Delhi District Court
Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 24 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE,
CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No: 01/12
RC No: RC AC3 2009 A0003/2009/CBI/ACUIII/New Delhi
Unique Case ID No: 02403R0336752010
Title : State (CBI)
Vs.
1. Jaibir Singh Sehrawat, S/o. Sh. Sahib Singh.
R/o. Flat no. 61, Sangam Apartment, Pocket24, Rohini,
New Delhi 110085.
2. Kamal Nischal, S/o. Sh. Joginder Pal.
R/o. K112, Third Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Anil Jain, S/o. Sh. C.L. Jain.
R/o. E5/8, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
U/s: Section 120B of IPC r/w 7, 8, 12 & Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Date of Institution : 30.9.2010
Date of Reserving Order : 20.12.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2014
(Appearances)
Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI.
Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1 Jaibir Singh Sehrawat along
with accused.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 1 of 82
Sh. Tarun Arora, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 Kamal Nischal along with
accused.
Sh. J.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3 Anil Jain along with accused.
J U D G M E N T
1. Brief facts of the case are that accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat being
public servant while working as Junior Engineer during the period
NovemberDecember, 2008 had entered into criminal conspiracy with
coaccsueds i.e. accused no. 2 Kamal Nischal and accused no. 3 Anil
Jain and by abusing his official position had agreed to accept illegal
gratification from his coaccused i.e. accused no. 2 Kamal Nischal who
in conspiracy with accused no. 3 Anil Jain had attempted to pay illegal
gratification to him for a motive or reward for saving the property
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar from demolition of unauthorized
construction.
2. Accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat is public servant and as such,
sanction order for his prosecution was obtained from the competent
authority. Charge Sheet was filed in the Court.
3. Accused persons had appeared in the Court and copies of
documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 2 of 82
them to their satisfaction.
4. The accused persons have been charged for committing
offences under Section 120B IPC and Section 7, 8, 12 and 15 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Substantive Charge under Section 7, 8 and 15 of PC Act
was framed against accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat. Substantive
Charge under Section 7 and 12 of PC Act was framed against accused
Kamal Nischal. Substantive Charge under Section 7 and 12 of PC Act
was framed against accused Anil Jain.
5. CBI in support of their case have examined 32 witnesses.
6. PW1 Sh. M.C. Kashyap has proved letter dated 10.12.2008
from Union Home Secretary, Government of India for telephonic
surveillance of mobile no. 9818802431 pertaining to accused J.S.
Sehrawat Mark X. He stated that there was information that accused
J.S. Sehrawat and others were indulging in corrupt and undesirable
activities and therefore, his mobile number was put under surveillance.
He further stated that during telephonic surveillance it transpired that
accused J.S. Sehrawat who was Junior Engineer, MCD, Karol Bagh
Zone was indulging in demand of illegal gratification and was showing
undue favours for construction of properties. He also stated that CD of
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 3 of 82
the intercepted conversation was prepared by him. The relevant calls
were copied in CD along with Recorded Call Information Report
Ex.PW1/B and were given in a sealed packet to the IO vide Seizure
Memo Ex.PW1/A. He proved the certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act Ex.PW1/C with regard to telephonic calls mentioned in
Ex.PW1/D. He proved the CD Ex.P1 which was handed over to the IO
by him.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused J.S.
Sehrawat he stated that he did not have any information regarding
illegal activities of accused J.S. Sehrawat and other accused persons
in writing or not. He admitted that the name of accused J.S. Sehrawat
was not mentioned in order Mark X which is authorization to intercept
mobile number 9818802431 which as per this order was being used by
accused J.S. Sehrawat. He denied that the mobile number
9818802431 was not used by J.S. Sehrawat nor the said connection
was issued to him. He admitted that any information is received
regarding bribe exchanging hands, in the normal circumstances a trap
is laid by CBI to catch the accused persons red handed. He also
admitted that in the present case the information was not only against
accused J.S. Sehrawat but also that he along with other was indulged
in illegal and undesirable activities but no trap was laid. He admitted
that the interception of the calls and conversation pertaining to the
present case was done prior to the registration of the case.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 4 of 82
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain
he stated that he had received information regarding registration of FIR
in the present case on 16.10.2009.
7. PW2 Sh. B.L. Jindal was posted as Executive Engineer in
MCD, Technical Laboratory, Alipur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. He has
proved his letter Ex. PW2/A which was addressed to Sh. Vijay Kumar,
SP, CBI, ACUIII, Delhi. He has proved his report Ex. PW2/B. He
stated that vide this report the Committee has given the details of
permissible covered area and the existing area when the property was
inspected and also mentioned the compoundable and non
compoundable area and deviation made beyond the sanctioned
building plan. He stated that in this report, specific remarks were given
in the columns of remarks that structure at 4th floor was in the shape of
GI sheets which was neither permissible nor compoundable. He stated
that after sanction of building plan, the construction is to be carried out
by the owner as per sanctioned plan. He stated that the duty of the
concerned Junior Engineer of the area is to check whether construction
is being carried out as per sanctioned building plan or not. If any
deviation from the sanctioned building plan is noticed, then necessary
action against the unauthorized construction or deviation is to be taken
as per provisions of DMC Act.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused J.S.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 5 of 82
Sehrawat, accused Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain he stated that
the inspection of the property in question was carried out by them on
21.12.2009 and 19.01.2010 with the team. He stated that the report Ex.
PW2/B was prepared on 31.3.2010 on the basis of the plan prepared by
Architect Sh. Sher Singh. He admitted that his report Ex. Pw2/B was
with regard to the structure and construction therein existing on the
date of inspection on 21.12.2009 only. He admitted that they did not
carry any investigation with regard to determining the age of
construction in the said building in question. He admitted that he
cannot say as to when any addition, alteration and construction was
made in the property in question. It could have been made after
sanction of the building plan, but he could say about the period of
construction. He stated that he cannot say as to when the excess
coverage and deviations were made in the building in question.
8. PW3 Sh. B.P. Sharma stated that during April, 2007 to
11.12.2009 he was posted as Assistant Engineer in Building Head
Quarter, MCD, Town Hall, Delhi. He stated that if a plan is applied for a
new building in place of old structure will have to be removed and
Junior Engineer will submit his report regarding this i.e. the removal of
old structure and thereafter, the sanction plan will be approved after
completing all the formalities. He stated that accused J.S. Sehrawat
did not mention any site inspection report regarding the visit at the site
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 6 of 82
before releasing of building plan which is a mandatory provision. He
stated that as per the sanction plan placed in D3 in respect of Cottage
no. 4, West Patel Nagar, sanction plan was submitted for addition of
third floor on the existing building. He stated that if any deviation is
found in the structure of the building beyond the sanction plan, the JE
will issue notice to the property owner, or book the property by
registering an FIR for unauthorized construction and will issue notices
under Section 343 and 344 as per DMC Act, 1957. He stated that he
was the member of the Committee constituted for inspection of Cottage
no. 4A, West Patel Nagar and on inspection certain deviations were
found in the building which are mentioned in the report Ex. PW2/B.
The witness was declared hostile by Ld. Special PP for CBI as
he was not supporting the prosecution case.
On being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated
that his statement was recorded by the IO. He stated that he does not
know as to why it was mentioned in his statement Ex. PW3/X that he
had seen the video photography of the building wherein the bathroom
at the terrace was seen whereas this fact was not stated by him before
CBI Inspector P.C. Yadav. He stated that a technical team which was
constituted by office of Commissioner, MCD consisted of himself, Sh.
B.L. Jindal and Sh. K.P. Sharma, Assistant Engineer.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused J.S.
Sehrawat he stated that the inspection of the property no. Cottage 4A,
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 7 of 82
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi was carried out after receipt of request
from CBI, but he did not remember the exact dates when the inspection
was carried out. He stated that he cannot say as to when any addition,
or alteration was made in the property in question, which is the subject
matter of report Ex. PW2/B. He admitted that the GI sheet is a
temporary structure and can be laid and removed at any point of time.
He admitted that the compoundable deviations in any building can be
compounded at the time of completion. He stated that he does not
know whether any unauthorized construction was existing in Cottage
no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on 12.12.2008.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain
he admitted that the report Ex. PW2/B was prepared on the basis of the
basic consideration that the plot was 250 square meters as per the
Master Plan. He admitted that the actual plot area was 260.22 square
meters. He stated that they had got a written order from the Executive
Engineer for inspecting the site in question. He denied that no such
order was there from the Executive Engineer by which the team was
constituted for inspecting the site in question. He stated that on the
date of their inspection although the building was complete and there
was no on going construction but, the building was not functional.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal was adopted same
cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused J.S.
Sehrawat and accused Anil Jain.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 8 of 82
9. PW4 Sh. Sanjay Pamneja stated that during the year 2007 he
was working as Property Dealer. He stated that in the business of
Property Dealing, accused Kamal Nischal and Sandeep Talwar were
his partners. He had never dealt with any work of cottage no. 4A,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
The witness was declared hostile by Ld. Special PP for CBI as
he was not supporting the prosecution case.
On being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated
that he had been called to the CBI Office and was made to read a
paper, however his statement was not recorded. He denied that his
statement was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Mark X4. He denied that he
was a builder and property dealer by profession and has built many
buildings in partnership with Kamal Nischal. He denied that he knew
Govind Beldar in MCD, Karol Bagh Zone and used to meet him for
checking the construction undertaken by himself and accused Kamal
Nischal. He also denied that he knew accused J. S. Sehrawat, Mahipal,
J.E.s in MCD or R. Dabas, H.R. Meena and Nathi Singh working in
MCD, Karol Bagh Zone who were InCharge of the inspection of the on
going construction by him. He also denied that Govind Beldar and the
J.E.s were corrupt and used to take bribe for on going constructions
undertaken by the owners. He denied that he had agreed to the illegal
demands of the Beldar and J.E.s mentioned in his statement to ensure
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 9 of 82
that the on going construction would go on uninterrupted. He denied
that Govind Beldar and the J.E. had threatened him on behalf of other
officers of the MCD. He also denied that they had started constructing
a building at Cottage 4 A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi when Govind
Beldar and Mahipal of Karol Bagh Zone had visited their site and had
threatened them for demolishing the illegally constructed portion of the
cite. He denied that Govind Beldar and Mahipal had threatened them
that they will point out some fault in the construction despite the fact
that all the documents in support of the said property were complete
and were in order. He denied that he had discussed the matter with his
partner and Govind Beldar and Mahipal Singh had devised the way to
cover the portion of the open space area left by them in the middle of
the building and to construct bathroom in the said space from first floor
to third floor. He denied that deviations were made as per the advice of
Anil Jain, owner of the building and Kamal Nischal, builder of the
property. He also denied that he along with his partner had briefed Anil
Jail, owner of the property that the MCD Officials would take bribe from
Kamal Nischal on one pretext or the other. He denied that the building
was completed in December, 2008 and Ajay Jain, owner of the property
had started running a Guest House/ Hotel in the same building after
getting the conversion of the building from residential purpose to
commercial purpose. He denied that a CD was played before him by
the IO and he had identified voice of Kamal Nischal. He also denied
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 10 of 82
that he had identified the voice of Kamal Nischal regarding exchange of
bribe amount conatined in the CD. He denied the entire contents of his
statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. as well as CD played in the Court.
10. PW5 Sh. K.P. Sharma, Assistant Engineer, MCD stated that in
the year 20092010 he was posted as Assistant Engineer (Building),
Headquarter, MCD. He stated that he was one of the members of the
Committee deputed for inspection of Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi along with B.L. Jindal and B.P. Sharma. He stated that upon
inspection deviation beyond the sanction plan was noticed in the said
building regarding which a detailed report Ex.PW2/B was prepared and
signed by all the members of the team. He stated that the details of the
deviations were mentioned in the Report Ex.PW2/A which consisted of
compoundable and noncompoundable area. He stated that as per
report there was a structure at the fourth floor in the form of GI sheets
which is neither permissible nor compoundable. He stated that the
details of the non compoundable area is mentioned in column no. 7/4
Mark P.
On being cross examined by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat, he stated that inspection was carried out
about one week before the date of preparation of the report Ex.PW2/B
i.e. 31.03.2010. He stated that the report Ex.PW2/B was prepared on
31.03.2010 on the basis of the plan prepared by Architect Sh. Sher
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 11 of 82
Singh. He admitted that he had not gone to the property in question
prior to the date of inspection. He admitted that the report Ex.PW2/B is
with regard to the construction and structure existing in the property on
the date of inspection by him. He admitted that he did not carry out any
test and investigation with regard to the determination of age of
construction in the said building. He admitted that he cannot state as
to when the alterations, additions and constructions were made in the
property in question. He admitted that GI Sheets is a temporary
structure and can be removed at any point of time.
11. PW6 Sh. T. Nagesh, stated that in December, 2009 he was
working as an LDC in the Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone,
MCD, he had visited CBI office during this month and had met Sh. P.C.
Yadav, Inspector in connection with the construction of Cottage no. 4A,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that he knew accused J.S.
Sehrawat, J.E. of Karol Bagh Zone who was working there at that time.
He stated that accused J.S. Sehrawat used to come to his office where
he used to meet him and used to have conversation with him. He
stated that Inspector P.C. Yadav had played many CDs before him but
he cannot say whether any CD was played in connection with the
present case. He stated that since he had worked with accused J.S.
Sehrawat, he can identify his voice if the CD is played before him. The
CD Ex.P1 was played in the court and after hearing the same, the
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 12 of 82
witness stated that one of the voices seemed to be of accused J.S.
Sehrawat. However, he did not identify certain sentences in the calls
played before him. The witness was cross examined by Ld. Special PP
on some material aspects after permission of the Court.
On being cross examined by Ld. Special PP for CBI he stated
that his statement was recorded by Inspector P.C. Yadav. He denied
that he had told the IO that he had identified all the conversations of
accused J.S. Sehrawat from the five calls played before him. On being
confronted with his statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW6/A, he denied
having stated so before the IO in his statement. He denied that he has
deliberately not identified voice of accused J.S. Sehrawat in call Mark
X7 at point K, P, U, V, W, X and Y, and in call Mark X8 at point B and
had attributed the voice of other persons to accused J.S. Sehrawat at
point D.
On being cross examined by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat he stated that he could not admit or deny
whether accused J.S. Sehrawat was posted as J.E. in Karol Bagh Zone
at any point of time for 89 months. He stated that he used to meet J.S.
Sehrawat in connection with official business. He admitted that the
conversation which was played before him by the IO and by the Ld.
Special PP in the court had not taken place in his presence nor it was
recorded in his presence. He admitted that after going through the
transcript of conversation Mark X5 to X9, specific number of the
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 13 of 82
property or area of the property has not been reflected in any
conversation. He stated that he did not remember whether the
conversation contained in Mark X5 to X9 contained in audio CD X1
was played before him or not by the IO.
12. PW7 Sh. Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile
Services Ltd. has proved original customer application form with
respect to mobile no. 9873232193 along with proof of identification of
the subscriber and certified call detail record of this mobile number
running into 85 pages was forwarded to CBI vide forwarding letter
Ex.PW7/B. Call detail record was proved as ExPW7/C and certificate in
support of the same u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW7/D. The
Customer application form and identity proofs were proved collectively
as Ex.PW7/E. He stated that the details of the CDR were provided from
the record maintained in the main server of the Company.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused J.S.
Sehrawat, he stated that he does not have technical education or
experience about information and technology, however, he has basic
knowledge about the computers. He admitted that when the call details
collectively Ex.PW7/C were made available to CBI, the same were not
accompanied with any certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He
stated that he had not brought the said call details generated from the
said computer system. He denied that he is not competent to issue
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 14 of 82
certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. He stated that the
computer system in which the call details data is maintained and
generated can only be accessed by the Nodal Department of the
Company and is in the exclusive possession and control of the IT
Department of the Company. He stated that he cannot tell anything
about the surveillance and tapping of mobile no. 9873232193 by CBI
and also cannot comment about any request of CBI received in this
regard by his company. He also stated that such records are destroyed
by telecom operator after 4 months as per guidelines of telecom
department. He also stated that the records of the call details are
maintained only for one year for scrutiny by security agencies. He
denied that the company is not having the records of call details in
respect of the above referred mobile number in his statement recorded
u/s 161 Cr.P.C by CBI for the period 01.01.2009 to 01.4.2009. He
admitted that all legal telephone surveillance by CBI and other
agencies is possible only through service provider.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain
adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for
accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat.
13. PW8 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, stated that he is practicing as Civil
Engineer and was working in CSIR. After going through the file
pertaining to sanction plan of Cottage No. 4A, West Patel Nager, New
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 15 of 82
Delhi he stated that accused Anil Jain had sent someone to him in
connection with the building sanction plan alongwith relevant
documents. He stated that he could not identify accused Anil Jain. He
stated that the building sanction plan was for construction of residential
house at property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi from basement
to second floor. He stated that the plot area of the above said property
is 311 Sq. yards. He stated that the plot covered area on ground floor,
first floor, second floor and basement is 2017.50 sq. feets and the open
space area to be left is 672.55 Sq. Feet floor wise. He stated that
building sanction plan which is Mark A was prepared by him and was
proved by him as Ex. PW8/A. He further stated that he had sent
building sanction plan of property no. 4A, West Patel Nager, New Delhi
for consideration of 3rd floor. He stated that they had got approved the
said building sanction plan of accused Anil Jain, owner of the property
from MCD. He stated that building sanction plan Ex. PW8/B bears
signatures of the owner which had been obtained by one Sh. Rajesh
who was dealing with him for the preparation of building sanction plan
on behalf of the owner accused Anil Jain. He also stated that the
construction of the structure of building had started after approval of the
building sanction plan and all the roofs were cast upto second floor. He
also stated that since after sometime there was some dispute between
him and the owner, regarding some payment, he had withdrawn from
the supervision of the construction. He also stated that letter of
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 16 of 82
intimation addressed to Executive Engineer (Building), MCD about
cancellation of supervision for construction of building belonging to
accused Anil Jain is Ex. PW8/C. He stated that he had visited the
property in person and had conducted inspection of the property on the
basis of building sanction plan. He stated that when he had inspected
the spot he had found no deviation in the construction till application for
approval of building sanction plan for 3rd floor. He also stated that there
was no construction till that time in the open space area. He admitted
that his statement was recorded by CBI under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He
stated that during the inspection, he found that the owner had made
deviation by constructing bathroom from 1st floor to 3rd floor in the open
space area of the building where open space area was shown in the
copy of the building sanctioned plan. He also stated that the deviations
made in the form of construction of bathroom in the open space area
on the 3rd floor was within the permissible compoundable limits. He
admitted that he had stated this fact before CBI in his statement.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he admitted that the bath room built on the terrace of
the 3rd floor of the building was demolished by MCD on 12.12.2008.he
stated that sometime in February, 2009, GI sheets on nut and bolt were
erected on the terrace of the building. He had objected to the said
structure on the terrace of the 3rd floor, but he was informed that this
temporary structure had been put up for the purpose of
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 17 of 82
accommodating the labours. The construction in the open space area
was carried out in the open space area within the compoundable limit
which was later on regularized by MCD on 21.8.2012 subject to
payment of penalty. He stated that there was no change in the
construction of the said building on all the three floors and all the floors
after 2009.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain
adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for
accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat.
14. PW9 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Lab Assistant, CFSL, CBI, Delhi
stated that on 09.12.2009 he alongwith Sh. S. Ingarsal, Senior Scientific
Officer had recorded specimen voice of accused J.S. Sehrawat in the
presence of independent witnesses and the IO of the case. He stated
that accused had given his specimen voice voluntarily. He also stated
that the specimen voice of accused Kamal Nischal was also recorded
in a separate cassette in similar manner in the presence of
independent witnesses. Thereafter, both the cassettes were sealed
and signed by both the witnesses and themselves. He proved the
memo in this regard Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal
Nischal he stated that they had taken 2 hours to complete the
proceedings qua accused Kamal Nischal. He stated that they have no
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 18 of 82
concern with the particular IO as to whether he had also asked the
person concerned to give sample voice. He admitted that the fact
regarding taking consent of accused Kamal Nischal or J.S. Sehrawat
is not mentioned in Ex. PW9/A or PW9/B. He admitted that the written
consent is not in the judicial file.
Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain did not examine the witness
despite opportunity given to him.
15. PW10 Sh. R.K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. stated
that the mobile no. 9818802431 is in the name of Sh. Sunil Khatri and is
paid connection activated on 10.02.2006. He proved the customer
application form and call detail records generated from the system of
Bharti Airtel Ltd. pertaining to this mobile number Ex. PW10/A and Ex.
PW10/B respectively.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he admitted that the customer application form and the
CDRs are not supported by any certificate under Section 65B of Indian
Evidence Act.
On being cross reexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he proved these documents as Ex. PW10/A and Ex.
PW10/B.
16. PW11 Sh. A.H. Ganvir, Scientific Assistant, CFSL, New Delhi
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 19 of 82
stated that on 24.7.2009 on directions of HOD, Photo Division, CFSL,
he had visited plot no. 4A, Hotel Shanti Palace, West Patel Nagar for
the purpose of taking photographs. He stated that thereafter two CDs
were prepared out of which one was meant for the IO and another one
was prepared as office copy and had been brought by him to the Court.
