Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Trap team reached the DVB office, R. K. Puram. The complainant and the shadow witness had gone inside the office. The accused was not found in his room and was informed to be near the gate of the office. The complainant and the shadow witness met the accused at the gate. After some conversation and a demand being made by the accused, phenolphthalein smeared currency notes of Rs. 2,000/­ were handed over to him. After getting the signal the trap team had closed in. The accused was apprehended and the money was recovered from him. The washes of his hands and the pocket of his pant were taken in which he had kept the money after receiving it from the complainant. Though the conversation between the accused and the complainant could not be recorded in the KCR because of some technical fault but hearing of the micro cassette in the micro cassette recorder which the complainant was carrying with him confirmed the fact that the accused had demanded the money from the complainant and the complainant accordingly had paid him the money. All these proceedings were conducted in the room of one engineer of DVB. These proceedings have been mentioned in detail in the recovery memo, which was prepared at the spot.

Testimony of PW­6 Shri P. C. Seghal, Asstt. Engineer, DVB.

19. He is the person in whose presence on 02.01.2002 post trap proceedings were conducted in the office of DVB, such as, taking the hand wash and pant pocket wash of the accused and also the other proceedings relating to playing of the cassette etc. In the examination in chief he had only partly supported the case of the prosecution. He had admitted that he had joined the proceedings in the room of the Executive Engineer and he had also identified the accused in the Court but except for stating that the wash of the pocket of the pant of the accused was in his presence he had denied rest of the proceedings conducted in his presence.

129. It was submitted by the Ld. defence counsel "The allegation that the witness Sanjay Pant had given a signal from main gate and after the said signal the team had reached at the spot, is not believable. The position of Sanjay Pant has been shown at point C, whereas the TLO was present at point F behind a wall of the main gate of DVB. Since he was standing behind a wall, he could not have seen any signal as stated to have been made by the witness Sanjay Pant. If the TLO is assumed to be correct with regard to the position of Sanjay Pant and his own position then it becomes all the more evident that there is no possibility of any signal being seen by the TLO which may have been given by Sanjay Pant. The position of Sanjay Pant, admitted by the TLO, was at point X which is just at the gate of the DVB office and the TLO was standing behind the wall of the DVB office."

144. Similarly the complainant Shri Sanjay Kapoor PW­12 had deposed " Office of the accused was probably situated on the first floor of the building. When myself and the said Shri Sanjay Pant went to the office of the accused, he was not available there. A colleague of the accused, who was available in the office, informed me that accused had been waiting for me outside the main entrance of the building. Thereafter we came down where we met accused who is now present in the Court today." There is nothing in the cross­examination of this witness which may discredit him on this account. In the cross­examination this witness had stated "when I could not find the accused in DVB office, I did not go back to CBI officials standing downstairs for informing about the said fact since they must have been watching me. It is wrong to suggest that I attempted to pass on the G.C. notes in question to the accused after finding him out somewhere in the office of DVB (sic.). It is also wrong to suggest that when I could not found out the accused in DVB office, I attempted to locate his position from the persons available in the office only for the purposes of implicating the accused in the present false case. I did not think it property to intimate CBI officials about non­availability of the accused in DVB office since I had been earlier told by them they would be keeping a watch on me. It is correct that accused did not meet me within the boundary walls of the office of DVB. I do not remember whether I tried to locate the accused with the help of my mobile phone or not."