Delhi District Court
Cbi vs S.K. Singh @Sunil Kumar Singh And Ors on 29 May, 2025
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)-11 ,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CC No. 45/22
RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001-CBI-ND
CNR No DLCT11-000491-2022
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VERSUS
1. S.K. SINGH @ Sunil Kumar Singh
S/o Sh. Mahesh Prasad Singh
The then Senior Manager (On deputation)
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development
Corporation Ltd.
Patparganj, Delhi
R/o: B-1/196, Baba Colony
Burari, New Delhi-110094
2. SUBHASH GOEL @ SUBHASH
S/o late A.S. Goel
R/o H. No. 45, Vasant Enclave
New Delhi - 110057
Date of registration of FIR : 13.01.2022
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 06.08.2022
Arguments concluded on : 21.05.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.05.2025
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 123
:: 2 ::
Appearance :
For Prosecution : Sh. Avanish Kumar Chand, Ld. PP for the CBI.
For accused persons : Sh. Santosh Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel assisted by Sh.
Anjani Kumar Singh, Counsel for A-1 S.K. Singh.
Sh. Naveen Kumar, Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel.
JUDGMENT
1. A-1 S.K. Singh (public servant) and A-2 Subhash Goel
(private individual) were sent up for trial on the accusations that
they entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (PC Act) read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (IPC)
and in furtherance thereof, A-1 committed the offence under
Section 7 of The PC Act by demanding an undue advantage and
accepting the same through A-2.
Brief Facts as disclosed in the charge-sheet
2. The present FIR bearing RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001 came to
be registered on a handwritten complaint containing allegations
that a public servant was demanding bribe for not taking action
against the occupant of a shed allotted by Delhi State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (DSIIDC). It is
the case of prosecution that on 11.01.2022, PW-12 Sh. Dev Dutt
Sharma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) came at the
office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch,
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 123
:: 3 ::
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and submitted a handwritten
complaint (Ex.PW10/A) alleging that A-1 S.K. Singh @ Sunil
Kumar Singh, a Senior Manager at DSIIDC, was demanding a
bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not sealing his shed bearing no. 2/13,
DSIIDC Shed, Phase-II, Mangol Puri, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the shed’). Complainant disclosed in the complaint
that A-1 came at his shed around two months back and the officers
who were accompanying him pasted a notice (Ex.PW3/A) on the
shed to the effect that he was in unauthorised possession. He
claimed to have met A-1 around few days back at his office and
alleged that during this meeting, A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2
lakhs for not sealing his shed and directed him to get in touch with
his contact ‘Subhash’. He disclosed that A-1 wrote the name of his
contact ‘Subhash’ & his mobile number ‘9810016555’ on a slip
(Ex.PW5/D) and handed it over to him. Since, he did not want to
pay the bribe, therefore, he approached the office of CBI and
lodged the complaint.
3. The prosecution’s case proceeds further that in order to
verify the allegations, the complaint was marked to PW-10 Suresh
Chander Kushwaha, Sub-Inspector, ACB, CBI, Delhi (Verification
officer), who decided that complainant shall meet A-1 S.K. Singh
at his office on 11.01.2022 and their conversation shall be recorded
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 123
:: 4 ::
on a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR). PW-14 Sudesh Kumar, a
Manager at Food Corporation of India, was joined as an
independent witness and was directed to accompany the
complainant as a shadow witness to overhear the conversation.
The DVR containing a new memory card was kept in the upper left
side pocket of the shirt of the complainant. After making the
necessary preparations, the members of the verification team
reached at a spot near the office of A-1 and parked their vehicle at a
safe distance. On the directions of the CBI officials, the
complainant and the independent witness went to the cabin of A-1
on the third floor of the building but the security guard stopped the
independent witness from entering the cabin. The complainant
entered the cabin and engaged in a conversation with A-1. Over this
conversation, complainant told A-1 that he has managed to arrange
a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs only and the remaining amount would be
arranged later on. In response, A-1 reiterated the demand of bribe
and directed the complainant to handover the same to his contact at
Karol Bagh. The entire conversation was captured on the DVR.
