Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. The accused No.1 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Rajajinagar Sub-division of BBMP. Accused No2 was working as work Inspector in Kamalanagar ward No.16 coming under Rajajinagar Sub-division. As per prosecution case, for giving road cutting permission for the purpose of obtaining water and sanitary connection to the building under construction of the complainant, accused have demanded Rs.25,000/- bribe. The complainant-PW4 has stated about said demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 for giving road cutting permission. PWs 3 and 5 who are the panch witnesses stated about the acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 and even Investigating Officer, PW.8 has stated about apprehending the accused No.2 at the spot. In Ex.P.10-complaint, date on which accused demanded bribe amount is not mentioned. PW.4 has also not stated the date on which he met accused Nos.1 and 2 and they have demanded bribe. It is stated that regarding demand of bribe, PW4 has produced voice recorded in the CD along with complaint. Ex.P.17 is stated to be transcription of the recordings in the CD. As per the evidence of PW.4, when accused No.2 demanded bribe amount, he had come to Lokayukta office and they gave him Voice Recorder and then he recorded the conversation and along with voice recorder he gave complaint. However, in Ex.P.10 complaint or in the evidence of PW.8 Investigating Officer, there is no reference to complainant appearing before the Lokayukta police earlier and taking voice recorder and then again coming after recording conversation with accused and producing the voice recorder. As per Ex.P.10 and evidence of PW.8, CD was produced by complainant along with complaint and that was played in which there was conversation with accused No.2. PW.4 has not stated about accused No.1 demanding bribe amount from him. However, there is a cassette seizure mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.7 on 08.06.2009 that is, subsequent to the trap. In Ex.P.7 it is mentioned that complainant had earlier met accused No.2 seeking permission for road cutting and then he was taken to accused No.1 and he had talked to accused No.1 in his mobile and recorded conversation and it was transmitted to CD and produced and same was seized by this mahazar. The transcription of alleged conversation between accused No.1 and 2 with complainant is marked as Ex.P.8. In these transcriptions at Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.8, the date of the conversation is not mentioned. In the entire complaint or in the evidence of PW.1 or PW.8, date on which complainant had conversation with accused No.1 and 2 as per Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.8 is not stated. CD containing conversation as per Ex.P.8 is produced by the complainant on 08.06.2009 that is subsequent to the date of the trap. PW.4 has not stated about any specific demand for Rs.25,000/- by accused No.1. He has only stated that accused No.2 told him that for getting the work, Rs.25,000/- is to be given to accused No.1.

24. To prove the demand of bribe amount by accused prior to giving of complaint, these alleged two conversations of complainant with accused are the only evidence produced before the court. The CD produced by the complainant at the time of giving complaint is marked as MO.11 and transcription is Ex.P.17 and the CD seized by Ex.P.7 is MO.13 and transcription of the CD is Ex.P.8. As stated above, the complainant has not stated specifically about demand of any bribe by accused No.1. It is only mentioned that accused No.2 has demanded the amount on behalf of accused No.1. Except these alleged transcriptions of the conversations and CDs and the evidence of PW.4 there is no other evidence to establish the alleged demand of bribe amount by accused persons. According to the prosecution, even at the time of trap there was demand for money by accused No.2 and only on demand, PW.4 has given the tainted notes to the accused No.2. This is stated to have been seen by PW.3 who is a shadow witness. However, PW.5 has also stated that before him accused No.2 asked for money and then complainant gave the tainted notes etc. Therefore, at the time of trap also there was a demand for bribe made by accused No.2 as per the case. Even with regard to the same, there is recording in voice recorder, which is stated to have been transmitted to CD and seized as article No.8 and marked as MO-12. The transcription of the conversation recorded in the voice recorder is transcribed as Ex.P.9. Therefore, in the transcriptions at Ex.P.17, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 there is stated to be demand for bribe by the accused.

26. Apart from this, learned counsel for accused have submitted that CDs and transcriptions at Exs.P.8, 9 and P.17 and the CDs MOs 11 to 13 are not admissible in evidence as these secondary evidence of electronic recordings are not supported by certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The CD of the recordings in the voice recorder at the time of trap is at MO-12 and its transcription is Ex.P.9. As the original devise from which these recordings were made are not produced and the CD and the transcriptions from the original devise are not supported by certificate under Sec.65-B of the Evidence Act, it is contended that they are not admissible in evidence.

 Ex.P.1                 Sanction orders of A.2
 P.1 (a)                Signature of PW.1
 Ex.P.2                 Sanction order of A.1
 P.2 (a)                Signature of PW.2
 Ex.P.3                 Sheet containing number of Currency notes
 P.3 (a)                Signature of PW.3
 P.3 (b)                Signature of PW.5
 Ex.P.4                 Pre-trap mahazar
 P.4 (a)                Signature of PW.3
 Ex.P.5                 Trap mahazar
 P.5(a)                 Signature of PW.3
 P.5(b)                 Signature of PW.4
 P.5(c)                 Signature of PW.5
 P.5(d)                 Signature of PW.8
 Ex.P.6                 Sample seal
 P.6 (a)                Signature of PW.3
 P.6 (b)                Signature of PW.8
 Ex.P.7                 cassette seizure mahazar
 P.7 (a)                Signature of PW.3
 P.7 (b)                Signature of PW.4
 P.7 (c)                Signature of PW.8
 Ex.P.8                 Transcription of recordings in CD





P.8 (a)              Signature of PW.3
P.8 (b)              Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.9               Transcription of recordings in voice recorder
P.9 (a)              Signature of PW3
P.9 (b)              Signature of PW8
Ex.P.10              Complaint
P.10 (a) & (b)       Signature of PW.4 and 8
Ex.P.11              Acknowledgment seal
P.11 (a)             Signature of PW.5
P.11 (b)             Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.12              Attendance register
P.12 (a)             Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.13              Report of PW.7
P.13 (a)             Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.14              Work details of accused No.1
P.14 (a)             Signature of PW7
Ex.P.15              Copy of Road cutting register
P.15 (a)             Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.16              FIR
P.16 (a)             Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.17              Transcription of recordings in CD
P.17 (a)             Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.18 to P.22      Photographs of Pre-trap proceedings
Ex.P.23              Statement of Accused No.1
P.23 (a)             Signature of PW8
Ex.P.24              Copies of documents (Page No.14 to 22)
Ex.P.25 to P.29      Photographs of trap proceedings
Ex.P.30              Chemical Examination report
Ex.P.31              Sketch given by Enineer
Ex.P.32              Work details of accused No.2
Ex.P.33              Service details of accused No.1
Ex.P.34              Service details of accused No.2
Ex.P.35              Copy of B register extract

 Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence :
     - Nil -




Documents marked on behalf of the defence: