Sarla or that during verification proceedings conversations were recorded through DVR wherein demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by SI Sarla.
PW-1 / complainant admitted that FIR was registered on her complaint but denied that FIR was registered on her complaint on 04.12.2014. PW-1/Complainant was confronted with her statement Ex.PW1/1. PW-1 admitted that she reached CBI office on 04.12.2014 along with her friend Sher Mohd. but denied that trap team was constituted at CBI office. Complainant denied that she handed over Rs.10,000/- as bribe money and rather stated that she handed over Rs.5000/- only on CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 10 of 101 CC No.263/19 the first day and thereafter brought Rs.10,000/- on the next day. Complainant denied that currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder or that demonstration thereof was given. Complainant denied having left the CBI office after conducting pre-trap proceedings, although admitted that on the directions of Inspector Ranvijay Singh, she along with DVR in switch on mode visited the office of DCP to meet accused Sarla and to hand over the bribe amount as demanded by accused /SI Sarla. She had gone to the high court. PW-1 has further admitted that police official present there called Sarla from his mobile and she also talked to accused whereby accused asked her to wait as she was busy. Thereafter PW-1 and CBI team reached near commonwealth games village and waited for the call of the accused. The call was received at 4.40 p.m. from the mobile number of the accused 9210534695. The complainant deposed that her phone was inadvertently left in her house and call was attended by her daughter. The suggestion has been denied that her mobile phone was with her. The complainant admitted having called the accused from her mobile and accused informed her that she was busy in the High Court and would not be able to meet her.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 11 of 101 CC No.263/19 Accused asked for meeting her on next day at KKD court i.e. on 05.12.2014 and this conversation was recorded in DVR. The complainant admitted that unused bribe amount was handed over to the independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma who produced the same on the next day i.e. 05.12.2014.
Again the CBI team was constituted and independent witness produced bribe amount as well as DVR in intact position. PW-1 has denied her signature on memo Ex.PW1/2 and stated that CBI officials used to obtain her signatures on the documents already prepared. Complainant further admitted that she made a call on the mobile phone of accused but denied that accused directed her to meet at the gate of KKD court at about 11.30 a.m or that this conversation was recorded in the DVR. Complainant denied that all the trap team members left for KKD court. According to the complainant, she directly reached KKD court and met CBI officials where she was instructed by TLO to meet the accused and hand over the bribe money to her on her specific demand. It is denied that shadow witness Shyam Sunder had accompanied her to police post Karkardooma Court or that she was sitting in a discrete manner. Complainant has denied that accused came and asked her to come to the corner room of police post and after locking the room from inside, directed her to switch off the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 12 of 101 CC No.263/19 cellphone. It is also denied that accused asked as to how much money was brought by her or that she replied that she could only arrange Rs.10,000/-. It is also denied that accused checked her and asked her to give the bribe money or that she gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused. PW-1 voluntarily stated that accused did not turn up and she came out of the police post KKD and met CBI officials, who scolded her for wasting their time as accused was not found present. PW-1 has further denied the suggestion that after accepting the money, accused counted the same with her both hands and kept the same in her hand-bag or that accused asked the complainant to wash her hands. It is denied that accused picked up the bribe money and kept the same in a black purse or that accused walked out with the instructions to the complainant not to leave the police post for another 10 minutes. Complainant has denied that she informed TLO about completion of bribe transaction or that team gathered and started searching for the accused Sarla. Complainant further denied having called the accused on the pretext that her lawyer wanted to meet or that accused asked complainant to wait for her in the canteen. Complainant however, admitted having visited the canteen but denied that she went to canteen along with lady CBI constable and other CBI team members. It is also denied that accused reached there and on signal being given to CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 13 of 101 CC No.263/19 CBI team, accused Sarla was challenged and confronted about the demand and acceptance of bribe money. It is denied that lady constable searched the accused but the bribe money could not be recovered and for the purpose of body search of accused, it was decided to move to the CBI office. The factum of hand and purse washes is also denied. Complainant has denied that CBI team left for CBI office for post-trap proceedings. According to the complainant, she returned to her house from Karkardooma Court. The complainant has denied about any proceedings conducted at CBI office such as body search conducted by lady constables or recovery of Rs.10,000/- from the inner garment of the accused or about sealing of the inner garment. The complainant has denied about recording of specimen voice of accused in separate memory card or about sealing of memory card Q2. Complainant denied having made statement Ex.PW1/1 to the investigating officer. The memos such as handing over memo Ex.PW1/3, punchnama Ex.PW1/4, recovery memo Ex.PW1/5 have been denied and also that same were signed by her after reading the contents. Complainant has denied the suggestion that she has been won over by the accused. The proceedings relating to identification of voice and preparation of transcripts have also been denied. The recordings were played before the complainant but CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 14 of 101 CC No.263/19 she denied having recorded the same on the relevant dates or that same contains the voice of the accused as well as her voice. Complainant has denied that she is intentionally not identifying her voice and the voice of the accused. Complainant admitted having made statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/X. During cross-examination on behalf of accused, PW-1 admitted that no money was ever demanded by the accused from her. According to the complainant, SI Babli used to talk to her and once she demanded money from her. She gave her statement before Ld. Magistrate as tutored by investigating officer. On 03.12.2014 Advocate Ravinder Kumar was with the complainant when they met the accused at CAW Cell. Complainant came to know that charge-sheet of her case was already filed by SI Babli in prosecution branch for scrutiny. SI Babli used to ask for money from the complainant. Complainant further stated that on 20.01.2016 when her examination in chief was recorded she was dictated by the CBI official to give statement. Complainant further stated that SI Babli used to threaten her to get her anticipatory bail cancelled and when the case was transferred to accused/SI Sarla, complainant was under impression that she wanted to get her bail cancelled. According CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 15 of 101 CC No.263/19 to the complainant, she gave typed complainant with CBI against SI Babli. Her signatures were obtained on paper by CBI officials on 06.12.2014 but they were not read over to her.
PW-2 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices produced customer application form (CAF) with respect to mobile number 9210534695 in the name of complainant Ms.Reenakshi Sharma and the call details record (CDR) for the period from 02.02.2014 to 06.02.2014 along with certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW2/A, B and C. During cross-examination, PW-2 denied that he is not competent to prove the record.
PW-3 Narender Tyagi, Junior Assistant, ITDC, Scope Complex, reported to the CBI office on 03.12.2014 on the directions of his Senior Manager. He met Raman Kumar Shukla who introduced him to the complainant Reenakshi Sharma and also had shown complaint to him. The witness further deposed that in his presence verification proceedings were conducted, when DVR was arranged along with the memory card and his introductory voice was recorded. He along with CBI officer, Raman Kumar Shukla, complainant and another person left the CBI office and reached at Patparganj Police CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 16 of 101 CC No.263/19 Station. The witness was with the complainant to overhear the conversation. The complainant met accused Sarla and they both went inside. After sometime, complainant came from the police station and Raman Shukla had taken the DVR from the complainant. DVR was played and thereafter memory card was sealed. The verification memo Ex.PW1/B was prepared. The witness identified his signatures on the verification memo.
Again on 04.12.2014, PW-3 reported to the CBI and met CBI team members including the complainant Ms.Reenakshi Sharma and independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma. Complainant produced Rs.10,000/- GC notes, the numbers thereof were noted down on the handing over memo Ex.PW1/3. The notes were treated with some powder and they were put in the envelope and handed over to the complainant. The proceedings were reduced into writing vide Ex.PW1/3. The complainant was asked to make a call to accused Sarla and on the directions of CBI team many calls were made by the complainant to the accused Sarla but same were not picked up. Around lunch time, one of the call was picked up by accused Sarla and she stated that she was busy in the court and would not be able to meet. Accused again made a missed call to the complainant and when complainant made a return CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 17 of 101 CC No.263/19 call, accused Sarla asked her to meet on the next day at KKD court. CBI team accordingly returned. The witness has identified his signatures on the punchnama prepared vide Ex.PW1/2. The calls were recorded in the DVR wherein new SD card was inserted.