After the meeting was over, complainant went back to the spot
where the CBI officials were waiting and narrated them the entire
facts. Thereafter, the CBI officials headed back to their office but
on the way, complainant received a call from mobile number
9990050466 of PW-3 Sh. Satish Chandra Verma, an officer ofCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 123
:: 5 ::
DSIIDC, who disclosed him that he had reached at the shed with
orders to seal the same. The complainant disclosed PW-3 that he
had already discussed the matter with A-1 and in response, PW-3
told him that he would talk to ‘Sahab’ (A-1 S.K. Singh). After a
while, complainant again received a call from PW-3, who disclosed
him that he had discussed the matter with A-1 and the action would
be taken after 2-4 days, in case, the documents of the shed were not
shown to him. Complainant made these conversations by keeping
his mobile phone on speaker mode and the same were captured on
the DVR. On reaching the office of CBI, copies of the
conversations were prepared with the help of ‘write blocker’ and
the same were played and transcripts were prepared in the presence
of the complainant and the independent witness. The DVR and the
memory card used for recording the conversation were sealed and a
verification memo dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A) was prepared.
4. It is the case of prosecution that it was decided that
verification should also be made about the status of A-2 Subhash
Goel, who was disclosed as a ‘contact’ for handing over the bribe
amount. CBI officials joined independent witness and made
similar preparations on 12.01.2022 by putting a new memory card
in the DVR. The verification team left the office of CBI at around
1500 hours and reached at a place near Karol Bagh. On the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 123
:: 6 ::
directions of the CBI officials, complainant made two calls at 1554
Hours and 1559 Hours on the mobile number (9810016555) of the
contact but the calls remained answered. After a while, at around
1607 Hours, the contact reverted the call and told the complainant
that he was not available at his office and he can come on the next
day. Thereafter, complainant called A-1 at around 1620 hours and
informed him about his conversation with the contact, on which,
A-1 reiterated that he should go and meet him. The conversations,
so held, were captured on the DVR as the mobile phone of the
complainant was kept on the speaker mode. After returning to the
office, CBI officials prepared a copy of the conversations with the
help of ‘Write Blocker’ and the memory card was sealed. The
entire verification proceedings were documented in the form of a
verification memo dated 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B).
5. On verifying the allegations, RC No. DAI-2022-A-0001 was
registered on 13.01.2022 under Section 7 of the PC Act. On
registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to PW-16
Vijay A. Desai, Inspector, ACB, CBI (Trap Laying Officer), who
constituted a trap team consisting of himself, complainant, two
independent witnesses Sh. Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) and Sh. Sushil
Kumar (PW-15) and other officers of CBI. Preparations were made
for executing the trap and apprehending the accused persons red
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 123
:: 7 ::
handed. The members of the trap team were introduced to each
other and were briefed about the purpose of the trap. They were
explained about the significance of phenolphthalein powder and its
chemical reaction of turning pink after coming in contact with a
solution of sodium carbonate and water. Complainant was directed
to bring a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs (to be offered as bribe) and he
brought the same in the form of 51 currency notes in the
denomination of Rs.2000/- each and 136 currency notes in the
denomination of Rs.500/- each. The numbers of currency notes
was noted down in a memo and the currency notes were treated
with phenolphthalein powder. Instructions were given to the
complainant not to touch the bribe amount and hand over the same
to A-2 on his specific demand. PW-14 Suresh Kumar was again
deputed as a shadow witness to accompany the complainant to the
office of A-2. The sealed DVR, which was used in the verification
proceedings, was opened and a new memory card was inserted
therein on which introductory voices of both the independent
witnesses were recorded. A pre-trap handing over memo
(Ex.PW10/C) was prepared and the members of the trap team were
directed to proceed to the office of A-2 at Jhandewalan.
