Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

42. The shadow witness DJKM Peter is examined as PW2. He was working as Marketing Officer, UCO Bank, Regional Office, Bengaluru from March-2004 to April-2006. According to him, he was called by his DGM and asked him to go to CBI Office as requirement of Telugu knowing people for some confidential proceedings. Accordingly, he had been to CBI Office on 26.10.2004 and met Dy.S.P., the Trap Laying Officer and saw another witness Madhusudhan Rao and Complainant. Both of them introduced by Dy.S.P. and informed about complaint given by the Complainant against accused - M.V.Rao, alleging that he being official of HAL demanded some money as bribe from the Complainant, in connection with stop of invocation of Bank Guarantees given by the Company in favor of HAL. Afterwards, the procedure of trap explained by TLO and asked the Complainant to contact accused once again, if he demand money as bribe, he is going to trap him. Later, the accused was informed to meet the Complainant at his residence at about 9.00 p.m. The amount which was to be given as bribe to the accused Rs.50,000/-brought by the Complainant containing denomination of currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each. The said Cash had been counted by the witness Madhusudhan Rao and noted serial numbers of currency notes separately as instructed by TLO. Afterwards, TLO has conducted Entrustment Mahazar as per Ex.P29 and obtained his signature. Later, the TLO had prepared Solution by using Sodium Carbonate and the Phenolphthalein Powder smeared on the currency notes to demonstrate the trap procedure. He has explained as to if the Phenolphthalein Powder came into contact with fingers of a person, if fingers dipped into Sodium Carbonate Solution, it will turn in to pink colour. The witness Madhusudhan Rao has touched the currency notes, smeared with Phenolphthalein Powder and dipped his fingers into the Solution, then solution turned into pink colour. Thereafter TLO gave instructions to the Complainant to give bribe amount to the accused only if he demands.

47. He has further deposed about trap explained to the independent witnesses and the Complainant. His evidence is similar to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 regarding demonstration of trap procedure shown to the Complainant and witnesses in presence of other team members. The currency notes of Rs.50,000/- in denomination of Rs.1,000/- each is identified by him. The telephonic conversation in Telugu between the Complainant and accused reduced into writing as per Ex.P58 and his signature marked as Ex.P58(b).

52. In the cross-examination he has stated about necessity of registration of a preliminary enquiry case after registering the case as Regular Case (RC). According to him, it is not necessary for the S.P. alone to convert the PA case into RC case. He has admitted that the preliminary enquiry has to be reported by way of enquiry conclusion report by officer who conducts such enquiry, is admitted. It is true he has stated that after receiving the complaint FIR has registered as per Ex.P36 and the same has been received by him for the purpose of investigation on 26.10.2004, after 5.30 p.m. He is very particular about after receiving both complaint and FIR, arranged for laying a trap as instructed by S.P. He has clearly mentioned every aspect of laying trap and enquiry conducted in the case noted in the case diary. He has identified the conversation between Complainant and accused in Telugu language translated into English and reduced into writing as per Ex.P31. He has denied for the suggestion that Complainant had disclosed him that no demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused after laying the trap procedure as on 26.10.2004. The portion in the statement of PW3 that say of Complainant who said to be told the accused did not demand or accept any bribe amount is marked as Ex.D6. He has clarified the said aspect by deposing as accused himself told the TLO and others that he did not demand or accept any bribe amount.

53. However, the evidence deposed by this witness is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which supports demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. The trap procedure followed by TLO as deposed by himself is corroborated with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 which will clearly establish that the trap was conducted in accordance with law and as per the procedure. The evidence of TLO deposed in the chief-examination has been affirmed in the cross-examination also. Therefore, it is to be believable and acceptable as corroborated with the evidence of Complainant and shadow witness as well as other witnesses for prosecution.