On 05.12.2014, the complainant and witnesses again reported to the CBI office. Specimen voices of the witness (PW-3) and Shyam Sunder Sharma were recorded. The complainant was directed to keep the bribe amount and to hand over the same, if it is so demanded by accused Sarla. Then CBI team left for KKD court. The witness identified his signatures on memo Ex.PW1/4. CBI team assembled near the police chowki situated at KKD court and complainant was directed to make a phone call to the accused. The accused informed that she is reaching within 10-15 minutes. The accused arrived in the court and was going inside the police chowki when complainant pointed towards her. The independent witness Mr.Sharma was directed to follow the complainant and to hear and watch the transactions and again DVR was given to the complainant in switch on mode. The complainant entered the police chowki following the accused while the other team member remained outside and only Mr. Sharma followed the complainant. After CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 18 of 101 CC No.263/19 Sometime, Mr. Sharma came outside and stated that he could not find the complainant and the accused. After 10-15 minutes, accused Sarla came out of the police post and went to the court premises. After 5- 7 minutes, complainant came and informed the CBI team that she had handed over the bribe amount. Complainant also stated that her mobile phone was switched off by the accused and accused asked her to come out of the police post after 5-7 minutes of her leaving. The CBI team tried to locate the accused but she could not locate. Thereafter, complainant was asked to give a call to the accused and when the complainant called the accused, she asked her to wait in the canteen. All the CBI team members were directed to go to the canteen. There were two lady officials in the CBI team. The complainant was sitting on one table whereas CBI team members occupied different tables in the canteen and waited for the accused. After sometime, accused came to the canteen and met the complainant and they conversed with each other. Thereafter, CBI officer along with other team members reached the table of complainant and accused and caught hold of the accused. The CBI officer confronted the accused for having demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant Reenakshi Sharma but the accused refused to have done so. Accused stated that she was not having any CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 19 of 101 CC No.263/19 bribe money while the complainant stated that she had handed over the bribe amount to the accused and after checking the same, accused had kept the same. PW-3 conducted the search of the purse of the accused but the bribe amount was not recovered. The lady constable frisked the accused but the bribe amount was not recovered. The hand-washes of the accused were taken in solution which turned pink and were sealed in the glass bottles. The glass bottles have been correctly identified by the witness as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. The wash of the inner pocket of the black color purse of the accused was also taken and same also turned pink. The glass bottle of the purse is identified as P-7. The rough sketch plan of the court premises was prepared vide Ex.PW3/B. The files belonging to Delhi Police were also recovered from the accused. The scooty of the accused parked in the parking was also searched by this witness but the bribe amount was not recovered. Then all the team members were directed to come to the CBI office along with the accused. At CBI office, papers were prepared. The personal search of the accused Sarla was taken by lady constable in the wash room and on coming out, lady officer informed that the bribe amount has been recovered from the inner garment of the accused. The currency notes were tallied and they were same notes handed over by the complainant. The confirmation that GC CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 20 of 101 CC No.263/19 number notes are tallying was done on Ex.PW1/3 itself. The inner piece of cloth i.e. sanitary pad / hygiene pad wherein accused had hidden the bribe amount was sealed. The same was also identified by the witness as Ex.P9. The recordings were heard by PW-3 in the presence of other independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma. The purse belonging to the accused was also identified as Ex.P-10. The voice sample of the accused was taken in a separate memory card and same has been correctly identified by the witness as Ex.P-13. The DVR used at the time of conducting the trap was also identified as Ex.P-14. The witness identified the recovery memo dated 05.12.2014 as Ex.PW1/5. The arrest cum personal search memo is Ex.PW3/C. The witness again visited the CBI office after some days, when recordings were played and he signed some documents but the witness could not recollect the contents thereof. The witness identified his signatures on voice identification memo Ex.PW1/7, Ex.PW1/9 and transcripts Ex.PW1/8 (colly) and Ex.PW1/10 (colly). This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Prosecutor of CBI, during which he admitted his signatures on Ex.PW1/3 and the fact that after recovery of currency notes from the accused, the currency notes were tallied. PW-3 also admitted that he was directed to touch the currency notes and his hand wash was taken in CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 21 of 101 CC No.263/19 sodium carbonate and solution turned pink. The said solution was thrown away. PW-3 also admitted that bribe amount was put by him in the purse of the complainant but same was not kept in any envelope. The complainant was directed not to touch the bribe amount and hand over the same to the accused on specific demand. PW-3 further admitted that a new memory card was arranged and the voice of the witness as well as of another witness Shyam Sunder Sharma were recorded. The witness could not recollect that on 04.12.2014, on returning to CBI office, the DVR and bribe amount were put in separate envelope or that they were given to Shyam sunder Sharma with the directions to produce the same on 05.12.2014. Witness also could not recollect that on 05.12.2014, witness Shyam Sunder Sharma produced both the envelopes containing bribe amount and DVR. It is also however admitted that bribe amount was checked and tallied with the description recorded in the memo. The witness further admitted that recordings dated 05.12.2014 in memory card Q2 was sealed and same was signed by him. The bribe amount was also sealed in the envelope. The witness identified his signatures on memo Ex.PW1/5. The verification memo is exhibited as Ex.PW3/D. PW-3 stated that due to lapse of time, he could not narrate all the facts in examination in chief.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 22 of 101 CC No.263/19 During cross-examination on behalf of accused, witness admitted that no conversation has taken place in his presence between the complainant and suspect on 03.12.2014. The memory card used on 03.12.2014 was arranged by CBI officials. They reached PS Patparganj around lunch hours. The CBI vehicle was parked outside the police station. No copy of recording dated 03.12.2014 was prepared in his presence nor any transcription was prepared on that day. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he was not introduced to the complainant on 03.12.2014 or that no complaint was shown to him. The suggestion has been denied that verification memo Ex.PW1/B was not prepared on 03.12.2014 or that same was prepared subsequently. It is also denied that DVR was not used for any recording on 03.12.2014 or that no memory card was seized. The suggestion has been denied that no money was offered by the complainant for using as trap money. On 04.12.2014, complainant informed that she could only arrange Rs.10,000/- against the demand of higher amount. It is denied that no such amount of Rs.10,000/- was produced by the complainant or that the trap money was arranged by CBI officials from their own source. The phenolphthalein powder was got arranged by TLO which was applied to the currency notes. It is denied that no pre-trap CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 23 of 101 CC No.263/19 proceedings were conducted. The suggestion is denied that accused was never searched by any lady constable. The witness could not recollect whether any Sub-Inspector Babli was called by the complainant. The witness could not recollect as to how many times the complainant called the accused on 04.12.2014. PW-3 denied that no search proceedings were conducted on 04.12.2014. The witness could not recollect whether any phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes on 05.12.2014. The CBI team took position at a distance of 10-15 meters from police post KKD court. Independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma was following the complainant. The call made by the complainant to the accused at KKD court on 05.12.2014 was also recorded. No memo regarding search of scooty of accused was prepared. PW-3 could not recollect as to how many people were there in the canteen but 15-20 people were present. The witness could not recollect whether complainant was having DVR when she met the accused in the canteen of KKD court. No videography or photography was done regarding proceedings of 04.12.2014 or 05.12.2014. Witness denied the suggestion that no scooty was available or searched on 05.12.2014. The suggestion has been denied that accused was lifted from the canteen of KKD court and was taken to CBI office. The scooty of the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 24 of 101 CC No.263/19 accused was left in the KKD court itself. The witness could not recollect about other articles lying in the purse of the accused seized or not. The suggestion is denied that accused was not carrying any purse on 05.12.2014. No warning was given to the accused about adverse inference before taking her sample voice. No written consent was taken from accused to the effect that she was giving her voice sample voluntarily. The suggestion is denied that no voice sample of accused was recorded. The witness had seen accused Sarla on 03.12.2014 during verification proceedings and thereafter on 05.12.2014 at KKD court. He could not recollect whether advocate of complainant namely Ravinder also accompanied the complainant. The suggestion is denied that on 05.12.2014 complainant did not visit CBI office or that she directly came to KKD court or that accused was not pointed out by the complainant. The suggestion is also denied that accused did not go to police post on 05.12.2014. It is also denied that complainant did not go to CBI office from KKD court on 05.12.2014 or that she was not present during the post-trap proceedings. PW-3 further denied the suggestion that he did not join any raid or proceedings or that all the documents were signed by him under the pressure of CBI or that documents are ante-dated and ante-time. Witness denied to be a tutored witness. The CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 25 of 101 CC No.263/19 suggestion is denied that currency notes were handed over by the complainant to TLO at KKD court as she failed to use those notes or that the currency notes were planted upon the accused.
PW-4 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-II, (Physics) in CFSL, New Delhi is an expert in the field of forensic examination of audio and video. He has examined SD cards Q1, Q2, S1 and Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) of the present case. PW-4 stated that spectrographic, waveform and auditory examination of questioned and specimen voices were carried out by him. The procedure, reasoning and results are contained in his report dated 30.01.2015 Ex.PW4/2. The witness also identified the relevant material Q1 Ex.P-2, Q2 Ex.P-3, S-1 Ex. P-13 and DVR Ex.P-14.
The witness was put to the extensive cross- examination wherein he stated that CFSL is affiliated to National Accreditation Board of Laboratories (NABL). There are guidelines of CFSL regarding examination of exhibits and further stated that guidelines are for handling of exhibits while CFSL has its own working procedural manual for examination of exhibits. The suggestion is denied that he was not competent to examine the exhibits of the present case. PW-4 admitted that CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 26 of 101 CC No.263/19 CFSL was not notified under Section 79A of IT Act, although CFSL applied for the same and is under process since 2013. The transcriptions of questioned recordings were received by the witness on his request. The copies are Ex.PW4/DB. PW-4 admitted that he does not possess any formal degree / diploma in the field of examination and comparison of voices, although he claimed having undergone various trainings in the field. The sample voice received by PW-4 was carrying clue words selected from questioned recordings. The method of recording specimen voice is described in CBI manual as well as CFSL manual. The witness admitted that voice comparison is based upon acoustic wave of sound and he has not done any specialized course for comparison of sound waves in acoustic. The frequency is one of the parameter of sound waves for voice comparison and auditory examination and voice spectrographic examination are two tests carried out in voice comparison. Auditory examination involved complete audio recordings whereas spectrographic examination constituted selected words. Witness further admitted that by way of mimicry similar voice can be created but voluntarily stated that same is distinguishable in spectrographic examination. Witness has not done any course in the field of detection of mimicry. 15 words each as clue words CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 27 of 101 CC No.263/19 from questioned recording and specimen recording for spectrographic examination were selected and it is denied that minimum 20 clue words are required for such examination. According to PW-4, Q1 and Q2 were original recordings and he could say so by examining the audio format, the DVR and the characteristics of audio recordings. The suggestion is denied that in case of use of SD card in DVR , the recording is also stored in the internal memory of the DVR. For the purpose of detecting tampering, exhibits are subjected to waveform examination. PW-4 has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any voice comparison/ voice examination of S-1, Q-1 or Q-2 or that his report is false and unreasoned.
PW-4 further stated that three parcels were received from CBI vide letter dated 21.08.2018 Ex.PW4/3 for voice examination of PW Reenakshi Sharma. The comparison received were marked as Ex. Q1, Q2 and S2. Q1 and Q2 contained questioned recordings while S2 contained specimen voice of Reenakshi Sharma. On Auditory, spectrographic and waveform examination of the said recordings, witness prepared his report dated 12.04.2019 Ex.PW4/4. The specimen voice of Reenakshi Sharma matched with the questioned voice contained in Q1 and Q2 and no form of tampering could be detected.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 28 of 101 CC No.263/19 During cross-examination, witness admitted that he had examined Q1 and Q2 earlier in the case. The suggestion has been denied that he has not conducted the examination properly or that he is not stating the truth.
PW-5 V. B. Ramteke, Principal Scientific Officer (Chemistry), CFSL examined the hands washes contained in the glass bottle and he prepared detailed examination report Ex.PW5/2. Witness also identified the glass bottles. Witness also examined the inner sanitary cloth (ISCMP) used by the accused and the same was found having presence of phenolphthalein. During cross-examination, PW-5 denied that he was never designated as Assistant Chemical examiner or that he was not competent to examine such exhibits. The exhibit ISCMP was sent to biology division from chemistry division through internal forwarding note. The suggestion has been denied that no examination of exhibits was conducted or that reports are signed in a mechanical manner. The witness also denied that he has given a false and biased report as per the suitability of CBI.
PW-6 Ajay Kumar was posted as DCP, East District. The witness has accorded sanction vide sanction order Ex.PW6/1. During cross-examination, PW-6 CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 29 of 101 CC No.263/19 admitted that draft sanction performa was received along with documents. Prosecution sanction file was produced and on seeing the same, witness stated that SP report was received along with the forwarding letter. One more letter from CBI was available on record and both the letters were exhibited as Ex.PW6/DX1, Ex.PW6/DX2 and SP report is exhibited as Ex.PW6/DX3. Copy of draft sanction order is exhibited as Ex.PW6/DX4. The witness has denied the suggestion that sanction order is reproduction of draft sanction performa or that sanction was accorded by him in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind.
PW-7 B. K. Mohapatra, Principal Scientific Officer (Biology), conducted biological examination of ISCMP (containing piece of cloth having faint brown stains in inner piece of cloth). A female DNA profile was generated from the piece of cloth. The report is Ex.PW7/1. Exhibit was also produced and identified by the witness. During cross-examination, PW-7 stated that parcel was received from chemistry division along with internal forwarding letter Ex.PW7/DA. PW-7 admitted that he does not possess any specialized qualification in the field of genetics, although it was one of his subject. The suggestion has been denied that he has not conducted any such examination on any exhibit or CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 30 of 101 CC No.263/19 that he is not a competent expert for generation of DNA profile. Witness declined the suggestion that he fabricated report Ex.PW7/1 as per the convenience of CBI.