6. The prosecution’s case unfolds that on the way to the office
of A-2, at around 1245 Hours, complainant called him on his
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 123
:: 8 ::
mobile, who told him to come between 1330 Hours to 1345 Hours
at his office bearing no. C-21, Flatted Factory Complex, Near
Jhandewalan Mandir. At around 1415 Hours, the trap team reached
at a spot near the office of A-2 and parked their vehicles near the
underfoot bridge in front of Jhandewalan Mandir, which was just
100 yards ahead of the Flatted Factory Area of Jhandewalan, New
Delhi. Complainant was briefed to approach A-2 Subhash Goel at
his office to hand over the bribe money. The DVR was hidden in the
front left side pocket of his shirt and the shadow witness was
instructed to give a signal to the trap team on completion of the
transaction. The complainant and PW-14 Sudesh Kumar went
inside while the second independent witness (PW-15 Sushil
Kumar) and the other members of the trap team took positions
outside the office of A-2 at a safe distance. It has been disclosed
that after the complainant handed over the bribe amount to A-2,
PW-14 Sudesh Kumar came outside the office (at around 1445
Hours) and called on the mobile phone of PW-16 Insp. Vijay A.
Desai. On receiving the call, the members of the trap team
immediately went inside the office and apprehended A-2 while he
was counting the bribe money.
7. The recovered currency notes were tallied with the memo
and the same were sealed in the presence of independent witnesses.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 123
:: 9 ::
Rough site plan was prepared. Separate washes of the right and left
hand of A-2 were obtained and the colour of the solution of the
right hand wash turned pink while the solution of the left hand
wash remained colourless. The solution of the table wash also
turned pink. The solutions were kept in separate bottles and each
bottle was labeled and sealed. On being confronted, A-2 admitted
having accepted the bribe on behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh.
Complainant disclosed that at the time of accepting the bribe, A-2
inquired from him about the remaining amount of Rs.30,000/-
mentioning that A-1 S.K. Singh had conveyed him that he would be
delivering a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. He further disclosed that after
accepting the bribe, A-2 contacted A-1 over his mobile phone and
informed him that he had brought a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs only.
These calls and conversations were also captured on the DVR.
8. The prosecution’s case proceeds further that on the
directions of PW-16 Vijay A. Desai, A-2 Subhash Goel again
called A-1 S.K. Singh on his mobile phone at 1520 Hours and
conveyed him about accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1.70 lakhs to
which he replied, “theek hai ji (okay)”. This call was made by A-2
by keeping his mobile phone on speaker mode and the same was
captured on a new memory card with the help of the DVR.
Thereafter, search was carried out at the house of A-2 but nothing
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 123
:: 10 ::
incriminating was recovered. Subsequently, A-1 was arrested from
his office on 14.01.2022.
9. Necessary documentation was done and the statements of
the witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation,
copies of conversations prepared through ‘write blocker’ were
played on a laptop and transcripts of the same were prepared on
18.01.2022 in the presence of complainant and the independent
witnesses. The specimen voice samples of the complainant and
accused persons were obtained and the same were sent to CFSL for
comparison with the recorded conversations. The bottles
containing solutions of the hands and table wash were also sent to
the CFSL. The original file pertaining to the shed was seized from
the office of DSIIDC. Specimen handwriting as well as the
admitted handwriting of A-1 was obtained and sent for comparison
to the CFSL with the handwriting on the Slip. The chemical
examination report of CFSL returned a positive finding about
presence of phenolphthalein powder in the hand washes and the
table wash. The CFSL also returned a positive finding that the
handwriting on the slip was of A-2. The Customer Application
Forms (CAFs) and the Calls Detail Records (CDRs) of mobile
phones of the the employees of DSIIDC who went to seal the shed
of the complainant as well as those of the complainant and accused
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 123
:: 11 ::
persons were obtained. Since, A-1 S.K. Singh was a public servant,
therefore, the requisite sanction for his prosecution was obtained
under Section 19 of PC Act (Ex.PW2/A). The investigation
concluded and the charge-sheet was filed in the court.
10. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the charge-sheet and
the accused persons were summoned. Copies of the charge-sheet
and the documents were supplied to the accused persons.
Arguments were heard and the charge was framed by the Ld.
Predecessor under Section 7 of PC Act read with Section 120 B of
IPC against both the accused persons and a separate charge was
framed under Section 7 of PC Act against A-1 S.K. Singh. Both the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of
trial, the charge was altered and a charge under Section 120B read
with Section 7 of the PC Act was framed against both the accused
persons.
Prosecution Witnesses
11. Eighteen (18) prosecution witnesses were examined.
Sanctioning Authority
11.1 PW-2 Sh. S.K. Jain, Director, Centralized Accidental
Trauma Services (official awarding the sanction under Section 19
of the PC Act) deposed that the sanction was granted by him after
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 123
:: 12 ::
due application of mind. He mentioned that he perused all the
relevant documents and granted the sanction. The sanction dated
12.05.2022 is Ex.PW2/A.