The witness produced CD containing 62 images. He stated that the
printout of the photos were prepared from the CD and the photo pints
were proved as Ex. PW11/A collectively which are 62 photographs. He
stated that 4 sets of these photographs were prepared out of which
three were supplied to the accused persons and one set had been
place on original record as Ex. PW11/A. He stated that all the
photographs bear his signatures on the backside. He proved CD
containing photographs as Ex. Pw11/B and the negatives Ex. PW11/C.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he stated that on 24.7.2009 only photographs were
taken by him at the spot, but he had prepared the photographs at the
directions of the Court on 18.8.2012. He stated that he did not
remember as to whether the printouts of the said photographs were
handed over to the IO or not. The negatives in respect of these were
seized by the IO from him during the course of investigation. He again
stated that one CD containing said photographs were taken by the IO
during investigation. He stated that he did not remember the name of
the IO who had collected the said CD from him. He stated that he
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 20 of 82
could not tell as to whether said CD was collected by IO during the
preliminary enquiry or after registration of the regular case. He
admitted that the photographs proved on record were pertaining to the
position and status of the said property on 24.7.2009.
Ld. Counsels for accused Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain
adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for
accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat.
17. PW12 Sh. Pawan Kumar stated that in the year 2008 he was
working in MCD, Building Department as UDC. He stated that he had
seen accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat writing and signing during the
course of his official duties and can identify his signatures. He proved
the inspection report and action taken report against plot no. Cottage 4
A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi Ex. PW12/A collectively. Upon being
shown the notice under Section 435 of BMC Act dated 08.12.2008 Ex.
PW12/B he identified signatures of one Sh. S.K. Lakra at point A and
noting Mark X2 and Mark X3 in the handwriting of accused J.S.
Sehrawat. He also proved on record the documents relating to self
assessing scheme of mix land use charges towards conversion of
residence cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi into
Commercial Building for the years 200607, 200708 and 200809. He
identified the receipts regarding deposit of Rs. 500/ by the owner and
Rs. 2,83,853/ as annual mixed used charges vide receipt no. 611077
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 21 of 82
on Ex. PW12/C. He stated that this information and its enclosures i.e.
An Affidavit, photocopy of conveyance deed, schedule form, receipt
deed details report, photocopy of electricity bill, photocopy of PAN card
are collectively Mark X1. He also identified the receipt in his
handwriting Ex. PW12/D which is the information of registration of
mixed used and annual mixed used charges. He stated that the said
information and its enclosures i.e. Affidavit, photocopy of conveyance
deed, schedule form, receipt deed details report, photocopy of
electricity bill, photocopy of PAN Card are collectively Mark X2. He
stated that information for registration for mixed land was provided by
him to CBI. He stated that as per this information, Rs. 2,51,668/ were
paid by the owner as annual mixed used charge vide receipt no.
G851036 dated 30.6.2009.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain
he admitted that there was scheme of MCD under which they had
instructions to receive payment from the property owners for its mixed
land use charges. He also admitted that regarding the property in
question i.e. Cottage No. 4A, mixed land used charges were deposited
in the MCD Department.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal adopted the same cross
examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain.
18. PW 13 Sh. U.B. Tripathi, Director, Administration, Delhi Jal
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 22 of 82
Board proved letter dated 13.11.2009 sent to SP, CBI in response to
their letter dated 16.10.2009.
Ld. Counsels for accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat, accused Kamal
Nischal and accused Anil Jain did not examine the witness despite
opportunity given to them.
19. PW14 Sh. Anil Dalal, Executive Engineer, MCD, Delhi stated
that he had joined MCD, Building department as Executive Engineer
during September, 2005 and remained posted there till February, 2006.
CBI had requested him regarding procedure followed in case the owner
or the builder wanted to renovate or reconstruct or change the use of
the land located in Karol Bagh Zone. He stated that he had informed
CBI that as per modified and simplified procedure, the Architect used to
submit building plan for the necessary building fee and other charges
alongwith blue print drawings. He stated that thereafter Building
Department goes through the ownership documents and sanctioned
the building plan in a day or two. He stated that as per simplified
procedure, the AE/JE (Building) are not required to check any details
except the ownership documents. The building plan is required to be
sent only when the building is to be constructed afresh or some
structural changes in the building are carried out. However, in
renovation, internal alteration, or any other cosmetic changes, no
sanction is required and the owner can carry out these minor changes
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 23 of 82
on his own. He also stated that he had informed CBI that any on going
unauthorized construction can be demolished any time as preventive
measure, however, in case the building where construction has
acquired a shape, they are first booked and thereafter, they can be
demolished only after demolition orders are passed. He stated that
primarily, it is responsibility of the JE who carried written inspection to
the area under his jurisdiction to keep watch on the unauthorized
construction. He stated that the JE submits a weekly certificate in a
prescribed proforma in this regard which is forwarded to the Deputy
Commissioner of MCD through Proper Channel. He stated during the
relevant time he had forwarded it to the Monitoring Committee, High
Court of Delhi. He also stated that besides this, MCD also received
complaints of unauthorized constructions from ordinary citizens, RWAs,
NGOs and Courts etc. He further stated that once the property has
been reflected in weekly certificate were authorized construction is
going on, it is the duty of the JE to register FIR on the prescribed
proforma. He stated that on the basis of FIR, the first show cause
notice is issued to the owner/builder under Section 343 of DMC Act.
He stated that the notice is issued in the name and signatures of the
AE which is marked to JE for service and thereafter, the file is sent to
the office Incharge (Building) who enters the details of such show
cause notice and the property number in the Misal Band Register. He
stated that 3 working days time is granted to the owner/builder to
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 24 of 82
respond to the notice or to carry out rectification. He stated that in case
the parties appear before AE (Building) and satisfy that the
construction under question is not unauthorized, the matter is closed by
passing a speaking order, however, if the owner/builder fails to give
satisfactory reply, the demolition order passed by AE (Building) giving
him 6 working days time to carry out demolition himself or otherwise
the MCD demolishes it. He stated that for doing so the file is marked to
office InCharge (Building) for taking the demolition action as per policy
of the department.
He further stated that in the last week of every month Executive
Engineer (Building) after discussion with Deputy Commissioner, MCD
prepares a monthly demolition programme indicating demolition
number etc. for demolition and sealing. The copy of the demolition
programme is sent to the ACP and SHO concerned for providing
security to the Demolition Squad. He also stated that in case any
unauthorized construction is found in progress, and is at the initial
stage, the JE (Building) concerned can demolish the same and no
procedure for booking or issuing demolition order qua the said
construction is required. He stated that on the appointed days for
demolition, the demolition squad comprising of JE, Beldar alongwith
tools and machinery report to the police station. The entry of the arrival
is made and thereafter adequate police staff is provided to the squad
and the demolition is carried out. Entry is made in the demolition
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 25 of 82
register by the JE (Building) as well as in the file who send it to office
Incharge (Building). He stated that the signatures of the policemen are
also obtained.
He stated that as per the building sanction plan for construction
of residential house no. 4, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi Ex. PW8/A
sanctioned on 28.6.2007, the sanction was granted on behalf of the
Commissioner vide Mark 14X. He stated that space is meant for
ventilation of a building, but has been covered it will be treated
authorized construction if it is compoundable.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he admitted that the frequency of visits by JE
(Building) to his area depends upon the work load and the wards under
his charge. He admitted that the JE (Building) will book only those
properties which come to his notice during routine visits to the area and
also those property in respect of which complaints have been received.
He stated that 31.5 square meters of deviation of each floor can be
compounded in any building.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain
he stated that he has no personal knowledge of the papers and
sanction plan relating to the property in question as he was not working
in the Zone when the relevant papers were prepared by the MCD.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal adopted the same cross
examination as conducted by Ld. Counsels for accused Jaibir Singh
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 26 of 82
Sehrawat and accused Anil Jain.
20. PW15 Sh. Kaptan Singh stated that he was posted as
Assistant Engineer in Building Department and remained posted till
17.01.2010. He stated that the AE (Building) is empowered to check the
booked unauthorized construction to the extent of 40% during the
month under his jurisdiction. Thereafter, entry is made in the register in
token of its inspection carried out by him. He stated that the AE has to
inspect the area within 15 days and if any unauthorized construction is
noticed him, he will further direct concerned JE (Building) to take
immediate action. The Executive Enginner has to carry out the test
check to the extent of 20% of the total unauthorized construction
booked during the month and also required to inspect the area within a
month. The beldar of the Building Department is not authorized to
issue any weekly or monthly certificate regarding on going
unauthorized construction, as per orders of MCD Headquarter, Delhi.
He stated that there are no specific guidelines regarding passing over
the information by transferee JE to his successor about the pending
cases of unauthorized constructions.
Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain
did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
21. PW16 Manoj Kumar Verma stated that he had worked
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 27 of 82
as Executive Engineer in MCD, Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone
from 15.2.2009 to 31.7.2009. He stated that he had been asked by the
CBI Inspector regarding procedure of taking action against
unauthorized construction and sanctioning of building plans He also
stated that a CD had also been played before him by the said Inspector,
however, he was not able to identify the voices of persons contained in
the CD. He was declared hostile by the Ld. Senior PP for CBI. On
being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that the CBI
had called him to CBI, Headquarter on occasions and had made
inquiries from him regarding procedures. However, his statement had
not been recorded by the IO on 08.01.2010 and 09.3.2010. The witness
was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 08.01.2010 and 09.3.2010. However, he denied this statement
made to CBI. He also denied that he had identified the voice of
accused J.S. Sehrawat when the CD containing the voices played
before him by the CBI officials. He denied that he had been shown
transcript of the intercepted conversation by the CBI Officials when the
same was compared by him when the CD of the intercepted
conversation was played before him.
22. PW17 Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma, Retired Health Inspector, MCD
stated that he had been posted as Public Health Inspector, MCD, Karol
Bagh Zone during the period July, 2007 till 2010. He stated that his
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 28 of 82
primary duty was to control communicable diseases, registration or
birth and death and issuance of health trade license with regard to
running of a guest house or hotel falling in Karol Bagh Zone. He also
stated that West Patel Nagar also falls under the jurisdiction of Karol
Bagh Zone.