PW-8 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla posted with ACB, CBI deposed that complaint mark PW1/A was handed over to him on 03.12.2014 for verification in the presence of complainant Reenakshi Sharma. One person Sher Mohd. also accompanied the complainant. PW-8 deposed about verification proceedings conducted by him in the presence of independent witness Narender Tyagi wherein the DVR was arranged and introductory voice of Narender Tyagi was recorded in the memory card. The conversation happened between complainant and SI Sarla were recorded wherein SI Sarla asked the complainant to meet her at PS Patparganj. Narender Tyagi was instructed to follow the complainant and tried to overhear the conversation and complainant was also given DVR in switch on mode. Complainant went inside the police station and independent witness followed her. After sometime, they came out of police station and DVR was taken from the complainant. Complainant informed that SI Sarla demanded Rs.50,000/- from her and even asked the complainant to whatever amount she was having in her possession at that CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 31 of 101 CC No.263/19 time. It was also informed by the complainant that SI Sarla agreed to reduce the bribe amount and asked her to pay Rs.20,000/- on 04.12.2014. The witness has proved the verification memo dated 03.12.2014 already mark PW1/B and Ex.PW8/1. PW-8 recommended registration of case FIR. On 04.12.2014 witness was instructed to meet Inspector Ranvijay who was deployed as Trap Laying Officer (TLO). Inspector Ranvijay Singh accordingly constituted a trap team consisting of Inspector Kailash Sahu, Inpector Shitanshu Sharma, Inspector Hitender Adlakha, Inspector P. Shadang, SI Veer Jyoti, Ct. Navneet Kaur, HC Yashpal, complainant and independent witnesses namely Narender Tyagi and Shyam Sunder Sharma. The original complaint and verification memo was handed over to TLO. Complainant produced Rs.10,000/- as proposed bribe money and currency notes thereof were noted down in the handing over memo. Notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration was given. The complainant was only allowed to keep her mobile phone and bribe amount and was instructed not to touch the bribe money except on specific demand by SI Sarla. The DVR was also produced by Narender Tyagi wherein new memory card was inserted. Shyam Sunder Sharma was asked to act as a shadow witness and was instructed to remain close to the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 32 of 101 CC No.263/19 complainant. Complainant was instructed to give signal by giving missed call on the mobile phone of TLO. On this day, conversation between Complainant and SI Sarla were recorded whereby it was informed that SI Sarla was busy in High court and she asked the complainant to meet her on 05.12.2014 at Karkardooma Court. The trap was postponed accordingly for the next day. DVR and trap money were handed over to independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma for safe custody. Punchnama was prepared vide Ex.PW1/2 regarding proceedings dated 04.12.2014. PW-8 also deposed about the proceedings conducted on 05.12.2014 whereby TLO and team members along with independent witnesses came at the CBI office. The DVR and trap money was produced by Shyam Sunder Sharma and were handed over to the complainant on same instructions. Conversations were recorded whereby accused SI Sarla asked the complainant to meet her at KKD court at 11.30 a.m. Punchnama was prepared to this effect vide Ex.PW1/4. Thereafter, CBI team left for KKD court. Complainant was briefed and was also given DVR in switch on mode with independent witness Shyam Sunder Sharma to act as a shadow witness. The complainant entered the police post of Karkardooma Court while shadow witness remained outside. After sometime, complainant came out of CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 33 of 101 CC No.263/19 the police post and informed TLO that SI Sarla had demanded bribe and directed her to remain inside the police post for about 10 minutes after her leaving. Complainant was also asked to switch off her mobile phone and therefore she was not able to inform TLO immediately. Again the complainant was asked to make a call to SI Sarla. In this conversation, SI Sarla directed the complainant to meet at the canteen of KKD court. Trap team took position inside the canteen. The accused came to the canteen and started talking to the complainant and on being signalled by the complainant, SI Sarla was challenged and confronted by the TLO about having demand and accepted the bribe money. The bribe amount, however, could not be recovered from the purse carried by SI Sarla. Accused /SI Sarla denied having accepted the bribe money. Large people gathered there including the advocates. The manager of the canteen and advocates were asked to participate in the proceedings but they all refused. Despite personal search of accused SI Sarla tainted amount could not be recovered. Hand washes of the accused were taken and the solution turned pink. Washes of the inner lining of the purse was also taken. Files pertaining to Delhi Police was recovered from the possession of the accused. Witness has further deposed about proceeding to CBI office. Witness confirmed that SI Sarla was taken in the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 34 of 101 CC No.263/19 washroom by lady constables and Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the inner garment of the accused. The bribe amount was recovered from sanitary pad worn by the accused. Sanitary paid was also seized. The specimen voice of the accused was recorded. The DVR was taken from complainant and recordings were heard by trap team members. The memory card Q2 was sealed. The DVR was also sealed. During cross-examination, PW-8 denied that overwriting on the complaint was done by him whereby figure 2 is over written on figure 5. It is admitted that Narender Tyagi could not hear the conversation happened between the complainant and the accused on 03.12.2014 at Police Post Patparganj. The suggestion is denied that no verification proceedings were conducted or that Ex.PW1/A was fabricated.
The suggestion is denied that complainant only produced Rs.5000/- or that Rs.5,000/- were arranged by TLO from some secret funds of CBI. The suggestion has been denied that no currency notes were recovered from the accused or that same were planted upon the accused. The introductory voice of complainant was not recorded in the SD card. Witness has admitted FIR Ex.PW8/DA and time of recording of the same at 10.00 a.m on 04.12.2014. The witness could not tell when the original CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 35 of 101 CC No.263/19 complaint, original verification memo and original SD card were received by TLO along with FIR. PW-8 did not verify whether accused was competent in any manner to favour the complainant in rape case against her. The suggestion has been denied that PW-8 was aware that charge-sheet of rape case was already submitted with prosecution by SI Babli (earlier IO). The suggestion has been denied that complainant visited Police Station Patparganj on 03.12.2014 or that no verification was conducted. The suggestion has also been denied that recording of Q1 was fabricated. It is denied that no independent witness namely Shyam Sunder Sharma joined the proceedings on 03.12.2014 or that no call was made by complainant to the accused or that no DVR was given to the complainant on the alleged date. It is denied that the complainant did not inform about any demand. The witness could not recollect if Sher Mohd. was present on 05.12.2014 or not. It is denied that no pre-trap proceedings or punchnama was prepared on 04.12.2014. It is also denied that complainant was not present at CBI office on 05.12.2014 or that he straightaway reached KKD court. It is admitted that raid scheduled for 04.12.2014 could not succeed and the reason was that accused was not available. It is denied that accused did not go to police post Karkardooma Court on 05.12.2014 or that complainant could not CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 36 of 101 CC No.263/19 hand over the bribe money to the accused. The recording dated 05.12.2014 was heard at CBI office. The witness could not recollect whether telephonic conversation between complainant and the accused before reaching canteen was recorded or not or whether DVR was given to the complainant when she was proceeding to the canteen. Photography and videography of pre-trap and post trap proceedings were not done. The suggestion has been denied that no hand-wash or purse lining wash were conducted at KKD court or that washes were planted.
Constable Champa informed the team about recovery of Rs.10,000/- from the accused. It is denied that no such amount was recovered from the accused or that trap money was planted upon the accused. It is denied that sanitary pad was also planted upon the accused. It is denied that advocate of the complainant namely Ravinder was with her on 03.12.2014. It is denied that no voice sample of accused was recorded. It is admitted that after completion of proceedings on 04.12.2014 till re- assembly on 05.12.2014, no fresh demand of bribe was available. The witness could not recollect, if scooty of accused was searched at Karkardooma Court. It is denied that accused has been falsely implicated or that all the documents were fabricated subsequently. The witness has denied the suggestion CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 37 of 101 CC No.263/19 that he is a tutored witness or that he has given his statement as parrot like version.
PW-9 Heena Saher deposed that in the year 2011 she lost her bag containing her voter ID card, passport size photographs and passport size photographs of her daughter. She lodged her complaint at PS Darya Ganj and FIR was registered. The witness was shown customer application form of mobile number 9582198382 to which PW-9 stated that she never applied for vodafone connection. During cross- examination, PW-9 denied that mobile number 9582198382 was obtained by her for her use.
PW-10 Renu w/o Raj Kumar deposed that CBI officials came to her house and enquired about ownership of mobile number 9811702435. The customer application form was shown to her and her photocopy of voter ID card to which PW-10 stated that she never applied for such mobile connection. Witness has denied having obtained mobile number 9811702435 and during cross-examination denied the suggestion that mobile number was obtained by her for her use.
PW-11 Ranvijay Singh, Inspector, CBI was directed to lay trap on the basis of FIR and complaint. The verification of the complaint was done by SI Raman CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 38 of 101 CC No.263/19 Kumar Shukla. PW-11 constituted a trap team consisting of CBI officials, complainant and independent witnesses. The complainant was asked to produce the trap money and accordingly she produced Rs.10,000/-. The number of currency notes were noted down. The demonstration of phenolphthalein powder was given to the trap team members. The witness has thereafter narrated in detail about pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings and also specified the role of complainant and independent witnesses. PW-11 confirmed the preparation of various memos during the proceedings. The witness has deposed about apprehension of accused, taking of handwashes, purse wash and about recovery of bribe amount from the accused. The witness has proved the arrest cum personal search memo Ex.PW11/1. The witness has also deposed about keeping the piece of cloth used as inner sanitary pad in the envelope and marked as ISCMP (inner sanitary cloth used as menstrual pad). PW-11 has deposed about sealing of Q2, S1 and DVR. The articles of the case were produced during the trial before this witness and were correctly identified.
During cross-examination, PW-11 could not recollect if copy of FIR was sent to vigilance department of Delhi Police. No still or videography CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 39 of 101 CC No.263/19 was done in respect of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and denied the suggestion that same was mandatory. On completion of post-trap proceedings, the case property was deposited in malkhana by the witness. The suggestion has been denied that no case property was ever deposited by him with malkhana. It is admitted that investigation of the case was conducted by Inspector S. P. Singh. The signatures of accused were not taken on recovery memo and witness has no knowledge that same was mandatory. It is denied that nothing was recovered from the accused, therefore, her signatures were not taken on recovery memo. The witness had gone through the verification memo on receiving the FIR. The suggestion has been denied that a chance raid was taken on 04.12.2014. The suggestion has been denied that no team was taken to the office of CAW Cell PS Patparganj on 04.12.2014 or that punchnama Ex.PW1/2 is fabricated. The suggestion has been denied that complainant was not present at CBI office on 05.12.2014 or that she joined the CBI team at KKD court itself. It is denied that no amount of Rs. 10,000/- was produced by the complainant. The suggestion has been denied that none of trap team member could enter the police post, KKD on 05.12.2014. The witness confirmed that Shyam Sunder Sharma and one lady constable had entered CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 40 of 101 CC No.263/19 the police post. The suggestion has been denied that identity of the accused was not known to any of the trap team members except the complainant. The suggestion has been denied that complainant could not deliver the bribe amount to the accused. The persons including advocates present in the canteen were asked to join the proceedings but they refused. The suggestion has been denied that accused was lifted from Karkardooma Court and was taken to CBI office. It is also denied that no meeting between the complainant and accused had taken place at the canteen of Karkardooma Court. The CCTV footage of police post KKD court was not collected by the witness. It is also denied that lady constables Ms.Navneet Kaur and Ms. Champa were not part of the trap team on 05.12.2014. The suggestion is denied that no such wash proceedings were conducted in the canteen of Karkardooma Court. The sanitary pad / cloth was seized in order to get the same chemically examined regarding the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The solution of sodium carbonate was not sprinkled on the same. The witness had heard the recordings of Q1 but could not recollect if verifying officer had handed over rough transcriptions to him. PW-11 could not tell if the complainant had called SI Babli or that SI Babli called the complainant on 04.12.2014. The suggestion has been denied that punchnamas dated CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 41 of 101 CC No.263/19 04.12.2014 and 05.12.2014 were fabricated subsequently for creating false evidence to cover up the failure of raid. The suggestion is denied that lady constables did not carry out any search of accused in the washroom or that they did not recover any bribe money from the under garments of the accused. Lady Ct. Champa had handed over bribe money to Narender Tyagi. According to PW- 11, he had given warning to the accused regarding adverse effect of giving voice sample and suggestion is denied that no such warning was given.