Complainant.
11.2 PW-12 Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma (complainant) supported the
prosecution’s case. He deposed on the aspect of demand as well as
the acceptance of the bribe. He gave a detailed account of the
verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 & 12.01.2022. He
mentioned that A-1 S.K. Singh demanded from him a bribe of Rs.2
lakhs for not sealing his shed. He stated that he handed over the
bribe amount of Rs 1.70 lakhs to A-2 and the same was recovered
from his possession. He narrated the chain of events of 13.01.2022
and identified his signatures on memos prepared at various stages
of the investigation. His detailed testimony has been discussed in
the later part of the judgment.
Independent Witnesses
11.3 PW-13 Sh. Vivek Prakash, Assistant Engineer, DDA,
Delhi (participated in verification proceedings of 12.01.2022)
supported and corroborated the version of the complainant. He
deposed that complainant called A-2 Subhash Goel on the mobile
number mentioned on the slip but the call remained unanswered.
He deposed that after a while complainant received a call from the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 123
:: 13 ::
said number and the conversation over the said call was recorded
on the DVR. He deposed that the captured conversation was played
at the office of CBI and the transcripts of the same were prepared.
11.4 PW-14 Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Manager, Food Corporation of
India (participated in the verification proceedings of 11.01.2022
and 12.01.2022 as well as in the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022)
supported the prosecution’s case and gave a detailed account of the
proceedings of each day. He corroborated the version of the
complainant and independent witnesses. He deposed that he
accompanied the complainant during the verification proceedings
on 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. He gave an account of the
preparations made by the CBI officials before carrying out the
verification proceedings. He mentioned that the conversations
during the verification proceedings of 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022
were recorded with the help of a DVR and the same were
subsequently played at the office of CBI. He mentioned that the
transcripts of the conversations were prepared in his presence. He
also gave a detailed account of the trap proceedings of 13.01.2022
mentioning that he was accompanying the complainant and the
bribe money was handed over to A-2 in his presence. He deposed
that on completion of the transaction, he gave the pre-decided
signal to the trap team and the members of the team entered theCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 123
:: 14 ::
office and apprehended A-2. He identified his signatures on the
verification proceedings, arrest memo, transcripts, site plan as well
as other documents.
11.5 PW-15 Sh. Sushil Kumar, Upper Division Clerk, DSIIDC
Headquarters (participated in trap proceedings of 13.01.2022)
was a member of the trap team. He narrated the chain of events of
13.01.2022. He deposed that complainant and the independent
witness Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) entered the office of A-2 Subhash
Goel while the other members of the trap team took position
outside the office. He deposed about the recovery mentioning that
he entered the office of A-2 along with the other members of the
trap team after receiving the signal of Sudesh Kumar. He deposed
that on entering the office, he saw that A-2 was counting the
currency notes. He mentioned that the hand washes and table wash
were obtained by the CBI officials. He mentioned that A-2
Subhash Goel informed A-1 over mobile phone that he has
received the bribe money on his behalf and in response thereof,
A-1 S.K. Singh replied, “okay”. He gave an account of the
investigation and identified his signatures on the memos prepared
during the various stages of the investigation.
Employees of DSIIDC
11.6 PW-3 Satish Chand Verma, In-Charge Sub Office,
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 123
:: 15 ::
DSIIDC supported the prosecution’s case. He disclosed about the
nature of his duties and mentioned that he went to the shed of
complainant on 11.01.2022 on the oral directions of A-1 S.K.
Singh. He deposed having met the son of the complainant at the
shed and mentioned about his conversation with the complainant
over a phone call. He mentioned that after reaching the shed, he
met the son of the complainant, who gave him the mobile number
of the complainant. He mentioned that he connected a call to the
complainant from his mobile phone and disclosed him that he
should show him the documents of the shed. He stated that the
complainant told him that he had already spoken to A-1 in that
regard and thereafter, he connected a call to A-1 from the mobile
phone of Gautam Kar (PW-4). He disclosed that over this call, A-1
told him not to seal the shed as the complainant would be
producing the documents within two days. He mentioned that he
also visited the shed of the complainant on a previous occasion on
31.12.2021 and pasted a notice thereon at the instance of A-1.