After going through the file Ex.PW17/A (D9), he stated that as
per notings in this file accused Anil Kumar Jain s/o. Sh. Chaman Lal
Jain, owner of Property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
had applied for conversion of above said residential property into guest
house/ hotel along with required documents mentioned in the note
sheet of the Deputy Health Officer, Karol Bagh Zone for further action
and had also made a note on 06.01.2008 regarding deficiency of some
documents. He stated that the deficient documents included NOC from
Delhi Fire Services and DCP (Licensing), copy of Delhi Jal board
Connection and copy of conversion charges or parking charges. He
proved this note sheet as Ex.PW17/B. He stated that on the same date
he had also prepared letter Ex.PW17/C for sending the file to the
building department of Karol Bagh Zone for confirmation whether it was
unauthorized or authorized building for taking further action for grant of
Licence. He stated that a letter in this regard was also written to Anil
Kumar Jain on 08.01.2008 which is Ex.PW17/D. He stated that he had
informed CBI that neither the owner of property no. Cottage 4A, West
Patel Nagar, nor Building Department, MCD, Karol Bagh zone had
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 29 of 82
replied to their letters. No compliance was sent by accused Anil
Kumar Jain to their letter dated 08.01.2008. Thereafter, he was
transferred from West Patel Nagar to another part of Karol Bagh Zone
and he had handed over the file to one Sh. B.P. Dubey, Public
Inspector, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone for taking further necessary action.
After going through the file he stated that he had seen a rejection letter
dated 05.6.2008 Ex.PW17/E vide which the prayer of accused Anil
Kumar Jain had been rejected due to non compliance of the letter
asking for submission of deficient documents. He further stated that he
had visited property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar in January, 2008
and had found that property in question was under construction from
basement to 3rd floor. He stated that he could not find any responsible
person or owner at the site, he could not make inquiries about the
same.
He further stated that as per MCD laws no owner can run
any guest house or hotel in residential area without Health Trade
License from the concerned Authority. He stated that if in case any
guest house or hotel is run by anyone in a residential area without
Health Trade License, the same can be closed by DCP (Licensing),
Delhi Police and Building Department, MCD. He stated that the MCD
Headquarter, after taking up the matter with DCP, can also initiate
proceedings for closure as per law. He stated that CBI had recorded
his statement in connection with this case, however, he had not stated
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 30 of 82
to CBI in his statement that a hotel Shanti Inn was being run
unauthorizedly without any Trade Health License to run a guest house
or hotel.
The witness was declared hostile and on being cross
examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he was confronted with his
statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Mark Y portion A to A wherein it is
so recorded. The witness denied to have been stated so to the CBI.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3
Anil Kumar Jain he stated that when he had visited the spot, only
construction activities were being carried out and no hotel in the name
of Shanti Inn had been running at Cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. He stated that issuance of a rejection letter does not bar
applying for a fresh license or reconsideration of the rejection letter.
23. PW18 Sh. S.L. Bairwa, Executive Engineer North
Municipal Corporation, New Delhi stated that he was posted as
Executive Engineer, Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone from
25.9.2007 to 23.9.2008. He stated that the procedure for renovation or
reconstruction or to change land use of the property and the sanction
of Building Plan etc. are governed by Building by laws and the
provisions laid down in DMC Act on the relevant time. After going
through the file pertaining to addition or revised building plan on
Cottage no. 4,West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, he stated that as per the
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 31 of 82
approval note in this file Ex.PW18/A, the plan was approved under his
signatures on 16.5.2008 on the recommendation of Assistant Engineer
Sh. Bedi and Assistant Town Planner/ Karol Bagh Zone. He stated
that he knows accused J.S. Sehrawat, Junior Engineer. He stated that
in the CBI Office no CD was played in his presence. The CD Ex. P1
was played in his presence in the court and upon hearing the same, he
stated that he cannot say with certainty as to who was speaking in the
conversation. He stated that the voices are clear but he cannot identify
the voices in the conversation. He admitted that he had given
statement regarding procedure mentioned in his statement after being
shown the files. The witness was declared hostile and on being cross
examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he denied that any proceedings
regarding CD P1 being put up in a laptop and was played in his
presence by the IO or him identifying the voices of accused had taken
place in the office of CBI. He also stated that he had never identified
voice of accused J.S. Sehrawat. He also denied that the transcript of
the intercepted conversation was ever shown to him.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
Jaibir Singh Sehrawat he sated that as per Building Bylaws, an area of
13.5 square meters of any authorized construction can be compounded
in any building. He admitted that the said area of 13.5 square meters at
any floor can be compounded provided other bylaws have been
followed. He admitted that the compoundable area can be any part of
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 32 of 82
the building.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3
Anil Kumar Jain he stated that for the plot in question, the site plan had
been sanctioned as per law.
24. PW19 Sh. Sandeep Talwar, stated that he is property
dealer by profession and knows accused Kamal Nischal as they are in
the same business. However, he stated that he does not know
accused J.S. Sehrawat. He denied his statement was recorded by CBI.
He denied any CD was played in the laptop in his presence when he
was called by CBI.
He was declared hostile and on being cross examined by
Ld. Senior PP for CBI he denied that he had ever stated to CBI in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW19/A that he had built many
buildings in partnership with Kamal Nischal and Sanjay Papneja. He
denied that he had ever stated before CBI Inspector that in the year
2007, he had started constructing the building at Cottage 4A, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi when Sh. Govind Beldar and Sh. Mahipal
Singh, Junior Engineer had visited this site and had threatened for
demolishing the illegal construction portion. He also denied that he
had ever stated before CBI Inspector the facts mentioned in statement
Ex.PW19/A from portion C to C and D to D, G to G, H to H. He also
denied having identified voice of Kamal Nishcal in the presence of CBI
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 33 of 82
officers.
The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsels
for all the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
25. PW20 Sh. Rajveer, License Clerk stated that he was
posted as License Clerk, Health Department, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone.
He proved the Seizure Memo vide which the documents i.e. Broucher/
application form of Health Trade License of Health Department and
circular issued by MCD, were seized by CBI inspector Ex.PW20/A. He
also proved ProductioncumSeizure Memo dated 06.01.2010 vide
which the documents i.e. File no. CSB251240 was seized. The file
was already proved as Ex.PW17/A. He proved another file seized from
him bearing no. CSB273035 as Ex.PW20/C.
26. PW21 Sh. B.P. Dubey, Retired Public Health Inspector
stated that in February 2008 he was posted as Public Health Inspector,
Karol Bagh Zone. He also sated that a letter had been written to Anil
Kumar Jain on 08.01.2008 for furnishing further documents for
issuance of Health Trade License. He stated that when he had visited
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi he had not seen any guest
house or hotel being run during his inspection. He stated that since no
response for submission for documents was received, a letter of
rejection had been sent to Anil Kumar Jain which is Ex.PW17/A.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 34 of 82
Attention of the witness was drawn to file pertaining to Hotel Shanti
Palace, Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi Ex.PW20/C D8)
including one noting sheet approved by the witness. After going
through the same, the witness stated that 1/C to 47/C are the
documents which were filed by sh. Chaman Lal Jain regarding
ownership of Hotel Shanti Palace situated at Cottage 4A, West Patel
Nagar. He stated that the proprietor of Hotel Shanti Palace submitted
the documents placed int he file from pages 1/C to 59/C for issuance of
Health Trade License in the name and style of Hotel Shanti Place. He
stated that the documents were found to be incomplete for which he
had informed to the owner of the hotel in this regard and had apprised
him the fact that his proposal for grant of health trade license had
already been rejected vide rejection letter Ex.PW17/E issued in the
name of Anil Jain, Proprietor of M/s Shanti Inn. He stated that by
receipt dated 24.10.2008, Sh. Chaman Lal Jain had submitted the
documents relating to issuance of Health Trade License for Hotel
Shanti Plalce and the documents in this regard are placed in the file
which is already Ex.PW20/C (D8). He stated that due to deficiency of
documents no Health Trading License had been issued for running of
hotel at property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi by
Deputy Health Officer, MCD.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3
he stated that he cannot admit or deny that any Health Trade License
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 35 of 82
had been issued to anyone in the year 2009 pertaining to the property
no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
27. PW22 PW Sh. V.S. Saini, UDC, Archaeological Survey of
India, New Delhi stated that on 09.12.2009 He was posted as LDC,
Archaeological Survey of India. On that day he was called to CBI
office. Inspector P.C. Yadav informed him that voice samples of one
Mr. Sehrawat and two more persons had to be taken. He stated that he
cannot identify them as the voice samples were taken five years back.
He stated that he cannot identify any accused person. He stated that
the voice samples of all the three persons were taken in audio
cassettes and audio cassettes were sealed in his presence and
signatures of Sh. Sehrawat, Inspector Yadav and himself were obtained
on the same. He stated that documents regarding these proceedings
were also prepared. He admitted that Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B were
prepared in his presence. He stated that cassette Ex.PW22/A
contains voice samples of accused J.S. Sehrawat and Ex. PW22/B
contains voice sample of accused Kamal Nischal.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat he stated that he was not shown any permission of the
court in respect of taking of sample voice of the said persons.
28. PW23 DSP Sh. S.K.Sharma stated that in the year 2009,
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 36 of 82
he was posted as Inspector CBI, Delhi. He stated that he had
conducted preliminary enquiry in this case and after registration of this
case he had partly conducted the investigation. During the course of
investigation, he had seized some documents vide seizure Memo
Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. He also stated that during the course of
preliminary enquiry, he had prepared Memo regarding photography and
videography of the property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He
stated that a note of inspection conducted on 24.7.2009 was prepared
by him in the presence of other witnesses which is Ex.PW23/C.
On being cross examined by Sh Anil Kumar, ld. Counsel for
accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat he stated that video cassette of the
photography and videography mentioned in Ex.PW23/B was deposited
by him in Malkhana, CBI during the course of preliminary inquiry. He
stated that the entry in this regard must have been made in the
Malkhana Register. He admitted that the memo Ex.PW23/B does not
contain any endorsement to the effect that the said cassette was ever
deposited or withdrawn from Malkhana, CBI nor it contains any
Malkhana number. He admitted that Ex.PW23/C does not contain the
particulars of the seal nor the facsimile of the seal affixed on the said
memos.
29. PW24 Sh. Mahipal Singh, Junior Engineer (Civil), Office
of Executive Engineer sated that he was posted as Junior Engineer
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 37 of 82
(Building) Karol Bagh zone in May, 2008. After going through the
sanction plan (D3) he proved it as ExPW23/A and stated that after
submission of the said plan by the onwer, he had made some
corrections in the plan after visiting the site in question. He also proved
the sanction letter along with sanction plan Ex.PW24/B.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat he stated that during the period of his posting in Karol
Bagh Zone on 30.01.2009 to 15.02.2009, he had visited property no.
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar for inspection and had found that the
same was built up as per the sanctioned building plan and there was
no unauthorized construction in the whole building.