According to PW-11, accused voluntarily gave her voice sample. The suggestion has been denied that accused has been falsely implicated or that trap money, washes, sanitary pad, purse etc were planted upon the accused.
PW-12 Pradip Singh, Nodal officer has proved the certified copy of CAF in the name of Renu w/o Raj Kumar having mobile number 9811702435 along with voter ID card, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and its CDR from 02.12.2014 to 06.12.2014 as Ex.PW12/2 and also proved the certified copy of CAF, issued in the name of Heena Saher d/o Shahabuddin having mobile no.
9582198382 along with voter ID card, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and its CDR from 02.12.2014 to 06.12.2014 as Ex.PW12/3.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 42 of 101 CC No.263/19 During cross examination, witness admitted that original CAF of above mentioned mobile numbewrs was not brought by him. Witness admitted the suggestion that both the certificates under Section 65 B Evidence Act are undated. The said certificates were supplied through covering letter dated 04.01.2015 and the date is mentioned on the covering letter. Witness admitted the suggestion that master server of the Vodafone regarding CDR was not in his control. Witness admitted the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge about the CDR.
PW-13 Shyam Sunder Sharma posted as Assistant Manager at DFCCIL, on directions of Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, Northern Railway, he reported to the CBI office on 04.12.2014. PW-13 went to ACB Branch and met Inspector Ranvijay Singh who explained the purpose. The complainant was also present there namely Reenakshi Sharma. All other CBI officers and other witness namely Narender Tyagi were present. The witness has deposed about the proceedings relating to the trap conducted in his presence and has also deposed about memos prepared, audio recordings through memory cards and DVR, pre-trap proceedings, about conduct of trap and apprehension of accused as well as CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 43 of 101 CC No.263/19 recovery of the bribe amount. The articles / case property was produced and identified by the witness.
Witness was cross-examined on behalf of prosecution during which he stated that his statement was recorded by S. P. Singh. PW-13 admitted that accused was apprehended at the canteen of Karkardooma Court complex. The lady constables who accompanied the accused were Ms.Champa and Ms.Navneet Kaur. The sample voice of the accused was recorded. After apprehension of the accused, DVR was taken from the complainant and memory card Q2 was played. The witness has also deposed about preparation of transcripts relating to Q2.
During cross-examination on behalf of accused, PW-13 could not recollect if the complaint lodged by the complainant was read over to him. The suggestion is denied that no pre-trap proceedings were conducted or that he signed memo Ex.PW1/3 in a mechanical manner. The suggestion has been denied that no phenolphthalein powder was applied on currency notes. PW-13 admitted that he was instructed by TLO to act as a shadow witness on 05.12.2014. He could not accompany the complainant to police post Karkardooma court as he was stopped by police officials to enter the police CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 44 of 101 CC No.263/19 station. At that time, complainant had already gone inside the police post and was not visible. He admitted that except complainant none of the trap team members could enter the police post. The suggestion has been denied that on coming out of the police post, complainant informed TLO that bribe transaction could not take place or that TLO took back the bribe amount from the complainant and kept with him. The witness could not recollect whether any vehicle was also searched at KKD court complex or whether any still photography or videography of the proceedings was conducted at CBI office. The suggestion is denied that no currency notes Ex.PW16/A were ever produced by lady constable stating that they were recovered from the accused's inner garment. Suggestion is denied that the currency notes were planted by the TLO upon the accused. PW-13 has denied the suggestion that he is a tutored witness or that no proceedings relating to voice identification or transcription were done on 13.02.2015. Witness denied that he is not stating the truth.
PW-14 ASI Babli stated that in the year 2015 she was posted at PS Shakarpur as ASI. The investigation of the FIR No. 1796/14 against Reenakshi Sharma was marked to her. The file remained with her till 30.11.2014 and thereafter it CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 45 of 101 CC No.263/19 was transferred to Women Cell, Delhi Police, Patparganj, East District. PW-14 handed over the file to reader of ACP. The file has been identified as Ex.PW14/1 (colly). PW-14 further stated that she telephonically informed Reenakshi Sharma about transfer of investigation to Women Cell, Patparganj, East District.
During cross-examination, PW-14 admitted that challan of FIR No.1796/14 was submitted by her in the prosecution branch for scrutiny and the investigation of the case was already completed. PW-14 denied having taken Rs.6,000/- from Reenakshi Sharma. The suggestion has been denied that FIR No.1796/14 was transferred from her to Women Cell, Patparganj due to complaint made by the complainant of the said case.
PW-15 Lady Ct. Navneet Kaur posted with ACB branch of CBI has been a Member of trap team with effect from 04.12.2014. The witness has deposed about the trap proceedings conducted in her presence and about the role of complainant, CBI officers and independent witnesses and about the incident. PW-15 confirmed that on the instructions of trap laying officer, she and lady constable Champa conducted thorough search of the accused in the separate wash room and bribe amount was CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 46 of 101 CC No.263/19 recovered from the inner garment of the accused. The witness has also deposed about related proceedings and confirmed her signatures on various memos. The witness has been extensively cross- examined about the trap proceedings. The suggestion has been denied that no proceedings had taken place or that complainant did not meet the accused at Karkardooma Court. The witness denied to be deposing falsely.
PW-16 Inspector S. P. Singh was entrusted with the investigation of the present case when he collected the case file from TLO. The exhibits of the case were sent for CFSL examination and for expert opinion. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. PW-16 also seized the SIM card of complainant 80133901521 used during the verification. The witness has deposed about preparation of transcripts and voice identification memo. The witness collected the relevant papers / letters of the case and also received the reports and opinions. The statement of complainant was got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The data relating to mobile phone used in the case were obtained. The sanction for prosecution against the accused was obtained by writing to the competent authority and after completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 47 of 101 CC No.263/19 During cross-examination, PW-16 denied that Ajay Kumar, the then DCP (PW-6) was not the competent authority to accord sanction against the accused. No draft sanction proforma was sent to the sanctioning authority. The suggestions have been denied that investigation has not been conducted fairly or that accused has been charge-sheeted without there being any evidence against her.
PW-17 Smt. Champa, Lady Constable was posted with CBI, ACB, New Delhi. She has been a member of trap team on 05.12.2014. PW-17 has deposed about the proceedings conducted at CBI office before proceeding to Karkardooma Court on 05.12.2014 and also about the apprehension of accused at the canteen of Karkardooma Court complex. It is stated that bribe amount could not be recovered from the accused despite search, although hand-washes and purse wash were taken. The accused was brought to the CBI office where thorough search of the accused was taken in the washroom. The bribe amount could be found in the inner garment of the accused which was kept as a sanitary pad. The witness has deposed about recovery of the bribe amount and matching of the currency notes with the handing over memo. The CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 48 of 101 CC No.263/19 witness identified her signatures on the exhibits and memos.
During cross-examination, PW-17 deposed that many customers and advocates were present inside the canteen but TLO did not ask anyone of them to join the proceedings. The witness could not recollect if canteen staff or owner of the canteen was asked to join the proceedings. The suggestion has been denied that no search of the accused was conducted inside the canteen of Karkardooma Court. The suggestion has been denied that no amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from inner garments of the accused or that the bribe money has been planted upon the accused. The suggestion has been denied that complainant could not meet the accused at police post Karkardooma Court or that she handed over the amount to TLO, as transaction of bribe could not be completed. It is also denied that the TLO returned Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and thereafter she left the Karkardooma Court. The witness has denied the suggestion to be deposing falsely.
PW-18 Anil Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade-I, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi has been an expert in the field of document examination. Witness has proved his report Ex.PW18/A with respect to the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 49 of 101 CC No.263/19 exhibits of the present case. The report was forwarded vide forwarding letter Ex.PW18/B. The witness identified the official stamp on documents mark Q1 to Q44 (Mark PW1/A, Ex.PW8/DA, Ex.PW8/1, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/2 Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6, Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8). The witness has also identified the official stamp on the documents Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PA. The specimen documents are marked as S1 to S20 bearing the specimen signatures and writings of complainant Reenakshi Sharma. They have also been identified by the witness having been taken in his presence. Same are proved as Ex.PW18/C (colly). The opinion has been given that handwriting of S1 to S-20 (specimen), A-1 and A-2 (admitted) of complainant Reenakshi Sharma matched with the writings marked Q1 to Q24, Q27 to Q29 and Q44. The opinion could not be expressed upon Q-25, Q- 26, Q-30 to Q-43.
During cross-examination, PW-18 denied that report is not a probable or conclusive report or handwriting science is not as perfect as fingerprinting science. Witness has not obtained any degree or diploma in the field of handwriting examination. He has taken inhouse training. The suggestion has been denied that no document was examined by the witness or CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 50 of 101 CC No.263/19 that he prepared the report at the instance or as per the convenience of investigating officer.
PW-19 Sher Mohd. deposed that he has accompanied complainant Reenakshi Sharma to PS Shakarpur to meet SI Babli investigating officer of rape case against Ms.Reenakshi Sharma. SI Babli informed about the transfer of the case to SI Sarla and instructed to meet SI Sarla. PW-19 further stated that he along with complainant Reenakshi Sharma went to PS Patparganj to meet SI Sarla where complainant went inside to meet her. He remained outside the office of SI Sarla. PW-19 further stated that SI Babli informed them to give some money to SI Sarla for expenses of the file. According to PW- 19, complainant filed a complaint against SI Babli with CBI. The complaint was prepared by the advocate which was a typed complaint. They went to CBI office where complainant Reenakshi Sharma went inside while he remained outside the room at CBI office. 3-4 plain papers were signed by the witness on the asking of CBI officers. Complainant paid Rs.5000/- for the purpose of petrol. SI Babli was not available in the police station. On seeing, the verification memo, the witness identified his signatures on Ex.PW8/1. Witness also identified his signatures on the envelope wherein SD card Ex.P-2 was kept. The witness was cross-examined on behalf CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 51 of 101 CC No.263/19 of CBI during which he stated that he is unable to recollect whether his statement was recorded by Inspector S.P. Singh. Witness denied having made any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C dated 17.12.2014. The witness was confronted with the contents of the statement Ex.PW19/PX. The suggestion has been denied that SI Babli had not demanded any amount from the complainant or that witness is not telling the truth having been won over by the accused.
During cross-examination on behalf of defence, witness stated that he had gone to Karkardooma court with complainant on 05.12.2014 where they met CBI officers and were instructed to go to the canteen. SI Babli was not available inside the canteen and they were asked to leave the Karkardooma Court. Complainant received a phone cal from CBI officer informing about apprehension of SI Babli.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
17. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Sarla was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C during which entire incriminating evidence was put across in question answer form. Accused admitted that she was posted as Sub-
Inspector at CAW Cell, East District, during the period 2014- 2015. Accused further admitted that investigation of FIR bearing CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 52 of 101 CC No.263/19 no.1796/14 PS Shakarpur under section 376/384/328/506/34 IPC in which Ms.Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1) was named as accused was with SI Babli (PW-14) till 30.11.2014. She admitted that after 30.11.2014 the investigation of the case was transferred to Woman Cell, Delhi Police, Patparganj, East District by the order of Senior Officers.