11.7 PW-4 Gautam Kar, Multi-Tasking Staff, DSIIDC is the
officer, who went to the shed of the complainant on 11.01.2022
along with Satish Chand Verma (PW-3). He deposed that he visited
the shed of complainant on the directions of A-1. He mentioned
having met the son of the complainant during the said visit. HeCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 123
:: 16 ::
stated that on reaching the shed, the son of the complainant was
directed to show the documents but he failed to do so. He
mentioned that the son of the complainant disclosed him that he
had already spoken to A-1 in connection with the said matter. He
deposed that thereafter, Satish Chand Verma took his mobile
phone and connected a call to A-1. He conveyed that after speaking
with A-1, Satish Chand Verma told the son of complainant that he
may show the documents of the shed in 2-3 days. He disclosed his
mobile number as 8447650902. He stated that on an earlier
occasion, a notice was pasted at the shed of the complainant on
31.12.2021 by Satish Chand Verma and he was also accompanying
him during the said visit.
11.8 PW-5 Sheetal Prasad, AG-III, CWC Division, DSIIDC is
the officer who handed over the file pertaining to the shed of
complainant to the CBI officials. He deposed that CBI officials
came to the office of DSIIDC on 13.01.2022 and seized the file
vide memo Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the handwriting of A-1
on the slip (Ex.PW5/D). He identified his signatures on the seizure
memo Ex.PW5/A whereby the file was seized by the CBI.
11.9 PW-11 Sh. Mahesh Aggarwal, Divisional Manager,
DSIIDC (Witness identifying the voice and handwriting of A-1)
deposed that A-1 S.K. Singh used to work under his control and
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 123
:: 17 ::
supervision. He identified the handwriting of A-1 on the note
sheets in the file of the shed which are Ex.PW5/B (colly.) and
Ex.PW3/D3 (D-13; pages-59 to 61). He also identified the
handwriting of A-1 on the slip Ex.PW5/D. He deposed that he was
well acquainted with the handwriting of A-1 as he used to work
under him. He mentioned that A-1 had no power to seal the shed
and the said power was vested with the Estate Manager.
Employee of A-2 Subhash Goel
11.10 PW-18 Chanderpal Tomar (Employee of A-2 Subash Goel)
identified the voice of A-2 Subhash Goel in the tape recorded
conversations. He deposed that he had been working at the office of
A-2 since the year 2013. He mentioned about his visit to the office
of CBI on 18.02.2022 and stated that on the said occasion, the
recorded conversations were played and the transcripts of the same
were prepared. He identified his signatures on the transcripts. The
competence of this witness to identify the voice of A-2 has
remained unchallenged.
Nodal Officers and Formal Witness
11.11 PW-6 Pawan Singh (Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone)
deposed that he handed over the CAFs and CDRs of mobile
numbers 8447650902 and 8802020033 to the CBI officials along
with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 123
:: 18 ::
The CAFs of these mobile numbers are Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/E
while the CDRs are Ex.PW6/F (colly).
11.12 PW-7 Rajiv Vashisht (Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel) deposed
that he handed over the CAFs, Cell Tower Locations and CDRs of
mobile numbers 9910767064 (used by complainant), 9810016555
(used by A-2) & 9990050466 (used by Satish Chand Verma) to the
CBI officials along with the requisite certificates under Section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The CAF of the mobile number of
A-2 is MarkPW7/1; of complainant is Ex.PW7/E; and of Satish
Chand Verma is Ex.PW7/G. While the CDR of A-2 is Ex.PW7/C;
of complainant is Ex.PW7/F; and of Satish Chand Verma is
Ex.PW7/H.
11.13 PW-1 Amit Soni (Son of Sh. Satish Chand Verma) deposed
that although, the SIM card of mobile number 9990050466 was
issued in his name but his father Satish Chand Verma was using the
same.
