Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

e. PW-5 Mohd. Ayoub Pandit stated that on 28.06.2006 he was posted as Inspector, VOK. He was deputed as member of trap team by SP. In his presence, the complainant handed over ₹ 5,000/- comprising of currency notes of ₹ 500/- denomination to the Investigating Officer. SGCT Abdul Rashid Khan dusted the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter, the notes were handed over to the complainant. One demonstration was conducted. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and hands of independent witness Arvind Kumar, Senior Assistant, Health Department, were washed in the said solution but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, the hands of the complainant were washed in the solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was sealed in one bottle. He signed the handing over memo (EXT-P2) and memo of demonstration (EXT-P3). Thereafter, hands of Abdul Rashid were washed. The team members proceeded to Tehsil, Handwara. The complainant and the independent witness went towards the room of Nazir and SGCT Shakeel Ahmad, stood at some distance away from them. Other team members remained in the premises of Tehsil Office Handwara. As people were in the room of Nazir, the complainant and independent witness waited in the veranda and after some time, when people came out, the complainant and the independent witness went inside the room. After few minutes, Constable Shakeel Ahmad, flashed signal to the team and they immediately went inside the room of Nazir and asked the Nazir to stand up. One demonstration was conducted. Solution of sodium carbonate was prepared, in which hands of independent witness were washed but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, hands of the accused were washed in the solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was sealed in one bottle. Thereafter, ₹ 5,000/- in the form of ten currency notes of ₹ 500/- each were recovered from the drawer of the accused and after comparison, they were found to be the same, which were produced by the complainant in the Vigilance Office. The notes were seized and pursuant to the identification of accused, the documents of the complainant and other documents were recovered from the locker and seized. During personal search of the accused, ₹ 9000/-, one Identity Card, Mobile Phone etc. were recovered and seized. The contents of recovery memo (EXT-P4), demonstration memo (EXT-P5), Seizure memo (EXT-P6), memo of personal search (EXT-P3), were read over and found correct by him. He also identified the ten notes of ₹ 500/- each, amounting to ₹ 5000/-. They were compared with EXT-P2 and were found to be the same, as were produced by the complainant. These notes were already marked as MAP/1 to MAP/10. But in EXT-P4, numbers of only nine notes have been mentioned and note marked as MAP/4 has not been mentioned in the seizure memo but the same was recovered from the accused. He also identified the bottles marked as Mark-A and Mark-B in the court. During cross-examination, he stated that the independent witness had also entered into the room along with the complainant. He was a witness, as to what happened between the accused and the complainant. This is wrong the one member of the team entered the room along with the complainant and he only flashed the signal. When he signed as a witness on the recovery memo, he did not inform the IO about mentioning of nine notes in the seizure memo. Shakeel Ahmad had flashed signal to them. He was standing in the veranda. The amount of ₹ 5,000/- was recovered from the drawer of the table. He had not seen the accused accepting, counting and keeping the bribe money in the drawer. He had no personal knowledge in respect of the contents of EXT-P5 wherein, it was mentioned that the accused had received the amount through his fingers and counted the same and kept the money in the drawer. He had not told the IO that he was not aware about the abovementioned fact. All the documents were prepared in his presence. He could not recollect who wrote EXT-P3 and EXT-P6. The Seizure memo of the seal is in the handwriting of the IO. He did not remember as to who produced the seal which was used during the trap proceedings. He had not seen the seal in the Court. f. PW-6 Mohammad Aftab Mir stated that he was included in the team by SSP Vigilance in FIR No. 24 of 2006. He has deposed about the complainant having gone to Tehsil Office, Handwara on 27.06.2006 for attestation of mutation in respect of his land and demand of ₹ 10,000/- made by the accused. He also stated that the complainant submitted a complaint in respect of demand of bribe. He deposed about the pre-trap proceedings. He proved the memo of handing over of the money (Ext-P2). He proved the memo of pre-trap demonstration (EXT-P3). After the pre trap proceedings, they went to Handwara Tehsil Office. They instructed complainant and independent witness to go to the room of accused and instructed them to hand over the bribe money to the accused after his demand. After handing over the bribe money to the accused, they were instructed to flash signal to shadow witness constable Shakeel Ahmad standing outside the room of the accused, so that he could pass on the same signal to him and other members of the team. There was lot of rush in the office. After finding the appropriate opportunity, complainant and the independent witness went inside the room of the accused and after some time, witness Shakeel Ahmad flashed the signal to him and other team members to come inside the room. He along with other team members went inside the room of the accused and asked him to raise his hands. They also disclosed their identity. Thereafter, the accused was asked to disclose his identity who disclosed his name as Mohammad Abdullah Geelani, Nazir, in the Tehsil Office Handwara. Thereafter, they prepared the solution of sodium carbonate and the hands of the independent witness were dipped in the same but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, the hands of the accused were washed in the solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was sealed on spot. He identified the solution marked as EXT-P10 but the colour of the solution was not pink when his statement was recorded. Rather the colour of the solution was faded pink. He proved the demonstration memo (EXTP-5) having his signature. Thereafter, from the right drawer of the table of the accused, the bribe amount was recovered. The numbers of the notes were tallied and they were the same. Notes were already marked as Mark-B. He also proved the seizure cum recovery memo (EXT-P4) of the currency, bearing his signature. Thereafter, Will deed, application and the other concerned documents were seized from the locker of the accused regarding which seizure memo (EXT-P6) was prepared. The personal search of the accused was conducted regarding which memo (EXT-P3) was prepared and he had signed the same. During cross-examination, he stated that it is not mentioned in the statement under section 161 Cr PC that the complainant submitted application and currency notes in his presence. He had not seen the accused demanding, accepting and keeping the bribe amount in the drawer. He further stated that, once the colour of the solution turned pink, it was evident that the accused had handled the currency notes. After examining the recovery memo (EXT-P4), he stated that numbers of only nine currency notes were mentioned in the memo and numbers of ten currency notes were not mentioned in the same though, ten currency notes were recovered from the drawer of the table of the accused. He denied that he had put his thumb impression on EXT-P6. During re-examination, he stated that he had seen the record mentioned in the seizure memo EXT-P6 and same were marked as Mark A to Mark C. The photocopy of the Will was marked as Mark-A1 and the photocopy of the mutation number 442 was marked as Mark-A2.