18. Accused Sarla has denied the allegations about demand and acceptance of bribe and recovery of bribe money from her possession during the trap. The accused has denied and shown his ignorance about the verification, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. The documentary evidence appearing on the record relating to the verification, pre-trap and post-trap proceedings have also been denied. According to the accused, the complaint is falsely registered against her and she has been falsely implicated. Accused has pleaded innocence and claimed that the investigation of case FIR No. 1796/14 was marked to her but prior to this, the file had already gone to the prosecution for checking. She had not met complainant Reenakshi Sharma nor she demanded any amount from her. She further stated that she did not receive the amount of Rs.10,000/- from Reenakshi Sharma. Accused further stated that the story of the prosecution is fabricated and concocted. To fulfill the target number of cases, she has been falsely implicated by CBI. The audio conversations and transcripts have also been denied by the accused. The bribe money, sanitary pad and washes are stated to be planted upon her.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 53 of 101 CC No.263/19
19. In defence, three witnesses have been examined as follows:-
DW-1 SI Dhanpat Sharma brought the summoned record of RTI reply dated 08.07.2022 in pursuance to RTI application dated 18.05.2022. He proved the RTI application as Ex.DW1/A, RTI reply dated 08.07.2022 as Ex.DW1/B. DW-2 ASI Bilender Singh brought the summoned record i.e. copy of Order No. A/1/3 (9)/2013/61442-541/ CB-II/PHQ, dated Delhi, the 19.09.2013 by which SI Sarla Devi was promoted on adhoc basis and proved the same Mark DW2/A. He has also brought the order no. A/1/3 (12)/2014/44587-686/ CB-II/PHQ, dated Delhi, 30.07.2014, by which SI Sarla Devi was reverted Mark DW2/B. DW-2 also brought the order no.
A/1/3 (12)/2014/44791-890/CB-II/PHQ, dated Delhi, 30.07.2014 by which SI Sarla Devi was promoted Mark DW2/C. DW-3 Sh. Ravinder Kumar deposed that he is a practicing advocate since 1994 and practicing at Karkardooma Court at chamber no.E-324, Karkardooma Court Complex, Delhi. One Reenakshi came to his chamber in December 2014 and stated that one case under Section 376 IPC has been registered against her. Accordingly, CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 54 of 101 CC No.263/19 he moved an anticipatory bail application for her at Karkardooma Court and thereafter she was granted anticipatory bail by the court of Sh. Sanjay Bansal, the then Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma courts. Thereafter Reenakshi came to his chamber and told that SI Babli, who was the investigating officer of the case was demanding Rs.10,000/- from her for paper work. Again on 03.12.2014 Reenakshi came to his chamber and told that SI Babli called her to meet her at DCP Office, CAW Cell, Patparganj. He accompanied Reenakshi to CAW Cell. Reenakshi made call from there to SI Babli and SI Babli informed that the case has been transferred to SI Sarla. Thereafter, he along with Reenakshi met SI Sarla on the same day. He told SI Sarla that earlier IO SI Babli was demanding Rs.10,000/- from Reenakshi. Upon this SI Sarla told him that "Jisne paise mange hai usko do ya no do tumhari marji hai, maine tumhare case mai kuch nahi karna". She also further stated that in case of any objection by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, the same would be removed by SI Babli. Again on contacting SI Babli, she informed that file has already been sent for scrutiny in the prosecution. SI Babli called Reenakshi on the next day. They however, came back and drafted a complaint against SI Babli which Reenakshi took from him and left. Again on 05.12.2014 CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 55 of 101 CC No.263/19 Reenakshi came to his chamber with her friend Sher Mohd. and informed that CBI would take action against SI Babli. After sometime Reenakshi again came and informed him that CBI had apprehended SI Babli.
During cross-examination, DW-3 admitted that SI Babli neither demanded Rs.10,000/- nor was apprehended by CBI in his presence. His deposition is based on the facts narrated by Reenakshi. DW-3 denied to be deposing falsely in order to help SI Sarla Devi.
ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS:-
20. I have heard arguments as advanced by Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for accused and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of defence. I have also gone through the entire record including audio conversations, transcripts and other exhibited documents.
21. Arguing on behalf of prosecution, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI contended that the present case is under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The accused is a public servant and has been working as Sub- Inspector, Delhi Police and accordingly sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act has been duly CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 56 of 101 CC No.263/19 accorded by PW-6 Ajay Kumar who has been the removing authority. The elements of offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, mainly, demand and acceptance of bribe / illegal gratification have been duly proved with the direct testimony of witnesses. Sufficient evidence has been brought on record in the form of oral, documentary and electronic evidence. It is evident from the record that file relating to the case of the complainant bearing FIR No.1796/14 PS Shakarpur was recovered from the possession of the accused. In pursuance of the demand, accused accepted the bribe amount and therefore her hand and purse washes tested positive for phenolphthalein. The recovery memo was drawn with all details mentioned therein. The tainted money (produced by the complainant for the purposes of trap) was recovered from the possession of the accused. The presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 arises against the accused, while the accused has failed to give any reasonable explanation in rebuttal. The version of the prosecution is duly supported by independent witnesses as also their testimony remained strong on crucial ingredients of the alleged offences. The official witnesses of CBI have remained consistent and cogent during their depositions and further the documentary evidence prepared during the proceedings properly corroborate the prosecution version. The original devices through which the recordings were done have been produced in evidence. The expert analysis and reports thereof have supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 57 of 101 CC No.263/19
22. Although the complainant has turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, but it is clearly evident that complainant has been deposing falsely under the influence of the accused. After recording the testimony of the complainant in the trial, her handwriting and signatures specimen as well as voice sample were taken with the permission of the court and were sent for expert analysis. The reports of the experts clearly prove that it was the complainant who preferred the complaint Mark PW1/A in her handwriting and also signed various proceedings of the trap. In the Audio Recordings, the voice of the complainant has matched with her voice sample. According to Ld. Prosecutor, the complainant has tried to mislead the court by adopting the different version whereby she has alleged raising of demand of bribe by SI Babli who was previously the investigating officer. However, during the examination of SI Babli as PW-14, no confrontation was done so as to suggest to the witness about the alleged demand of bribe. So far as the remaining witnesses are concerned, particularly the trap team members, there are no material discrepancies so as to raise any doubt about the case of the prosecution. The charges against the accused are sufficiently proved and accordingly her conviction be recorded. Ld. Sr. PP has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-
(i) Neeraj Dutta vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2023 SC 330
(ii) N. Narsinga Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2001 SC
318.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 58 of 101 CC No.263/19
(iii) S. C. Goel vs State through CBI, 2017 Cri, L.J.536.
23. On behalf of accused, Ld. Counsel Sh.Sanjay Gupta advanced arguments at length. Firstly taking up the issue of validity of sanction, it is submitted that competent authority has granted the sanction without application of mind. It is an admitted case that draft sanction order Ex.PW6/DX4 was sent along with request letter and the main sanction order is verbatim of the said draft which shows that competent authority has granted the same in a mechanical manner. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Om Prakash vs. State & Ors., 2009 (3) RCR (Cr.) 293 Delhi and Anand Murlidhar vs State, Crl. Appeal no.1107/2004 (Bombay).
24. It is further argued that complete documents were not sent to the competent authority at the time of seeking sanction. Most importantly, the audio recordings, recovery memo, punchnama, post-trap memo, voice identification memo and transcripts were not sent for consideration of the competent authority. In this regard, Ld. Counsel relied upon the judgments of CBI vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, JT 2013 (15) SC 240, State of Karnataka vs Amir Jaan AIR 2008 SC 108, Jahan Singh vs CBI, 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) Delhi and Joginder Singh Malik vs. CBI, Crl. A 1302/2010.
25. On merits of the case, Ld. Counsel further submitted that prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The genesis of the present case is stated to be complaint CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 59 of 101 CC No.263/19 Mark PW1/A but the said complaint has not been confirmed by the complainant when she appeared as PW-1. She has denied her signatures on the said complaint. Relying upon Roshan Lal Saini vs CBI, 2011 (1) JCC 102, it is argued that filing of the complaint with CBI cannot be taken as substitute for the evidence of proof of allegations. So far as the demand of illegal gratification is concerned, prosecution is left with only statement under section 164 Cr.P.C Ex.PW1/X and audio conversations Q-1 (Ex.P-2). The statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is devoid of material particulars and same is contradictory on the aspect of demand. The other witnesses PW-19 Sher Mohd. and DW-3 Ravinder Kumar have supported the complainant's version and have categorically stated that no demand was raised by SI Sarla. The witnesses have also stated that demand was infact raised by SI Babli, previous IO of the case. Ld. Counsel further argued that there is no evidence of spot demand and acceptance on the part of the accused on 05.12.2014. No independent witness could depose about the same as admittedly they remained outside the police post and did not enter the place along with complainant. On this account, Ld. Counsel referred to the following judgments:-
(i) Mukhtiar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2017 (3) RCR (Cr.) 694 SC
(ii) Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 2169.
(iii) C. Sukumaran vs. State of Kerala, 2015 (2) RCR (Cr.) 159 SC.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 60 of 101 CC No.263/19
(iv) P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police & Anr., 2015 (4) JCC 2674 SC.
(v) N. Sunkanna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 CrLJ 4927 SC.
26. On account of acceptance and recovery, it has been submitted that there is no evidence qua acceptance and recovery against the accused. The complainant has not supported the case of the CBI and even otherwise mere recovery is not enough to prove the offences in the absence of demand. There are many lapses in the investigation such as wet cloth for taking purse wash was not produced, no inventory of contents of the purse was prepared or brought on record, no independent witness joined at the time of search of accused in the washroom, lady constables did not offer their own search, inner cloth allegedly recovered was not matched with DNA profile of the accused etc. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Tarlok Chand vs. State of Punjab & Anr, 2015 (1) RCR (Cr.) 69 SC
(ii) Surajmal vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1979 SC 1408
(iii) Om Prakash vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2014 (1) CCC 161 Delhi
(iv) B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P., 2014 (2) RCR (Cr.) 410 SC
(v) Sita Ram vs State of Rajasthan, 1977 SCC (Cr.) 491.
(vi) Subhash Parbat Sonvane vs. State, 2002 (2) JCC 881 SC.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 61 of 101 CC No.263/19
27. Ld. Counsel has further raised following points through submissions:-
(i). Non examination of Malkhana Incharge and non- production of Malkhana Record.
(ii). Link evidence has not been produced to prove the safe custody of the exhibits of the case.
(iii). Material witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution to support its case particularly manager of the canteen.
(iv). There is non-compliance of Section 157 Cr.P.C.
(v) The expert reports are inadmissible and also expertise of the witnesses is challenged.
(vi) The contradictions and non-proving of crucial facts has also been pointed out and it is stated that witnesses are not trustworthy.
(vii) proper legal compliance have not been done in the case on various aspects.
28. It is asserted that CBI has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such accused is entitled to be acquitted. Ld. Counsel has relied as many as 50 judgments in support of the arguments, however, there is no need to note down the particulars of all the said judgments and they are made part of the record. I have carefully examined all the points raised by the defence as well as the judgments produced in support.