Expert Witnesses from CFSL
11.14 PW-8 Smt. Alka Gupta, Sr. Scientific Assistant
(Documents), CFSL, Lodhi Road (Official giving report on the
handwriting of the slip) supported her finding on the handwritten
slip Ex.PW5/D. She deposed that the handwriting on the slip was
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 123
:: 19 ::
compared with the specimen and admitted handwriting of A-1
S.K. Singh. She mentioned that she compared all the documents
and found that the handwriting on the slip was that of A-1. The
handwriting report is Ex.PW8/B.11.15 PW-9 Smt. Deepti Bhargava, Sr. Scientific Officer,
Chemical Examiner, CFSL, Lodhi Road (Official giving report on
the hands and table washes) supported the opinion given by her
about the presence of phenolphthalein in the examined solutions of
hand washes and table wash. She deposed that the seals on all the
bottles containing the solutions were found intact before they were
opened for the chemical examination. She mentioned that she
carried out the chemical examination and prepared the report
Ex.PW9/B. She concluded in her report that phenolphthalein was
found present in the solutions contained in all the bottles. The
bottles containing the solutions are Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and
Ex.PW9/E.Witnesses of Verification Proceedings and Investigation
11.16 PW-10 Sh. Suresh Chander Kushwaha, Sub-Inspector,
ACB, CBI (the official carrying out the verification proceedings)
gave a detailed account of the verification proceedings dated
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022. He deposed that in order to verify the
allegations contained in the written complaint, an independent
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 123
:: 20 ::
witness was joined and preparations were made to record the
conversation between the accused persons and the complainant. He
narrated the manner in which the complainant and the independent
witness Sudesh Kumar (PW-14) were sent to the office of A-1 S.K.
Singh on 11.01.2022. He deposed that the conversation pertaining
to the demand made by A-1 was recorded on the DVR. He
mentioned that the DVR and the memory card were sealed and the
seal was handed over to an independent witness. He deposed that
the independent witness could not enter the cabin of A-1 as he was
stopped by the gate keeper but the independent witness saw the
complainant talking to A-1 through the glass of the cabin. He
deposed that in a similar manner, complainant and the independent
witness were directed to verify the allegations by paying visit at the
office of A-2 on 12.01.2022. He conveyed that complainant could
not meet A-2 on 12.01.2022 as he was not present at his office but
their conversations over the mobile phone were captured with the
help of a DVR. He stated that after each verification proceeding, a
copy of the recorded conversation was prepared with the help of a
‘write blocker’ and the same was played on a laptop and the
transcripts were prepared. He deposed that the present FIR was
registered after verifying the allegations. The conversations
recorded on the DVR during the verification proceedings of
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 were played in the court and heCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 123
:: 21 ::
identified the same as the conversations which were captured on
the DVR at the relevant time. The verification reports dated
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 are Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B
respectively.
11.17 PW-16 Vijay A. Desai, Inspector, ACB, CBI (Trap Laying
Officer) gave an account of the manner in which the trap was laid.
He gave a detailed account of the recovery. He mentioned that on
receiving the signal of Sudesh Kumar, the members of the trap
entered the office of A-2 and found him counting the currency
notes. He deposed that the bribe money was recovered from the
table top and the serial numbers of the currency notes were tallied
with the numbers recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW10/C.
He deposed about the documents prepared at each stage of the
investigation and identified his signatures on the said documents.
He mentioned that on his directions, A-2 called on the mobile
phone of A-1 and informed him that he had received the bribe and
in response thereof, A-1 replied, “okay”. He stated that the phone
call was made from the mobile phone of A-2 and the conversation
was captured on the DVR. He deposed that the conversations
captured over the DVR were played and the transcripts of the same
were prepared. He deposed that after conclusion of the trap
proceedings, the investigation was transferred to Inspector
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 123
:: 22 ::
Davinder Kumar.
11.18 PW-17 Davinder Kumar, Inspector, ACB, CBI
(Investigating Officer) justified the investigation. He deposed that
the sealed bottles containing the hand washes and the table wash
were sent to the CFSL. He mentioned that the specimen and
admitted handwritings of A-1 S.K. Singh were obtained and the
same were sent for comparison to the CFSL. He deposed that the
complainant and the independent witnesses were called to the CBI
office on 18.02.2022 and the recorded conversations were played
over a laptop. He mentioned that the transcripts of the recorded
conversations were prepared. He deposed that the Customer
Application Form (CAF) and the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of
the mobile phones of the complainant, accused persons and other
officials of DSIIDC were obtained. He mentioned that he recorded
statements of witnesses and collected the relevant documents. He
deposed about obtaining the sanction for the prosecution of A-1
and filling of the charge-sheet.