30. PW25 Sh. Amar Nath, Chief Executive Officer, Delhi
Urban Shelter Improvement Board, stated that on 29.9.2010 he was
posted as Special Officer, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and
was competent to remove accused J.S. Sehrawt, Junior Engineer from
his services and to take disciplinary action against him. He proved the
sanction order dated 29.9.2010 as Ex.PW25/A.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat, he stated that he had not sought legal opinion before
granting sanction. He stated the he does not know as to who was the
appointing authority of Junior Engineer in MCD.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 38 of 82
31. PW26 Sh. V. M. Mittal, DSP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi stated
that he had conducted search at the residential premises of accused
J.S. Sehrawat and the search list Ex.PW26/A had been prepared by
him.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
Jaibir Singh Sehrawat he denied that during the course of Search
operation on 21.5.2009, one Sunil Khatri had visited the house of
accused J.S. Sehrawat and had claimed that mobile number
9818802431 belonged to him which had been inadvertently left by him
at the residence of accused J.S. Sehrawat in the evening of 20.5.2009.
He denied that the mobile phone make Nokia which was seized from
the residence of accused J.S. Sehrawat did not belong to him, but
belonged to Sh. Sunil Khatri.
32. PW27 Sh. S. Ingarsal, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL,
New Delhi stated that he had taken voice sample of accused J.S.
Sehrawat and Kamal Nischal in the presence of witnesses Sh. V. S.
Saini on 09.12.2009. He stated that both the accused persons had
given their consent to give their voice samples before recording their
voice sample. He had demonstrated to accused J.S. Sehrawat and
accused Kamal Nischal and Sh. V.S. Saini that the audio cassettes
were blank and there were no prerecorded contents. He sated that the
transcript was given to accused J.S. Sehrawat. He sated that before
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 39 of 82
recording Mr. V.S. Saini had introduced himself. He stated that same
procedure was followed while taking voice sample of Kamal Nischal.
The audio cassettes were sealed and signed.
33. PW28 Sh. D.S. Dagar, Additional Superintendent of
Police, CBI, STF, New Delhi prove the FIR Ex.PW 22/A. He stated that
during the course of investigation, he had taken over some documents
from Inspector S.K. Sharma.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat he stated that he does not remember whether any CD of
recorded conversations was received by him along with the FIR .
34. PW29 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Negi stated that he was posted
as Scientific Assistant, Photo Division, CFSL, New Delhi in July, 2009.
On 24.7.2009, videography of property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar was
carried out by him in the presence of IO Sh. Sharma, one J.E. Of MCD,
one employee of the Hotel Mr. Narang and one Mr. Manmeet from
CFSL. He proved the Memo regarding proceedings of videography
recording Ex.PW23/C. He stated that the photographs of the property
were also taken by Mr. Abhay Tanwar, who is also posted in CFSL,
Delhi.
The witness identified the cassette and stated that it was
sealed in his presence and the cloth wrapper as well as the cassette
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 40 of 82
are Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B.
On being cross examined by Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel
for accused no. 1 Jaibir Singh Sehrawat, he stated that videography
was carried out by him on 24.7.2014 and shows status of the building
as on 24.7.2009.
35. PW30 Sh. S.K. Singh, A.E., Planning Department, North,
MCD stated that in July, 2009 he was posted as J.E., MCD, Karol Bagh
Zone when videography of property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi was carried out in his presence.
PW30 Sh. S.K. Singh also stated similar facts as stated by
PW29 Sh. Rajiv Kumar Negi.
36. PW31 Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Senior Scientific
Officer, CFSL proved the voice examination report pertaining to
accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat and accused no. 2 Kamal Nischal
Ex.PW31/B. He stated that on the basis of examination of the CDs
which were received in intact seals, he concluded that the voices
contained in the questioned voice and sample voice were of accused
J.S. Sehrawat and Kamal Nischal.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat he denied that the auditory features in the questioned as
well as specimen voices are not mentioned in his report Ex.FPW31/B.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 41 of 82
The phonetic and linguistic features of questioned voices are not
described in his report Ex.PW31/B. He admitted that the original hard
disk where the alleged questioned voices are originally recorded, was
not examined by him for the purpose of voice comparison. He admitted
that imitation of voice is possible. He admitted that in recorded
conversations, the voices can be edited or erased. He also admitted
that he has not given any certificate u/s. 65 B of the Indian Evidence
Act, along with his report. He denied that he had given his report under
compulsion of CBI.
37. PW32 Inspector P.C. Yadav is IO who stated that in September
2009 he was posted as Inspector, CBI, New Delhi. He stated that an
FIR already Ex. PW28/A was lodged and investigation of that case was
entrusted to him. He stated that during the course of investigation he
had recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version correctly.
He had also seized various documents from various departments. He
had also obtained the voice samples of the accused persons in the
presence of independent witnesses and the same were sent to CFSL
alongwith questioned documents for expert opinion. He had also got
identified the voices of the accused persons through several witnesses
and during the proceedings they had correctly identified their voices in
the recorded conversation played before them. Further, he had also
conducted the searches of the houses of the accused persons with the
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 42 of 82
assistance of other Inspectors.
He stated that he had seen register pertaining to entries
regarding issuance of completion certificate of the property maintained
by MCD. After going through the same, he could not find any entry
regarding issuance of completion certificate of the property no.4A,
Cottage West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. He proved the register as Ex.
PW32/B.
He stated that he had seized the file already Ex.PW20/C
pertaining to Hotel Shanti Palace, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
maintained by Health Department of MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, MCD. He
had collected the same from the Health Department of MCD, KBZ, New
Delhi.
He stated that during the course of investigation he had
examined this file and found that accused Anil Kumar Jain had applied
for issuance of Health Licence for Guest House but the same was
rejected by the Health Department of MCD.
He also stated that he had seen letter no. D/EE
(B)/KBZ/2010/233 (D10) sent by Executive Engineer, KBZ, MCD to him
vide which he was informed that as per CC Register, no CC file was
received in respect of property no.4A since 2007 2009 in the Building
Department. The said letter was received by him on 18.02.2010 and the
same was proved as Ex.PW32/C.
He stated that he had prepared the transcript already
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 43 of 82
Ex.PW19/B, Ex. PW19/B1 to Ex.PW19/B4, which was prepared by
him after hearing the recorded conversations between accused
persons.
He stated that vide the letter dated 01.04.2010 of Shri
Vinod Nag addressed to him photocopies of papers relating to filing of
papers \ before MCD requesting for issuance of Health Trade Licence
to Hotel Shanti Palace were handed over to him. The same were
proved as PW32/J. He also proved the photocopy of the extract of the
master plan as Ex. PW32/K. He also proved Completion Certificate
seized by him from Sh. T. Nagesh, Record Keeper, MCD as
Ex.PW32/P. He also proved photocopies of weekly certificates seized
from MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, New Delhi during the investigation and
proved them as Mark 32/X1 to X15. He had also proved the
attendance register relating to J.Es of MCD, Karol Bagh Zone from
Record Keeper, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, Building Department for the
period from 09.1.2008 to January, 2010. He stated that the name of
accused J.S. Sehrawat is also mentioned in this Attendance Register
and was proved as Ex.PW32/S.
He also proved the photocopies of the demolition register for the
period of 2008, maintained in MCD, Karol Bagh Zone, Building
Department and stated that the original of the said register has been
deposited in another court in Case no. RC 2/2009/ACUIII pending
against Barinder Pal and Others. The photocopies of the said register
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 44 of 82
were proved as Ex. PW32/T.
He stated that during the course of examination he had recorded
the statements of the witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5,
PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14,
PW15, PW17, PW18 and PW26 as per their version correctly as per
the list of witnesses filed alongwith the chargesheet.
After completion of investigation, he had placed entire case
record including statements and documents before SP Shri Vijay
Kumar for sending to the MCD Department for obtaining the sanction
for prosecution of accused J.S. Sehrawat. The sanction for prosecution
order already Ex. PW25/A was obtained and the same was filed
alongwith the chargesheet.
He further stated that since he had remained busy in another
case at Jaipur as such the chargesheet of this case was filed by
Inspector Jagdish Prasad as per the direction of the SP Shri Vijay
Kumar.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Jaibir
Singh Sehrawat he stated that the Preliminary Enquiry report was not
filed alongwith the charge sheet.
He admitted that there is no mention of certificate u/s 65B Ex.
PW1/C of Indian Evidence Act in seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He denied
that the certificate Ex. PW1/C was fabricated later on after 09.11.2009
to suit the case of CBI in the date 09.11.2009 whereas no such
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 45 of 82
certificate was available on 09.11.2009.
He stated that he had examined several officials of MCD who
were posted in the area where property cottage no. 4A, West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi was situated. He stated that he did not remember as
to whether he had examined Sh. Sunil Khatri in this case or not. He
stated that Mobile no. 9818802431 was in the name of Sh. Sunil Khatri.
He denied that the said mobile no. i.e. 9818802431 was exclusively
used by Sh. Sunil Khatri and was never used by accused J.S.
Sehrawat. He denied that he had examined the said Sh. Sunil Khatri in
this case, but intentionally did not bring it on record as it was contrary
to the facts stated in the charge sheet.
The attention of the witness was drawn to transcript Ex.PW19/B,
B1 to B4. The witness after going through the same stated that he
cannot say whether there were other calls starting from number 1 to 7
or after 12. He admitted that there is no reference of property no.
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in Transcript Ex.PW19/B,
B1 to B4. He also admitted that there is no reference of property no.
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, in CD Q1 Ex.P1. He also
admitted that there is no reference of any amount in Transcript
Ex.PW19/B, B1 to B4. He also admitted that there is no reference of
any amount in CD Q1 Ex.P1. He denied that transcript Ex.PW19/B,
B1 to B4 and CD Q1 Ex.P1 were fabricated documents.
He admitted that he did not investigate as to why trap was not
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 46 of 82
laid when specific information was available with Special Unit, CBI as
mentioned in the FIR to catch accuseds red handed.
Attention of the witness was drawn to document Ex.PW12/D,
after going through the same he stated that as per this document the
date of establishment of Hotel Shanti Palace at Cottage 4A, West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi, was mentioned as w.e.f. 01.01.2000 at portion X to
X1.
Attention of the witness was also drawn to document Ex.PW20/C
and after going through the same he stated that Hotel Shanti Palace
was running at Cottage 4/A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi since 2006.
Attention of the witness was also drawn to document Ex.PW10/C
and after going through the same he stated that no certificate u/s. 65 B
of Indian Evidence Act was obtained in respect of call detail records of
mobile no.9818802431.
After going through Ex.PW7/C he stated that the CDRs with
respect to mobile number 9873232193 were available only with effect
from 01.01.2009.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Kamal
Nischal he admitted that there is no document on record to show that
accused Kamal Nischal was collaborator or builder in respect of
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi at any point of time. He
denied that accused Kamal Nischal was not at all associated with the
construction of property Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi at
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 47 of 82
any point of time.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil Jain
he admitted that during the relevant period of alleged crime, it was Anil
Jain who was the owner of the property Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. He stated that he did not remember as to whether Mr. C.L.