29. I have duly considered the contentions of both the sides and examined the record of the case.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 62 of 101 CC No.263/19 APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS:-
30. The accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.
31. A public servant is said to commit the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act if he accepts or obtains or agrees to accept illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in the exercise of his official functions.
32. A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct (under Section 13 (1) PC Act) if he by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or any other person pecuniary advantage; or abuses his position as a public servant and obtains for himself or any other person pecuniary advantage or by holding office as a public servant obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
Sanction:-
33. The first and foremost requirement for the prosecution is to prove sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In the present case, PW-6 Ajay Kumar posted as DCP, East District has accorded sanction vide order dated CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 63 of 101 CC No.263/19 18.05.2015 Ex.PW6/1. It is not in question that PW-6 Ajay Kumar had the required capacity and competence to grant sanction qua accused Sarla Devi. However, the sanction is questioned on the ground that PW-6 Ajay Kumar has granted the sanction in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of facts and evidence. It is also pointed out that draft sanction order was sent to PW-6 who simply signed the same. The prosecution sanction file was also produced during the cross-examination which only contained SP report. It is therefore contended by the defence that sufficient material was not produced before the sanctioning authority for proper consideration of the issue of grant of sanction.
34. I have examined the sanction order Ex.PW6/1. Sanction order mentions in brief the facts of the case and also the factum of expert opinion relating to handwashes and specimen voice and also that sanctioning authority has carefully examined the material including the statements of witnesses and documents collected during investigation. The forwarding letter Ex.PW6/DX1 shows that CBI report containing facts of the case and the result of investigation along with necessary annexures was submitted. It has been specifically mentioned in this letter that set of original documents and exhibits including statements have been kept ready for perusal by the sanctioning authority as and when required. It is important to note that sanction is granted on the basis of satisfaction of the competent authority. The satisfaction of competent authority cannot be substituted with the satisfaction of prosecution or defence. The adequacy of CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 64 of 101 CC No.263/19 material is also to be gone into by the sanctioning authority while considering the material. The sanctioning authority was also at liberty to call or summon for any other material from the investigating agency during the process of consideration of sanction issue.
35. The law on this subject has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court of India in its judgment, State of Maharashtra through CBI vs Mahesh G. Jain, 2013 (8) SCC 119. The Apex Court culled out various principles of law relating to the sanction which are as follows:-
6 Grant of sanction is irrefragably a sacrosanct act and is intended to provide safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigations. Satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is essential to validate an order granting sanction 7 This Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 124 was considering the validity and effect of the sanction given under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After referring to the decisions in Basdeo Agarwalla v. King Emperor 1945 FCR 93 and Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. R (1947-48) 75 IA 30, the Court opined as follows: -
(Jaswant Singh case) "4.....It should be clear from the form of the sanction that the sanctioning authority considered the evidence before it and after a consideration of all the circumstances of the case sanctioned the prosecution, CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 65 of 101 CC No.263/19 and therefore unless the matter can be proved by other evidence, in the sanction itself the facts should be referred to indicate that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case."
In the said case, the two-Judge Bench had reproduced the order of sanction and opined that if the same, strictly construed, indicated the consideration by the sanctioning authority of the facts relating to the receiving of the illegal gratification by the accused. We think it apt to reproduce the order of sanction in that case: -
"3.. 'Whereas I am satisfied that Jaswant Singh Patwari son of Gurdial Singh Kamboh of village Ajaibwali had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.50 in 5 currency notes of Rs.10 denomination each from one Pal Singh, son of S. Santa Singh of village Fatehpur Rajputan, Tehsil Amritsar for making a favourable report on an application for allotment of an ahata to S. Santa Singh father of the said S. Pal Singh.
And whereas the evidence available in this case clearly discloses that the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari had committed an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Now therefore, I, N.N. Kashyap, Esquire I.C.S. Deputy Commissioner, Asr, as required by Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947, hereby sanction CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 66 of 101 CC No.263/19 the prosecution of the said S. Jaswant Singh Patwari under Section 5 of the said Act." We have quoted the aforesaid order only to highlight the approach of this Court pertaining to application of mind that is reflected in the order.
8. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1979) 4 SCC 172, this Court lucidly registered the view that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting an offence and the same should be done in two ways; either (i) by producing the original sanction which itself contains the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction and (ii) by adducing evidence aliunde to show the facts placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the satisfaction arrived at by it. It is well settled that any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.
9. In Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) v. Deepak Chowdhary and others, (1995) 6 SCC 225, it has been ruled that:
"5.. the grant of sanction is only an administrative function, though it is true that the accused may be saddled with the liability to be prosecuted in a court of law. What is material at that time is that the necessary facts collected during investigation constituting the offence have to be placed before the sanctioning authority and it has to consider the material. Prima facie, CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 67 of 101 CC No.263/19 the authority is required to reach the satisfaction that the relevant facts would constitute the offence and then either grant or refuse to grant sanction".
10. In C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (1995) 6 SCC 225, it has been held as follows: -
"9...sanction order should speak for itself and in case the facts do not so appear, it should be proved by leading evidence that all the particulars were placed before the sanctioning authority for due application of mind. In case the sanction speaks for itself then the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order."
11. In R. Sundararajan v. State (2006) 12 SCC 749, while dealing with the validity of the order of sanction, the two learned Judges have expressed thus: -
"14......it may be mentioned that we cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and we cannot sit as a court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before the sanctioning authority who considered the same in great detail. Only because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this case there was abundant material before the sanctioning authority, and hence we do not agree that the sanction order was in any way vitiated."
12. In State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC273, it has been opined that an order of sanction CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 68 of 101 CC No.263/19 should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not.
13. In Kootha Perumal v. State (2011) 1 SCC 491, it has been opined that the sanctioning authority when grants sanction on an examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, it can safely be concluded that the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction and, therefore, the sanction order is valid.
14. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out: -
14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2. The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution. 14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him. 14.4. Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 69 of 101 CC No.263/19 prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. 14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. 14.7. The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity.
36. Coming to the case in hand, in view of aforesaid principles and on proper analysis of the sanction order, I am of the opinion that sanction has been granted on due application of mind by the sanctioning authority. The necessary material was placed and made available to the sanctioning authority and on consideration of the same, sanction has been granted. The sanctioning authority was satisfied with respect to the sufficiency of material. The relevant portion of Audio conversations / transcripts were also reproduced in the CBI report. During the cross-examination of PW-6, no suggestion has been put to the witness that material was insufficient for the purpose of grant of sanction. No question was asked to ascertain, whether the sanctioning authority had called for original material as mentioned in the forwarding letter.
It is true that draft sanction order Ex.PW6/DX4 was sent to the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 70 of 101 CC No.263/19 sanctioning authority, however, its forwarding letter Ex.PW6/DX3 specifically mentions that draft sanction order is only for the purpose of guidance and due application of mind may be exercised by the competent authority before issuing final sanction order. The ratio is that sanction should speak for itself and the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority should be apparent by reading the order. In the present case, sanction order speaks for itself and it is clear that sanctioning authority on due appreciation of the material, proceeded to grant the sanction in favour of the prosecution.
37. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that sanction has been properly and validly granted under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and pleas raised by the defence have no merit or substance.
Element of demand:-
38. The next important requirement for the prosecution is to prove specifically demand of illegal gratification by the accused.
39. The legal position in this regard remains settled that proof of demand is sine-qua-non to prove the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
40. In the case of Krishan Chander vs State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108, on the basis of previously pronounced judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the law on the subject and made the following observations:-
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 71 of 101 CC No.263/19
35. It is well-settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine-qua-non to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 nd 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A. P. (2014) 13 SCC 55, A. Subair.
State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) 10 SCC 152 upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant.
36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus:
"7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779.
"... In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) 10 SCC 152, it was held by this Court as under (paras 21-23):
"21. In State of Kerala and another V. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-a-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 72 of 101 CC No.263/19 any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, the conviction cannot be sustained.
22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possessions and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Section 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasized could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not rise.
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d)(i) CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 73 of 101 CC No.263/19 & (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two Sections of the Act. As a corollary failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under. ..."
41. In a recent judgment, Neeraj Dutta vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, Supreme Court has clearly down the principles in this context:-
88 What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1 (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2 (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 74 of 101 CC No.263/19 88.4(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and
(ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 75 of 101 CC No.263/19 the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5 (e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
42. Basically "demand" precedes the complaint of corruption. No specific form of demand is the requirement of law. The demand can be expressed by words, gestures, signs, indications or even by adopting clever methodology so that the purpose of conveying the message is served. The making of demand is a matter of understanding between the person who demands and the person who proceeds to pay. It is not necessary that the act for which the bribe is given, be actually performed. A representation by a public servant that he has done or he will do an act, impliedly includes a representation that it was or is within his CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 76 of 101 CC No.263/19 power to do that act. Once the premise is established, the inference is to be drawn that said gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
43. Corruption is not a technical issue. It is simply give and take system to serve the purpose of bribe seeker and bribe giver. The demand may not be direct and categorical by the public servant but it should be clearly discernible from the evidence of his conduct. Moreover, it is not the requirement of law that demand must be proved by direct evidence. The element of demand can also be established through circumstances surrounding the transaction of acceptance or agreement to accept illegal gratification. The inference from the facts and attending circumstances however must be natural, probable and based upon the process of intelligent reasoning.
44. In view of aforementioned legal position, I have analysed the evidence of this case.
45. The genesis of the present case is complaint mark PW1/A moved by the complainant Ms.Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1). In this complaint, it is specifically mentioned that the investigation of case FIR No. 1796/14 PS Shakar Pur, (registered against the complainant), on being transferred to SI Sarla, complainant along with her Advocate Ravinder Kumar met SI Sarla who demanded Rs.50,000/- or else she would get the bail of complainant cancelled and get her arrested. Since, the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, she filed her complaint before CBI. The CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 77 of 101 CC No.263/19 complaint mark PW1/A is an important piece of evidence being the basis of First Information Report. A close reading of Mark PW1/A reveals that facts and allegations contained therein could have been in the personal knowledge of the complainant only. The details contained in this handwritten complaint are duly corroborated on record whereby the case FIR No. 1796/14 was transferred from SI Babli to SI Sarla.
46. Complainant Reenakshi Sharma appeared as PW-1 and on the first date when her testimony was being recorded on 20.01.2016, she clearly named accused Sarla for having asked her to arrange Rs.50,000/- so much so that accused used unparliamentary language to put pressure on the complainant. However, subsequently the complainant turned hostile and disowned her own version and even the complaint Mark PW1/A. Complainant (PW-1) even denied her handwriting and signatures on Mark PW1/A and also that the complaint was verified through undertaking verification proceedings by CBI officers in the presence of independent witness.
47. The prosecution has however been able to establish by way of evidence that PW-1 is deposing against the truth. Complainant (PW-1) has given false testimony in this respect and it has been proved with the credible testimony of PW-18 Anil Sharma, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-I and his report Ex.PW18/A that the complaint Mark PW1/A is in the handwriting of complainant and bears her signatures. During the course of trial, handwriting exemplars (specimen) of complainant were sent for expert CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 78 of 101 CC No.263/19 examination and after proper analysis the report Ex.PW18/A has been submitted. As per the final conclusive opinion, the writings appearing on Mark PW1/A are of complainant Reenakshi Sharma and the relevant corresponding memos (prepared during the trap proceedings) also bear the signatures of Reenakshi Sharma.