Statements of Accused Persons
12. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements
of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.
wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence and took the
defence of false implication. A-1 S.K. Singh denied having
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 123
:: 23 ::
demanded bribe from the complainant and claimed that he has
been falsely implicated. He mentioned that at around the time of
alleged incident, a drive was going on in his department to recover
the dues from the allottees of the shed who were in huge arrears of
the licence fee. He stated that huge amount was due against the
complainant and he falsely implicated him in the present matter to
avoid the payment. On the other hand, A-2 Subhash Goel came up
with an explanation that the complainant approached him for
preparing the documents of his shed. He admitted that he came in
contact with the complainant through the reference of A-1. He
denied the recovery and mentioned that the same had been planted
upon him. He admitted that complainant came to his office along
with a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs but claimed that he brought the said
amount for preparing the documents of the shed. He conveyed that
the complainant simply kept the currency notes on his table and he
neither touched nor counted those currency notes. He admitted
having made a phone call to the A-1 after the recovery of the bribe
but stated that the call was made by him after being coerced by the
CBI officials. He raised question mark over the authenticity of the
verification proceedings as well as other documents stated to have
been prepared at the various stages of investigation.
13. No defence witness was examined by A-2 but A-1 examined
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 23 of 123
:: 24 ::
six defence witnesses. A-1 S.K. Singh sought liberty to examine
himself as a defence witness by filing an application under Section
315 of Cr. P.C. and the same was allowed. He examined five (5)
defence witnesses including himself.
Defence Witnesses
14. DW-1 S.K. Singh (A-1) denied the demand and acceptance
of bribe. He presented a defence that he has been falsely implicated
by the complainant and other shed owners who were in arrears of
licence fee. He conveyed that around the period of the alleged
incident, a drive was going on to recover the arrears of licence fee
from the occupants of the sheds allotted by DSIIDC. He mentioned
that he mounted pressure on the complainant and other occupants
to pay the arrears of licence fee and on account of this reason, they
falsely implicated him in the present case. He admitted meeting the
complainant at his office but presented a different version of the
incident. His detailed testimony has been discussed in the later part
of the judgment.
14.1 DW-2 A.K. Singh, Under Secretary, Department of
Fisheries deposed that at the time of incident, he was working on
deputation as a Divisional Manager at DSIIDC. He conveyed that
there were only two sources of income of DSIIDC i.e. land revenue
and the revenue from the liquor vends. He mentioned that during
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 24 of 123
:: 25 ::
the year 2021, the revenue from the liquor vends dried up on
account of the change in the policy of the Government of Delhi and
therefore, rigorous efforts were started to recover the arrears from
the allottees of the sheds of DSIIDC. He mentioned that for
achieving the said purpose, targets for recovery were fixed for the
individual officers of DSIIDC. He mentioned that A-1 joined
DSIIDC in the year 2021 and his promotion was under
consideration. He has not deposed anything further.
14.2 DW-3 Smt. Pooja Sarin, Data Entry Operator, DSIIDC
deposed that there were arrears of around Rs.50 lakhs against the
sheds of the complainant. She mentioned that directions were
given by the Finance Department to issue notices to the shed
occupants who fell under the category of high dues i.e. against
whom recovery amount was more than Rs.5 lakhs. She mentioned
that apart from complainant, an occupant named Ram Preet Yadav
was also under the category of high dues recovery.
14.3 DW-4 Sarvendra Kumar Singh, Chief Manager, DSIIDC
deposed that at the relevant time, A-1 used to report to him as he
was working as a Chief Manager. He conveyed about the hierarchy
of management in DSIIDC and mentioned that In-charge Sub
Office (ISO) was in the lowest rung of the management.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 25 of 123
:: 26 ::
14.4 DW-5 Surendra Kumar, Section Officer, DSIIDC deposed
that there was huge outstanding amount against most of the
allottees of the sheds in Mangol Puri-II Zone of DSIIDC. He
placed on record the statements of arrears of eight sheds including
the shed of the complainant. The statements of arrears are
Ex.DW5/A (colly.).