Jain had applied for the Health Trade License to the MCD during the
relevant period. He also stated that he did not know as to whether Mr.
C.L. Jain was the owner of property Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi prior to the ownership being conferred upon accused Anil
Jain. He also denied that Mr. C.L. Jain was the owner of property
Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi during the relevant period
and it was he who had applied for the Health Trade License in his name
in the year 2008.
He stated that he could not state as to whether any one on
behalf of the owner of the property can also apply for sanction of the
building plan. He stated that he did not know as to whether accused
Anil Jain had applied for sanction of the building plan on behalf of his
father Sh. C.L. Jain.
Upon being asked a question as to whether he had come across
any law or rule under which in the residential property, Health Trade
License could have been applied or could have been sanctioned or not,
he stated that he knows that no such license can be applied or
sanctioned in a residential property.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 48 of 82
He stated that he did not remember the specific period in which
Health Trade Licence was applied for by accused Anil Jain. However, it
was applied during the year 2010. He stated that he did not remember
as to whether Sh. C.L. Jain had applied for Health Trade License during
the year 2008 which was rejected.
The attention of the witness was drawn to a Health Trade
License bearing no. 033401 dated 27.8.2010 issued in favour of
accused Anil Kumar Jain, Mark 32/DA and the witness after seeing the
same stated that he does not know anything about this document. He
stated that he did not remember the exact amount of gratification
involved in this matter.
38. PE was closed. Statements of accused J.S. Sehrawat, accused
Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain under Section 313 Cr.P.C were
recorded in which they had expressed their willingness to lead defence
evidence. Therefore, the case was listed for defence evidence.
39. Accused persons have examined 5 witnesses in their defence.
40. DW1 Ms. Shalu Kapoor working as Judicial Assistant, Record
Room (Sessions) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. She had brought
the original record pertaining to RC A3/2010/A0003/ACUIII/CBI/New
Delhi, CC No. 24/12 (Old CC No. 37/10) in case titled: CBI Vs. Jaibir
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 49 of 82
Singh Sehrawat etc.
The attention of the witness was drawn to certified copy of
statement of PW15 Sh. T. Nagesh, S/o Sh. P.V. Rao, LDC in North
Delhi Municipal Corporation, Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone,
Delhi recorded on 16.01.2013 (5 sheets) and recorded on 22.3.2013 (11
sheets) in the aforesaid case CC No. 24/12 in the Court of Sh. G.P.
Singh, Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi and after going through the
same she stated that she has compared the same with the original
record i.e. Statements brought by her which are correct certified copies
of the original Ex. DW1/A collectively.
Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not examine the
witness despite opportunity given to him.
41. DW2 Sh. Ankush Senoria working as Ahlmad/Junior Judicial
Assistant in the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Ld. Special Judge,
CBI, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. He had brought the original
record pertaining to RC AC1/2009/A0003/ACUI/CBI/New Delhi, CC
No. 04/13 in case titled: CBI Vs. Suresh Kumar Lakra & others.
The attention of the witness was drawn to certified copy of
statement of PW8 Sh. T. Nagesh, LDC in North Delhi Municipal
Corporation, Building Department, Karol Bagh Zone, Delhi recorded on
05.3.2013 (46 sheets) in the aforesaid case CC No. 04/13 in the Court
of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, the then Ld. Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 50 of 82
(Predecessor of the Court of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba, Special Judge,
CBI, New Delhi) and after going through the same he stated that he
has compared the same with the original record i.e. Statement brought
by him which is correct certified copies of the original Ex. DW2/A.
Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not examine the
witness despite opportunity given to him.
42. DW3 Sh. Sunil Khatri working as Manager in Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana stated that he is working with M/s Bharti
Airtel Ltd. since 2006. He had joined Bharti Airtel as Service Quality
Auditor and he was using Mobile Connection Nos. 9818802431 and
9871146896 since 2007. The mobile connection no. 9818802431 is of
Bharti Airtel Ltd. and was issued in his name in the end of December,
2006. This telephone number was not used by anyone else except
himself. He stated that he knows accused J.S. Sehrawat as he had met
him in the year 2007 and had taken a room belonging to the accused
on rent in Rohini. He stated that in the year 2008 he had taken another
room on rent which belongs to wife of accused and till date he is
staying in that room as a tenant. Accused J.S. Sehrawat has never
used telephone no. 9818802431 at any point of time.
He stated that CBI had made inquiries from him regarding his
mobile telephone number. He had informed CBI that on 20.5.2009 at
about 8:30 pm he had gone to the house of accused J.S. Sehrawat at
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 51 of 82
61, Sangam Apartments, Sector24, Pocket24, Rohini, New Delhi and
had forgotten his mobile phone at his residence. On 21.5.2009 at
about 7:30 am he had gone to the house of accused to collect his
mobile phone. However, he was not permitted to enter house of
accused by some CBI officials. He stated that he had requested CBI
officers to return his mobile phone, however, they had informed him
that he can get back his phone only from to Court. He stated that the
bill for the said connection was being deducted from his salary account.
He stated that he had sent a request through email dated 15.6.2009 to
his HR Department for blocking his connection which is Ex. DW3/A.
On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP
for CBI he denied that the mobile no. 9818802431 was used by
accused J.S. Sehrawat prior to 20.5.2009.
43. DW4 Sh. Rajesh Khanna stated that during the period 200708
he was working for Sh. Chaman Lal Jain. He stated that during this
period Mr. Chaman Lal Jain used to take decisions pertaining to
property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi as he was involved in
hotel business and during that period he had started the construction of
the property in question. He admitted that he had got the site plan
approved pertaining to construction in the said property. He stated that
the property in question is in the name of accused Anil Jain. During
that period accused Anil Jain had other works and therefore, he did not
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 52 of 82
involve himself in the affairs of the property in question. He stated that
in the year 2008, Mr. Chaman Lal Jain had applied for issuance of
Health Trade License to run hotel at the property no. Cottage 4A, West
Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Mr. Chaman Lal Jain had expired on
02.10.2014. he stated that he can identify the signatures of Late Sh.
Chaman Lal Jain since he had worked with him till his death and after
his death he is working with accused Anil Jain.
The attention of the witness was drawn to file Ex. PW17/A and
after going through the same he stated that an undertaking / no
objection certificate at page no. 3C of this file bears the signatures of
Late Sh. Chaman Lal Jain at point A and the said undertaking/no
objection certificate was presented in his presence before Municipal
Corporation Department.
During the period 20072009, MCD had not granted the Health
Trade License pertaining to the property in question. He stated that it is
in his knowledge that a Health Trade License was issued pertaining to
the said property in question on 27.8.2010 in the name of accused Anil
Kumar Jain. The property consists of three floors. There is no
structure on the 4th floor of the property.
On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP
for CBI he stated that he has no knowledge about the properties either
movable or immovable purchased by Late Sh. Chaman Lal Jain during
his life. He stated that he did not remember as to in which month and
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 53 of 82
year Late Sh. Chaman Lal Jain had got approved the site plan of the
aforesaid property.
Late Sh. C.L. Jain had applied for Health Trade Licence for
running a business of hotel in the said property in the month of
SeptemberOctober, 2008. An undertaking/no objection certificate as
stated above was prepared in the area of Karol Bagh Near MCD Office.
44. DW5 Sh. Anil Kumar Jain (Accused) has tendered in his
evidence self attested copy of Health Trade License bearing no.
033401 pertaining to Cottage No. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
issued on 27.8.2010 by Deputy Health Officer, MCD, Karol Bagh Zone.
The said license was received by him after completion of formalities
and the same was proved as Ex.DW5/DA. He stated that he had
applied for the same in the month of January, 2010 and after fulfilling all
the requirements, the same was issued to him by the Competent
Authority.
Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not examine the
witness despite opportunity given to him.
45. Defence evidence was closed and the case was listed for final
arguments.
46. Final arguments were heard at length on behalf of Ld. PP for CBI
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 54 of 82
as well as Ld. Counsels for accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat, accused
Kamal Nischal and accused Anil Jain.
47. Ld. Defence Counsels for accused persons have stated that the
prosecution has not been able to prove its case since the material
witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution
case on material points.
48. It is also stated that the conversation intercepted by CBI is illegal
and inadmissible in evidence as CBI has not complied with mandatory
provisions of Law. It is also stated that the hard disk in which the
alleged questioned conversation was recorded was neither seized nor
sealed nor got examined from any Expert and, therefore, no reliance
can be placed on the same.
49. It is also stated that none of the witnesses have identified the
voices of the accused persons except PW Sh. T. Nagesh who has
partially identified the voice of accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat and that
no certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act has been issued as per
Law. It is also stated that it is not mentioned in the seizure memo vide
which the CD of intercepted conversation was seized that a certificate
u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act had been issued.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 55 of 82
50. It is also stated that there is no mention as to how the
information regarding the present case had been received by CBI. The
seal with which the questioned CD was sealed has not been produced
during trial. It is also stated that the intercepted conversation of the
transcript does not disclose demand of bribe. It is also stated that the
intercepted conversations are vague and do not refer to any specific
amount of demand of bribe. However, the FIR mentions the alleged
bribe amount as Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the charge sheet mentions it as Rs.
4.5 lakhs. It is also argued that the mobile phone seized during
investigation was not sealed by CBI and has been manipulated.
51. It is also stated that the mobile phone no. 9818802431 was not
used by accused J.S. Sehrawat at any point of time and belonged to
DW 3 Sh. Sunil Khatri. It is also stated that the certificate u/s 65 B of
Indian Evidence Act pertaining to calls of mobile no. 9873232193
allegedly belonging to accused Kamal Nischal was produced at the
time of deposition of PW7 and is, therefore, not as per law. It is also
stated that no witness has identified voice of accused Kamal Nischal
when the CD was played in the Court.
52. It is also stated that though specific information was available
with CBI as per their case on the basis of intercepted conversation,
there is no explanation as to why trap was not laid to catch the accused
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 56 of 82
persons red handed.
53. It is also stated that none of the prosecution witnesses have
proved that unauthorized construction had been carried out at property
no. Cottage No. 4A, West Patel Nagar, during the period November,
2008December, 2008 or January, 2009February, 2009. It is also
pointed out that PWs2, 3, 5 and 13 have also not deposed about the
age of construction so as to prove as to when unauthorized
construction had been carried out. It is also stated that PWs11, 23, 29
and 30 have also not said anything about unauthorized construction
except to prove videography/photography on the questioned property
on 24.7.2009. It is also stated that official witnesses PW14 and 18
have stated that 13.5 sq. meters of deviation can be compounded in
any building.