48. The handwriting or signatures of a person are peculiar in nature and characteristics. The fact that personality enters into the handwriting and becomes an unconscious and dominant habit which establishes identity to every handwriting, is the basis on which evidence as to the handwriting is admitted and acted upon in courts. Although, a person's handwriting varies as to its precise detail, yet in its general habitual characteristics, it remains the same and inevitably and unmistakably retains every natural characteristic that identifies and distinguishes the same from others. There are four main movements employed in the formation of figures and letters (1) finger movement, (2) wrist movement, (3) forearm movement and (4) raised arm or whole arm movement. It is common knowledge that to enable an expert to give an opinion, handwriting signatures have to be magnified to an equal extent, superimposed and lines drawn to find out the angles to measure the length of various strokes and curves etc. With respect to the admissibility of the report, if the mode of proof is by means of an expert evidence, it all depends upon the quality of opinion given by the expert by assigning cogent and convincing reasons in support of his opinion. If the quality of opinion given by the expert is impeccable, having been supported by cogent and good reasons, there is no need to seek any CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 79 of 101 CC No.263/19 corroboration. If for any reason the quality of the opinion is weak, it shall not be the sole basis for arriving at the conclusion unless it is corroborated by other means.
49. So far as the expertise of expert is concerned, PW-18 Anil Sharma has experience of examining about one lakh exhibits and have expressed opinion on them. He has undergone in house service training from his senior experts. PW18 has been working as qualified expert and appointed by Government and he is giving his services at CFSL. In my opinion, PW-18 is having the required expertise to give expert opinion about the handwriting and signatures and he is competent, reliable and dependable witness.
50. The expert opinion clearly states that handwriting evidence points to the writer of the standard signatures and admitted writing (marked S-1 to S-20 and A-1, A-2) attributed to Reenakshi Sharma, being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures and writings marked Q-1 to Q-24, 27 to 29 and Q44 (including Mark PW1/A).
51. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I conclude that complaint mark PW1/A stands proved on record as having been filed by Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1) with CBI. Also other prosecution witnesses have given categorical statements that complaint was so moved by the complainant and complainant even participated during the verification and trap proceedings. The expert opinion is also corroborated by sufficient direct evidence.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 80 of 101 CC No.263/19
52. Recorded conversations are also an important piece of evidence and on analysing Q1 (Ex.P-2), it is clear that demand of bribe was raised by accused SI Sarla Devi from the complainant.
53. The recorded conversations are brought on record in original form and the prosecution has heavily relied upon the same. The law of admissibility of tape recorded conversation is established through the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In R.M Malkani vs State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471 Supreme Court laid down the essential conditions which, if fulfilled or satisfied, would make a tape recorded statement admissible otherwise not; and observed:
"Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. The contemporaneous tape record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 7 of the Evidence Act".
54. In the case of Ram Singh vs. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 it was held that:
"A tape recorded statement is admissible in evidence subject to the following conditions:
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 81 of 101 CC No.263/19 (1) The voice of the speaker must be identified by the maker of the record or other persons recognising his voice.
Where the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof will be required to determine whether or not it was the voice of the alleged speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial.
(3) Possibility of tampering with or erasure of any part of the tape recorded statement must be totally excluded. (4) The tape recorded statement must be relevant. (5) The recorded cassette must be sealed and must be kept in safe or official custody.
(6) The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances."
55. The defence has raised questions about admissibility of recorded conversations by arguing that they are not substantive piece of evidence and prescribed guidelines for acceptance of audio recordings are not met in the present case. It is contended that tape recorded conversations can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversations deposed by any of the parties and in the absence of evidence of any such conversations, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon.
56. The issue of identification of voices is obviously an important issue and where the witnesses are unable to identify CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 82 of 101 CC No.263/19 the voices, strict proof is required to determine whether or not they are voices of alleged speakers.
57. Each person has distinctive voice with characteristics features. The technology is in a position to say whether two voice recordings are of the same person or of two different individuals. With the development of science and technology, the voice sample can be analyzed or measured on the basis of time, frequency and intensity of speech sound waves so as to compare and identify the voice of the person who must have spoken or participated in recorded telephonic conversations. Voice sample is "identification data" which can be used for the purposes of recognition of questioned voices.
58. The prosecution has examined expert witness PW-4 Dr. Subrat Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Scientific Officer, Grade-II, Physics who is an expert in the field of forensic examination of Audio and Video. The natural audio conversations contained in Q-1 (Ex.P-2), Q-2 (Ex.P-3), DVR (Ex.P-14) and S-1 (Ex.P-13) were analysed by PW-4. On examining the credentials of this witness, I find that he is an expert in the field of voice identification and used scientific and advanced methods to compare the questioned voices. PW-4 has confidently answered all questions put across during his cross examination and there is no scope to disbelieve the expertise and report Ex.PW4/2 dated 30.01.2015 furnished by PW-4. Report is specific, clear, comprehensive and supported with reasons. There is no reason to doubt the credibility of expert witness who has done his job CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 83 of 101 CC No.263/19 properly and elaborated the procedure adopted by him during the auditory examination. There has been no specific suggestion on behalf of defence that questioned voices are not of accused or that they do not match with the specimen voices. The expert report is a strong piece of evidence and adds credibility to the genuineness of audio recordings.
59. To be more careful, the questioned micro SD cards have been played on the laptop and examined at the final stage. The conversations appearing in Q-1 and Q-2 are clearly audible, continuous and uninterrupted and matching with the specimen voices. The dialogues are naturally and mutually spoken by the speakers ruling out any possibility of editing and tampering. The voices are clearly audible and there is no disturbance. I therefore, conclude that recorded conversations (Q1 and Q2) fulfill all parameters of admissibility in terms of judgments of R.M Malkani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ram Singh & Ors. (supra).
60. Complainant although has not supported the factum of recording of conversations and also has not identified the voices in audio conversations but the independent witnesses and other members of trap team have categorically testified that recordings were done through DVR, every time, the complainant went to meet the accused firstly during the verification proceedings and secondly at the time bribe money was handed over.
61. During the course of trial, specimen voice of complainant was recorded in memory card S-2 for the purposes of matching CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 84 of 101 CC No.263/19 the same with her voice recorded during the verification and trap proceedings, in view of denial by the complainant in her evidence about audio conversations. PW-4 has analysed the specimen voice of complainant Reenakshi Sharma and compared the same with the recorded conversations Q1, Q2 (recorded during the trap). It has been opined by PW-4 that recorded conversations contain the voice of Reenaskhi Sharma. The report has been proved as Ex.PW4/4 dated 12.04.2019. The defence has raised the question of admissibility of evidence of PW-4 by stating that CFSL is not notified under Section 79A of Information Technology Act. In this regard, although Central Government is required to issue notification yet provision is not mandatory. It has not been provided that in the absence of any such notification, the opinion rendered by the expert would not be accepted in evidence. In the present case, the expert witnesses are having required experience and expertise and they have submitted their reports in relation to exhibits of the case as per law.
62. On receiving the complaint, the verification proceedings were conducted by Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla (PW-8) in the presence of independent witness Narender Tyagi (PW-3). Witnesses have given detailed account of verification proceedings and have duly proved the various memos prepared during the proceedings. Despite lengthy cross-examination, PW- 3 and PW-8 remained consistent and confident on their version and there is no reason to discard their credible testimony. So far as complainant Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1) is concerned, she has CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 85 of 101 CC No.263/19 given false statement before the court. It has been proved through the expert opinion that voice contained in Q-1 were of accused and the complainant and the nature of conversations prove that specific demand of bribe was raised by SI Sarla from the complainant.
63. In view of the above discussion, I conclude that audio conversations are very much admissible in evidence and are important piece of evidence. Firstly on examining Q-1 dated 03.12.2014 and transcripts in relation to the same Ex.PW1/8, it is clear that there has been conversation between accused and the complainant particularly in context of the FIR pending against the complainant. The following portions of conversations clearly demonstrate the element of demand coming from the accused:-
Accused अरे ये मेरा नहीं है इसकी चार्जशीट मुझे जल्दी करनी है नहीं तो तेरी फिर, मुझे मुझे अरेस्ट करना पड़ेगा, वो लड़की तेरे खिलाफ कु छ दे के गई है कागज़ Complainant मैडम अब आप देख लो .
.
.
.
Accused लेकिन बच्चे ऐसा है की तुम्हे अगर बचना है तो कोआपरेट तो तुम्हे करना पड़ेगा Complainant मैडम इतना नहीं हो पा रहा आप कु छ गुंज़ाइश कर लो ना मैं कल तक ही ला पाऊँ गी, सुनो आप CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 86 of 101 CC No.263/19 सुनो मैं आज आप यकीन करो मैं आज अपनी सास के पास गई थी पैसे मांगने .
.
.
Complainant फिर भी आप कम से कम बता दो मुझे मै कल ही कर पाऊँ गी Accused पचास (50) के लिए बोला है मैंने तो Complainant पचास (50) कै से कर पाऊँ गी, मै तो बहुत बर्बाद हो चुकी हू इस के स मे Accused देख ये रेप के स है कु छ ऐसा वैसा नहीं है तू क्या समझ रही है अगर अपना बचाव चाहती है तो जल्दी से भेज दे मुझे ना चाहिए इसमें से कु छ .
.
Accused बैल कैं सिल होती तो मुझे मुश्किल हो जायेगी .
.
Accused आज नहीं लायी कु छ
Complainant मैडम आज नहीं हो पाया
Accused चुप खड़े रहना पहले मैं निकल जाऊ फिर तू
आना
Complainant फिर भी मुझे कु छ एस्टीमेट दे जाओ प्लीज Accused ओ मैंने तुझे पचास (50) ----- मैंने तुझे पचास (50) बोला -----अच्छा ऐसा कर तू 20 कर लेना
----
64. The statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C dated 03.01.2015 Ex.PW1/X further confirms the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 87 of 101 CC No.263/19 truthfulness of prosecution version and proves that demand of bribe was raised by SI Sarla. This statement was recorded by Ld. Magistrate on oath and complainant got recorded the same voluntarily.
65. In view of above analysis, I conclude that raising of demand of bribe by SI Sarla is sufficiently proved.
Acceptance and Recovery:-
66. The next important essentiality for the prosecution is to prove acceptance and recovery of bribe by the accused. Acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant is an important ingredient. Once the acceptance is established, presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 invariably arises to the effect that bribe was accepted by accused as a motive or reward for giving favour in the matter in which the complainant has been interested.