54. It is also stated that as per the IO that the date of establishment
of Hotel Shanti Palace at Cottage No. 4A, West Patel Nagar is
01.01.2000 in Ex. PW12/D and that Hotel Shanti Palace was running at
aforesaid address since 2006 as per Ex. PW20/C, much prior to the
posting of accused no. 1 in the area, as accused no. 1 was posted in
the area in September, 2008.
55. Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI on the other
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 57 of 82
hand has stated that even if, in the conversation specific amount of
bribe has not been demanded, but the conversations reflect that
demand was being made by accused no. 1 for the purpose of ignoring
the unauthorized construction and not taking any action against
property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi for demolition.
56. It is also stated that accused Kamal Nischal had been
negotiating for payment of bribe on behalf of accused Anil Jain since
accused Anil Jain was the owner of the property in question and
accused Kamal Nischal was doing the construction work on the
building. It is also stated that the conversation clearly reflects that
accused Kamal Nishcal was abetting payment of bribe on behalf of
accused Anil Jain which had been agreed to by accused J.S. Sehrawat.
57. It is also stated that the intercepted conversation has been
proved as per Law by PW Sh. M.C. Kashyap and certification under
Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been duly proved by him. It is
also stated that the CFSL Expert has given positive opinion about the
questioned voice and the sample voice of the accused persons and
have not stated that the CD produced before them for comparison had
been tampered with.
58. It is also stated that most of the witnesses have supported the
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 58 of 82
case of Prosecution on material points and the entire testimony of the
hostile witnesses cannot be set aside and can be relied upon on the
points wherein they have supported the prosecution. It is also stated
that PW Sh. T. Nagesh has identified the voice of accused J.S.
Sehrawat though partially, but on material aspects proving demand and
acceptance of bribe.
59. It is also stated that prosecution has proved that unauthorized
construction had been carried out vide report Ex. PW2/B and the
depositions of PW Sh. B.L. Jindal, Executive Engineer and PW Sh.
K.P. Sharma, Assistant Engineer.
60. Now, the points for determination are:
(i) Whether accused J.S. Sehrawat, being a public servant,
demanded or agreed to accept the bribe from accused Anil Jain
through accused Kamal Nischal for showing favour by abusing
his official position in connection with his official duties?
(ii) Whether accused J.S. Sehrawat had demanded or obtained the
bribe amount by corrupt or by illegal means or by otherwise
abusing his official position as a motive or reward so as to attract
the provisions of Section 7 and 13(2) of PC Act, 1988
(iii) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the CDRs and
the intercepted conversation as per law so as to make it
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 59 of 82
admissible in evidence and for proving demand or agreement to
accept illegal gratification by accused J.S. Sehrawat?
(iv) Whether accused Anil Jain had abetted the offence of payment
of illegal gratification through accused Kamal Nischal so as to
attract provisions of Section 12 of PC Act, 1988?
(v) Whether the accused persons had conspired with each other
at any point of time for demand, payment and acceptance or
illegal gratification?
Proposition of Law:
Section 7 of P.C. Act provides as under:
Public Servant taking gratification
other than legal remuneration in respect
of an official act
"Whoever, being, or expecting
to be a public servant, accepts or
obtains or agrees to accept or attempts
to obtain from any person, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration,
as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or for
showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official functions, favour
or disfavour to any person or for
rendering or attempting to render any
service or disservice to any person, with
the Central Government or any State
Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 60 of 82
authority, corporation or Government
company referred to in clause (c) of
Section 2, or with any public servant,
whether named or otherwise, shall be
punishable with imprisonment which
shall be not less than six months but
which may extend to five years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Section 8 of P.C. Act provides as
under:
Taking gratification, in order, by
corrupt or illegal means, to influence
public servant
"Whoever, accepts or obtains,
or agrees to accept, or attempts to
obtain, from any person, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification
whatever, as a motive or reward for
inducing, by corrupt or illegal means,
any public servant, whether named or
otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any
official act, or in the exercise of the
official functions of such public servant
to show favour or disfavour to any
person, or to render or attempt to render
any service or disservice to any person
with the Central Government or any
State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local
authority, corporation or Government
Company referred to in clause (c) of
Section 2, or with any public servant,
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 61 of 82
whether named or otherwise, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall be not less than six months
but which may extend to five years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Section 15 of P.C. Act provides as
under:
Whoever attempts to
commit an offence referred to in clause
(c) or clause (d) of subsection (1) of
Section 13 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years and with fine.
Section 120 B, which prescribes in sub
section (1) the punishment for criminal
conspiracy provides:
"Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
with death, (imprisonment for life) or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in the Code for the punishment of
such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence."
120B in SubSection 2 the punishment
for criminal conspiracy provides:
"Whoever is a party to a criminal
conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy
to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 62 of 82
imprisonment of either description for a term
not exceeding six months, or with fine of with
both."
Section 12 of P.C. Act provides as under:
Punishment for abetment of
offences defined in Section 7 or 11:
"Whoever abets any offence
punishable under Section 7 of Section
11 whether or not that offence is
committed in consequence of that
abetment, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall be
not less than six months but which may
extend to five years and shall also be
liable to fine."
61. Let me examine the testimony of the witnesses and the
evidence so produced in light of the relevant Propositions of Law.
62. It is very strange that though information regarding
demand of bribe and the fact of agreement to accept bribe by accused
J.S. Sehrawat from accused Anil Jain through accused Kamal Nishcal
was available with CBI, on the basis of intercepted conversation, the
CBI did not lay trap to apprehend the accused persons red handed as
is generally done in most of such cases. There is no explanation
regarding this either in the testimony of the IO or any other witness
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 63 of 82
examined by CBI.
63. There are also discrepancies regarding the alleged bribe
amount allegedly demanded by accused J.S. Sehrawat. In the FIR, the
amount has been mentioned as Rs. 1.5 lakhs whereas in the charge
sheet the amount has been mentioned as Rs. 4.5 lakhs.
64. It is very interesting to note that the amount of illegal
gratification is not mentioned either in the intercepted conversation or in
the transcripts so prepared. There is no complainant in the present
case who could have informed CBI regarding this specific amount as
the case has been lodged on source information. Even during cross
examination, IO could not explain this discrepancy. In case of demand
of bribe, the amount of illegal gratification demanded or accepted has
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas in the present case,
neither any specific amount demanded or agreed to be accepted could
be proved by prosecution either by way of testimony of the witnesses
including the IO or through the intercepted conversation played before
the Court or the transcript of the intercepted conversation.
65. It is also important to mention that CBI has also conducted
preliminary enquiry in the present case. If preliminary inquiry had been
conducted it is not clear as to why despite that neither specific amount
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 64 of 82
of illegal gratification was available with CBI nor CBI had laid a trap to
arrest the accused persons red handed. In case CBI would have
arrested the accused persons red handed with any amount of illegal
gratification what so ever, whether specific amount was mentioned or
had discrepancies in the charge sheet and the FIR would have lost
significance. However, CBI was unable to prove either the specific
demand qua a specific property or specific amount demanded towards
illegal gratification since in the intercepted conversation which is the
basis of registration of the present FIR, property no. Cottage no. 4A,
West Patel Nagar qua which alleged demand was being made has not
been mentioned nor amount of illegal gratification so demanded has
been mentioned.
66. As far as the unauthorized illegal construction at property
no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi is concerned and the
case that accused J.S. Sehrawat was demanding bribe for permitting
the same is concerned, I am of the opinion that it has been stated by
PW1 Sh. M.C. Kashyap that he had received orders for interception on
10.12.2008 that there was information that accused J. S. Sehrawat was
demanding illegal gratification for permitting illegal construction and for
not demolishing the illegal construction on property no. Cottage 4A,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
However, PW2 Sh. B.L. Jindal who was posted as
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 65 of 82
Executive Engineer, MCD has mentioned in his testimony that he had
carried out an inspection of the property on 21.12.2009 and 19.01.2010
i.e. One year after the inspection and had given report Ex.PW2.B which
has been prepared on 31.2.2010 regarding the structure and
construction existing on Cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
as on 21.12.2009. But he has also admitted that he did not know as to
when the addition, alteration or further construction had been made in
the property in question nor they had carried out investigation regarding
the period during which the construction had been carried out. He
also admitted that he cannot state as to when the excess coverage and
deviations were made in the building in question. Therefore, CBI has
not been able to prove as to whether there was illegal construction or
deviation in the property in question in the year 2008 when they alleged
that illegal gratification had been demanded by accused for not
demolishing the unauthorized construction and not pointing out the
deviations carried out in the property in question.
67. PW3 Sh. B.P. Sharma, who is the Assistant Engineer and
had carried out inspection at the spot regarding deviation and
unauthorized construction, has also not supported the prosecution in
this regard and states that he does not know whether any unauthorized
construction existed at Cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on
12.9.2008 or when he had conducted inspection of the property in
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 66 of 82
question on 11.12.2009 at the request of CBI.
68. PW4 Sh. Sanjay Pamneja has also not supported the
prosecution and has denied the statement given to CBI in totality. He
denied that any person by the name of Govind Beldar, MCD, Karol
Bagh Zone or J.S. Sehrawat, J.E. in MCD, Karol Bagh Zone had
demanded bribe for on going constructions. He also denied that he
had agreed to pay such illegal gratification to ensure that the
construction would go on uninterrupted. He denied that accused J.S.
Sehrawat had threatened him on behalf of MCD authorities. He also
did not support the prosecution case on the point that accused had
threatened him for demolishing the illegally constructed portion of the
Cottage No. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi at the instructions of
accused Anil Jain and Kamal Nischal. He denied that he had
discussed with Anil Jain. who was the owner of the property, that
accused was taking bribe from Kamal Nischal on one pretext or the
other. He denied that a guest house was being run in cottage no. 4A,
West Patel Nagar, New Delhi in December, 2008.
69. PW5 Sh. K.P. Sharma has not stated anything regarding
demand of illegal gratification but has only stated that compoundable
and non compoundable deviations were noted in the building bearing
no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi when he had inspected
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 67 of 82
the same in January, 2010 and December, 2009.
70. It has been stated that though the sanction plan was only
qua residential property, however, at the time of inspection it was found
that a guest house in the name and style of Hotel Shanti Palace was
being run from cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. In this
regard, the CBI has produced on record videography of the place in
question and have proved that a guest house was being run at cottage
no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Ld. Counsel for accused no. 3
Anil Jain as well as accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat have argued that the
guest house in the name and style of Hotel Shanti Palace was being
run from this address i.e. cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi
since the year 2006.