67. Through recovery memo dated 05.12.2014 Ex.PW1/5, the entire proceedings relating to conduct of the trap and apprehension of the accused and search of the accused later at CBI office, which resulted in recovery of tainted amount of Rs.10,000/-, have been detailed. The important witnesses on this aspect are PW-3 Narender Tyagi, PW-8 Inspector Raman Kumar Shukla, PW-13 Shyam Sunder Sharma, PW-15 lady Ct.Manmeet Kaur and PW-17 lady Ct.Champa. The witnesses have detailed the sequence of events whereby the trap proceedings were CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 88 of 101 CC No.263/19 conducted at Karkardooma Court Complex including canteen premises and thereafter at CBI office. The complainant met the accused along with DVR (fitted with memory card) at police post, Karkardooma court and during this meeting, accused accepted the amount from the complainant and thereafter kept the same in her purse. The accused instructed the complainant to remain at the police post. Accused was the first person to leave that place. Complainant could not give immediate signal to the trap team as accused had got the phone of the complainant switched off. After accepting the bribe amount, accused left the place. However, later the accused was called by the complainant on the pretext of meeting her advocate and this meeting was fixed at the canteen. The accused came to meet the complainant at the canteen when she was apprehended by the trap team and her hand washes and purse wash was taken. The bribe amount could not be recovered despite search of the accused and it was decided to move to the CBI office. The woman officers (PW-15 Ct. Manmeet and PW-17 Ct. Champa) took intimate search of the accused and found that accused had kept the bribe amount in her inner garments along with cloth used as sanitary pad. All the above witnesses have been public servants and have given their testimony in a clear and categorical manner and there is nothing on record to suggest that witnesses had any motive to depose falsely.
68. The conversations happened between the complainant and accused are also important to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The conversations recorded vide memory card Q-2 CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 89 of 101 CC No.263/19 (Ex.P-3) and transcript (Ex.PW1/10) clearly demonstrate that accused consciously accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and later the same was recovered from her possession. Although the complainant has not supported the prosecution version to the effect that proceedings were so conducted or that accused was apprehended and recovery of tainted amount was so effected, but it has been proved with sufficient evidence on record that complainant has been deposing falsely. The expert evidence relating to handwriting of the complainant and voice of the complainant have shown that complainant has not been giving truthful account of the events. The relevant portion of Q-2 is reproduced as under:-
Accused पहले तुम, तुम्हारे पास कोई रिकॉर्डिंग का तो सौदा नहीं है Complainant अरे मैडम ये फोन ले के आई हूं, खाली पर्स है पैसे रिक्शा के और अपने ऑटो के ये है Accused क्योंकि ये तुम्हारा मामला बहुत सेनसिटिव है Complainant कौन -- अच्छा .
.
Complainant मैडम 10 मे 12 कर पाउंगी, मेरी लड़की को माता निकली हुई है खसरा हो रहा है उसे आपने 20 कहा था मुझे मालूम है लेकिन थोड़ा अभी मेरे साथ प्रॉब्लम्है .
.
Complainant मैडम मैं नहीं दूंगी किसी को भी प्लीज् कल भी आप मुझे से कह रही थी ना लेकिन मैंने कहा मै आपसे ही मिल के CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 90 of 101 CC No.263/19 आप ही पे विश्वास है मुझे मैं नहीं इधर उधर किसी के पास जाउंगी, ना मै उसके वकील से ही मिल रही, उसकी वकील मेरे साथ कितने जुर्म --- कर रही थी पहले Accused तुम कितने पैसे दे सकती हो--
Complainant मैडम मैं कल और कर दूंगी 10 बस ये भी आप जानती नहीं हो मैं कै से कर रही हुI आशीष के मैंने उसके पापा को बोल दिया तुम जाना और तुम्हारा लड़का जाने मै इस चक्कर मै नहीं हु. मैडम मैं कहा से करूं गी आप ये भी तो देखो ना
69. The above said conversations show that accused consciously accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and asked for remaining balance of Rs.10,000/- which complainant assured to give on the next day. Even the file relating to the case of the complainant was recovered from the possession of the accused.
70. The presumption of law as contained under Section 20 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, invariably arises in the facts and circumstances of the case. Although the presumption is rebuttable but same is required to be rebutted by proof and not by just explanation which may seem to be plausible, although the test of strict proof may not be required.
71. According to Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:-
20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration.--(1) Where, CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 91 of 101 CC No.263/19 in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub- sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.
72. It was held in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC 571) as follows :-
"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 92 of 101 CC No.263/19 inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted 'as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premises that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it."
73. In the case B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 2006 12 SCC 277, it has been held by Supreme Court :
"When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case ...."
74. The ratio of law as laid down in recent case V. Sejjappa vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, 2016 3 JCC 1488 is that:
The initial burden of proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. It is only when this initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then the burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 93 of 101 CC No.263/19 and a presumption would arise u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
............mere recovery of money was not enough to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
75. The chemical analysis report Ex.PW5/2 relating to handwashes and purse wash has proved the presence of phenolphthalein powder. Similarly the chemical report relating to 'inner sanitary cloth used as menstrual pad' (ISCMP) Ex.PW5/3 has also tested positive for phenolphthalein powder. The report relating to the above exhibits are in conformity with the case of the prosecution that recovery of bribe amount was so effected from the accused.
76. On behalf of defence, it is pleaded that accused has been falsely implicated. The bribe was infact demanded by SI Babli who was investigating the case of the complainant while accused SI Sarla is innocent. The complainant (PW-1) has supported the fact that bribe was demanded by SI Babli and not by SI Sarla. Even the defence witness DW-3 Ravinder Kumar deposed about the demand (of Rs.10,000/-) raised by SI Babli. No witness has stated about acceptance of tainted amount by the accused. The alleged shadow witness did not enter the police post following the complainant.
77. The Complainant moved the complaint mark PW1/A specifically naming SI Sarla for having demanded bribe from her. However, during the recording of her testimony before the court, CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 94 of 101 CC No.263/19 complainant twisted the facts by stating that demand was raised by SI Babli who was previously investigating officer of the case. It has already been held that complainant is a false witness and she has been intentionally deposing falsely on oath. So far as DW-3 Ravinder Kumar is concerned, the nature of his testimony reveals that he has not actually and directly witnessed any of the facts and events of the case. It is further important to note that ASI Babli has been examined as prosecution witness (PW-14). She deposed that file of the case FIR No.1796/14 against Reenakshi Sharma remained with her till 30.11.2014 and thereafter it was transferred to Woman Cell, Delhi Police, Patparganj, East District, Delhi. PW-14 SI Babli also admitted that she telephonically informed Reenakshi Sharma about the transfer of the investigation. During her cross examination, no question was asked to PW-14 on behalf of defence that she had demanded bribe from the complainant. The defence has failed to confront ASI Babli (PW-14) about the alleged demand from the complainant Reenakshi Sharma. In this way, the defence pleas can only be termed as afterthought and not truthful. The audio conversations further demolish the defence pleas and go on to prove the case of the prosecution with full details.
78. It has been argued on behalf of accused that she has been falsely implicated as CBI had to fulfill target number of cases. In my opinion, this is not a plausible or reasonable defence. Without getting any specific complaint, CBI would not act against any public servant. The facts stated by Reenakshi Sharma in her complaint mark PW1/A could not have been in the CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 95 of 101 CC No.263/19 knowledge of CBI officers and there has been no strong motive attributed to the CBI officers for implicating the accused falsely.
79. In view of above discussion, I conclude that prosecution has successfully proved the facts sufficient for raising the presumption while defence has failed to rebut or displace the presumption through proper explanation and evidence.
80. Further, on behalf of defence, it has been contended that there are inconsistencies and contradictions amongst the statements of prosecution witnesses and therefore the version of the prosecution is seriously doubtful.
81. It is settled principle of law that prosecution is required to bring clear and convincing evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but it does not mean evidence or proof to rigid mathematical precision. The evidence is to be examined as a whole and not with a narrow view to find flaws and lapses. The reasons and effects of contradictions and improvements in the statements of witnesses has been beautifully described by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753. I would like to reproduce the same as under:
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 96 of 101 CC No.263/19 (2) ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment 1.1 at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on. (7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him Perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defence mechanism activated on the spur of the moment."
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 97 of 101 CC No.263/19
82. On proper analysis, I find that witnesses have been clear in their depositions. Each witness deposed about specific role assigned to him in the case. Some variations are natural and bound to occur in the process of recording evidence but are not material so as to affect the credibility of prosecution case. It is convenient to point out lapses in depositions and documentary evidence, but lapses must be serious to indicate that prosecution case is absolutely baseless. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted, therefore number of witnesses examined does not matter if otherwise evidence is strong and convincing.
83. In the present case, witnesses have been put to rigorous and lengthy cross examination which must have been difficult if not torturous experience for the witnesses to say the least, and if there are any discrepancies in the statements of witnesses, same should be considered in the light of aforesaid situation. Even otherwise, I find that inconsistencies are minor in nature and are not material so as to render the case of prosecution wholly unreliable. In my opinion, the prosecution witnesses have stood their ground and I have no hesitation in holding that witnesses are truthful.
84. The defence has also raised questions about various memos and their contents, about timings and place of preparing said memos and about the manner in which they have been prepared but on proper and careful examination of the same, I do not find any infirmities therein to discard the prosecution case. All the proceedings are recorded therein with proper sequence CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 98 of 101 CC No.263/19 and details and are matching the deposition of prosecution witnesses. The contradictions as to the evidence of complainant (PW-1) and to the evidence of remaining trap witnesses, cannot be given any weightage, as complainant is a proved false witness. In my opinion, plea of innocence or false implication of the accused Sarla Devi has no merit or substance.
Conclusion:-
85. To conclude, by way of oral, documentary and electronic evidence, prosecution has been able to establish and bring home the guilt of the accused. The ingredients of Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, are complete as against the accused.
86. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, I conclude that accused Sarla Devi raised the demand of illegal gratification from the complainant and accepted Rs.10,000/- by misusing his official position as public servant and as such, the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are proved against the accused. Prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
87. In the result, I hold accused Sarla Devi guilty and convict her for the offences punishable sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
88. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 99 of 101 CC No.263/19 CONDUCT OF COMPLAINANT
89. Before parting with the judgment, it is important to legally evaluate the conduct of complainant Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1).
90. Firstly, Reenakshi Sharma approached CBI with her complaint Mark PW1/A alleging about demand of illegal gratification by accused SI Sarla. Thereafter, she took part in each and every proceeding with CBI officers and independent witnesses whereby, trap was laid to apprehend the accused red handed. Complainant signed all proceedings and herself recorded conversations in DVR during the verification, pre-trap and trap proceedings. Secondly, complainant also appeared before Magistrate and got recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW1/X) voluntarily on oath. However, while giving her testimony during the trial, complainant twisted all the facts and allegations and altogether changed her previous version. Complainant did not support her previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and 164 Cr.P.C given on oath before the Magistrate.
91. In the above judgment, while analysing the facts and evidence, it is already concluded that complainant has given false testimony. The expert reports relating to handwriting, signatures and audio recordings have established that complainant has given wrong and untrue account of facts of the case.
CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 100 of 101 CC No.263/19
92. Giving false evidence constitutes an offence in law. The complainant (PW-1) Reenakshi Sharma was bound to state the truth by virtue of oath taken before the Magistrate and the court, but she has knowingly and willfully given false evidence in this case and as such she is liable to be proceeded under Section 344 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
93. I, accordingly, take cognizance of the offence of giving false evidence against Reenaskhi Sharma (PW-1). Let show- cause notice be issued to Reenakshi Sharma (PW-1) to explain, why she should not be punished for the said offence, returnable for 03.06.2024.
Announced in the open court On 29th day of May 2024. ANJU Digitally signed by ANJU BAJAJ BAJAJ CHANDNA CHANDNA Date: 2024.05.29 12:56:22 +0530 (Anju Bajaj Chandna) Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue District Court New Delhi/29.05.2024 CBI vs Sarla @ Sarla Devi Page no. 101 of 101 CC No.263/19