71. It is not disputed accused no. 1 J.S. Sehrawat was posted
in this Karol Bagh Zone Building Department MCD in the year 2008
and of posting it was not part of duty of accused J.S. Sehrawat to have
investigated or to have found out as to whether the owner of property
no. cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, had a license to run
guest house or hotel from cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New
Delhi.
72. It is also stated that the only duty of the J.E. concerned
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 68 of 82
was to point out any deviation or unauthorized construction being
carried out in his area and bring it to the notice of his higher officials by
filing inspection report. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 1
J.S. Sehrawat had drawn my attention to Ex.PW20/C (D8) which is a
file pertaining to Hotel Shanti Palace and it has been pointed out that
the owner of the property had been filing charges towards mix land use
and conversion charges since the year 2006. Annual Mix Use Charges
were deposited vide receipts Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D.
73. This court is not dealing with the issue as to whether the
owner of the property in question had a valid health trade license to run
a hotel or guest house in the said property or not. The question before
this court is as to whether accused J.S. Sehrawat had demanded illegal
gratification from accused Anil Jain through accused Kamal Nischal by
abusing his official position so as to not demolish the unauthorized
construction on this property. The issue regarding running the hotel or
guest house without a valid license is to be dealt with by the
appropriate authority of the relevant period since the hotel in question
as per Ex.PW20/C was being run since the year 2006 and it is not
disputed that it was not duty of accused J.S. Sehrawat to take action
against a person who was running the guest house without health trade
license. Therefore, the evidence regarding the same does not help the
prosecution in any manner.
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 69 of 82
74. Accused J.S. Sehrawat had demolished certain portion of
the unauthorized construction on property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel
Nagar, New Delhi in December, 2008 and as per PWs Sh. Bindal, Sh.
Sharma and other witnesses who had conducted inspection at the
premises in question though certain deviations which were
compoundable and noncompoundable in nature were noticed in
December, 2009 and January, 2010, they could not state as to when
they were carried out by the property owner.
75. As per Ex.PW32/D which is information furnished by
Executive Engineer, Building Department, Karol Bagh zone regarding
tenure of posting of accused J.S. Sehrawat, he had remained posted in
the Karol Bagh Zone (Building Department), MCD from 19.9.2008 to
02.6.2009. Therefore, since the inspection mentioned above during
which deviations and unauthorized constructions had been noticed,
was in December, 2009 and January, 2010, it could not be proved that it
was carried out during the posting or tenure of accused J.S. Sehrawat.
More so, since all the witnesses examined by prosecution have
categorically mentioned in their cross examination that they cannot tell
as to when the construction, alterations, deviations, renovations and
additions to the structure were carried out by the owner, it could not be
proved that an unauthorized construction was carried out or was
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 70 of 82
existing at property no. 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and was not
pointed out by accused J.S. Sehrawat. Thus the motive for demand of
illegal gratification could not be proved as it could not be imputed to
accused J.S. Sehrawat.
76. The case of prosecution relies on the intercepted
conversation and the statement of the witnesses who have proved the
same.
77. Coming to the alleged incriminating evidence contained in
the telephonic conversation between accused J.S. Sehrawat and
accused Kamal Nischal, I am of the opinion that CBI had to prove the
same and the transcripts of the intercepted conversation in accordance
with mandate of Law. Let me examine as to whether the Prosecution
has been able to do so. The prosecution has tried to prove the same
with the help of the opinion of the expert who has given finding
regarding the voice test report and the witness who has intercepted the
conversation and has made a CD thereof.
78. The relevant provisions of law dealing with the above said
are as follows:
Section 45 A Indian
Evidence Act : Opinion of
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 71 of 82
Examiner of Electronic Evidence -
When in a proceeding, the court has
to form an opinion on any matter
relating to any information
transmitted or stored in any computer
resource or any other electronic or
digital form, the opinion of the
Examiner of Electronic Evidence
referred to in Section 79 A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (21
of 2000) is a relevant fact.
Explanation For the purpose of this
section, an Examiner of Electronic
Evidence shall be an expert]
Section 65 B Indian
Evidence Act : Admissibility of
electronic records -
(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, any information
contained in an electronic record
which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or
CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 72 of 82
magnetic media produced by a
computer (hereinafter referred to as
the computer output) shall be
deemed to be also a document, if the
conditions mentioned in this section
are satisfied in relation to the
information and computer in question
and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or
production of the original, as
evidence of any contents of the
original or of any fact stated therein
of which direct evidence would be
admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to
in ....................................................
...........................................................
........................................................... ..........
(3) Where over any period ................................................ ........................................................... ........................................................... CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 73 of 82 .....................
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of the electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 74 of 82 official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
79. A perusal of these sections makes it clear that as per Section 45 A, the opinion of the examiner of electronic evidence referred to in section 79 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is relevant fact. However, to make such evidence admissible in law, the compliance with provisions of Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is essential
80. As far as admissibility of Electronic Evidence is concerned, it has been recently laid down in the judgment of "2014 (10) SCALE 660 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 504, titled: Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
"Most importantly, such a certificate CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 75 of 82 must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disk, video compact disk, pen drive etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45B opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 76 of 82 The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India."
81. Coming back to the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was not issued alongwith the CDRs handed over to CBI and was produced at the time of recording of testimony of PW 7 Sh. Anuj Bhatia as far as accused Kamal Nischal is concerned. No witness examined by CBI has identified the voice of accused Kamal Nischal in their statements.
82. As far as the CDRs and intercepted conversations pertaining to accused J.S. Sehrawat are concerned, CBI has stated that mobile no. 9818802431 was being used by accused J.S. Sehrawat and was in his name. However, the nodal officer examined in this regard i.e. PW 10 R.K. Singh has stated that this telephone number was registered as per their record in the name of Sh. Sunil Khatri. This fact has been proved with the help of the documents maintained by the service provider Bharti Airtel Ltd. DW 3 Sunil Khatri has also stated in his testimony that this mobile number was being used by him CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 77 of 82 exclusively and was registered in his name. He has specifically stated during his cross examination that at no point of time this phone number was being used by accused Jaibir Singh Sehrawat. He has mentioned in his testimony that he had forgotten his mobile phone at the residence of accused J.S. Sehrawat who was his landlord on 20.5.2009 and had gone to take it back on 21.5.2009. However, he was not allowed to enter house of accused J.S. Sehrawat on 21.5.2009 by CBI officials despite being requested that he had come to collect his mobile phone. The argument of the Ld. Senior PP for CBI that the conversation pertain to the dates prior to 20.5.2009 and, therefore, the phone was being used by accused J.S. Sehrawat has no merit since the phone has been registered in the name of Sh. Sunil Khatri much prior to that and he has stated in his cross examination that it was being used by him exclusively. This fact assumes importance as the intercepted conversation could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt since it was not proved as per provisions of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and the mandate of law laid down in the Judgment of "2014 (10) SCALE 660 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 504, titled: Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others" by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
83. The certificate prepared u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in the present case is not as per mandate of Law. As per mandate of Law Certificate u/s 65B should have been sent alongwith the electronic CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 78 of 82 evidence. Moreover, it is not in the format in which such a certificate should have been given. The certificate is silent on the aspect of description of the CD, identification mark and the manner in which data had been transferred to the CD, duration of the intercepted conversation, therefore, it does not give positive evidence and has been issued in casual manner.
None of the witnesses examined in the Court have identified the voices of any of the accused persons. The CFSL Expert has admitted in his cross examination that it is possible to imitate voice of another person and there can be possibility of editing.
PW Sh. Deepak Kumar Tanwar has admitted that in recorded conversations, the voices can be edited or erased. He also admitted that he has not given any certificate u/s. 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, along with his report.
84. CBI has heavily relied upon the fact that mobile phone no.
9818802431 was being used by accused J.S. Sehrawat which was put on surveillance. It is strange that the IO during investigation did not collect evidence that this phone number was not registered in the name of accused J.S. Sehrawat. The IO also deem it necessary to record statement of Sh. Sunil Khatri in whose name this phone number was registered. The IO could not give any explanation regarding this fact which makes the case of prosecution suspicious regarding the fact that CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 79 of 82 this phone number was being used by accused J.S. Sehrawat at all.
85. The case of the prosecution is also that accused Anil Jain has abetted offence of payment of illegal gratification through accused Kamal Nischal. However, no conversation between accused Kamal Nischal, accused Anil Jain and accused J.S. Sehrawat in this regard has been produced before the Court. It is undisputed that no such conversation had been recorded and came to the notice of the IO. No witness has deposed that accused Anil Jain had at any point of time requested or instructed accused Kamal Nischal to negotiate payment of illegal gratification on his behalf to accused J.S. Sehrawat for the purpose of obtaining undue favour towards his property no. Cottage 4A, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi i.e. to save his property from demolition as it had unauthorized constructed portions. The voice of accused Kamal Nischal has not been identified by any witness examined by CBI. As discussed above, the CD pertaining to intercepted conversation could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and as per provisions of law, so as to prove ingredients of Section 12 of PC Act, 1988. It could not be thus proved that accused Kamal Nischal was in negotiation with accused J.S. Sehrawat for the purpose of payment of illegal gratification on behalf of accused Anil Jain.
86. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that the CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 80 of 82 accused persons had conspired with each other at any point of time and accused J.S. Sehrawat, Junior Engineer had entered into criminal conspiracy with coaccused Kamal Nischal and Anil Jain by abusing his official position and had agreed or had attempted to accept illegal gratification from accused Anil Jain through accused Kamal Nischal for motive or reward of saving Cottage no. 4A, West Patel Nagar from demolition of unauthorized construction carried out on that Cottage.
87. In view of this mandate of law, I am of the opinion that the electronic evidence in this case has not been proved as per mandate of law and therefore is inadmissible in evidence. The inadmissibility of such evidence as well as the other major contradictions and discrepancies in the oral testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence as well as the fact that the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case on vital points, the very foundation of case of prosecution case is shaken and the prosecution has not been able to prove charges framed under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 7, 8, 12 and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof against any of the accuseds. Therefore, accuseds Jaibir Singh Sehrawat, Kamal Nischal and Anil Jain are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
88. Before I part with this case I want to place on record my appreciation for the Ld. Senior PP for CBI who has conducted the trial CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 81 of 82 of the case in the best possible manner. However, the witnesses did not support the prosecution on crucial points and, therefore, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused persons.
89. Bail bond of the accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. Documents of the sureties be returned to them, after cancellation of endorsement, if any, thereon. However, fresh bail bonds be furnished u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C.
90. Fresh bail bonds have been furnished and accepted till 21.3.2015.
91. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 24th Day of December 2014.
(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 24.12.2014 CC No. 01/12 State (CBI) Vs. J.S. Sehrawat etc. Page No. 82 of 82