Final Arguments
15. Arguments were heard on behalf of CBI as well as both the
accused persons. The accused persons also submitted written
submissions.
Arguments on behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh
16. Sh. Santosh Singh, Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 argued that
prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case and the
accused needs to be acquitted. He has mentioned that prosecution
has not been able to establish the charge under Section 7 of the PC
Act. Counsel has contended that in order to establish a charge
under Section 7 of PC Act, the prosecution was under an obligation
to prove demand as well as acceptance of the bribe. He has
mentioned that it is a settled law that demand of illegal gratification
is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC
Act and recovery, in itself, is not sufficient to establish the charge.
He has mentioned that in so far as the ingredients of the offence
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 26 of 123
:: 27 ::
are concerned, there is not much change in the position even after
the amendment carried out by way of Amendment Act of 2018. He
has contended that the evidence is insufficient to establish the
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
He has argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
unreliable. He has mentioned that there is no evidence to
conclusively establish that accused demanded bribe either on
11.01.2022 or any day prior thereto.
16.1 Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that the independent
witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case on the aspect
of demand. He has contended that the independent witnesses have
categorically mentioned that the demand was not raised in their
presence and there is no other evidence to substantiate the
allegation that A-1 demanded bribe from the complainant. He has
stated that the testimonies of the defence witnesses demonstrate
that complainant was in huge arrears of licence fee and he falsely
implicated A-1 to avoid the payment. He has argued that it is
settled proposition that the testimonies of defence witnesses
should be treated at par with the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses. He mentioned that the testimonies of defence witnesses
should not be doubted merely because they are from the
department of A-1.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 27 of 123
:: 28 ::
16.2 He has contended that prosecution has failed to examine all
the officials who participated in the trap proceedings and in view
thereof, an adverse inference needs to be drawn. Counsel has
pointed out that there are contradictions in the testimonies of
prosecution witnesses. He has contended that the entire case of the
prosecution rests on the testimony of the complainant but the same
is not reliable. He has stated that complainant falls under the
category of an interested witness and it is unsafe to rely on the
uncorroborated testimony of such a witness. He has contended that
it can be seen from the transcripts of the recorded conversation of
11.01.2022 that no demand was raised by A-1. He has argued that
complainant wanted to avoid the payment of arrears of licence fee
and it was because of the said reason that he falsely implicated A-1
in the present matter.
16.3 Ld. Senior Counsel has argued that there are discrepancies
in the documents when the same are read in the light of the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses. He has mentioned that
forensic voice examination report demonstrates that auditory
analysis of questioned recording was not done by comparing it with
the analysis of the specimen voice and no other examination was
carried out with respect to the original DVR. He has mentioned
that no reliance can be placed on the recordings copied from theCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 28 of 123
:: 29 ::
memory card without the examination of the original device. He
has contended that even otherwise, the voice recording cannot be
considered as substantive piece of evidence. He has further argued
that there are serious infirmities in the investigation. He stated that
prosecution has failed to establish that the memory cards were
properly sealed by the investigating officer. He has mentioned that
the memory cards were opened and sealed on various occasions
but the chain of custody was not maintained. He has mentioned
that no efforts were made by the investigating officer to preserve
the sanctity of the copied data of the memory cards as the hash
values were not collected. He has stated that the investigation was
done in a casual manner and there are discrepancies between the
time mentioned on the memos and the chain of events narrated by
the prosecution witnesses.
16.4 Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that the Handwriting
and the Chemical Examination Reports are not reliable. He has
raised question mark over the competence of the handwriting
expert and the methodology adopted by her for carrying out the
examination. He has mentioned that it was obligatory for the
investigating agency to mix unknown voices with the alleged
specimen voice of A-1 but no effort was made to undertake the said
exercise and resultantly, the report has become inadmissible. HeCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 29 of 123
:: 30 ::
has mentioned that there is an inordinate delay in the registration of
FIR. He has stated that as per the prosecution’s case, the
verification proceedings were concluded on 12.01.2022 but the
FIR was registered on the next day. He has mentioned that
prosecution has failed to tender any explanation for the delay.
16.5 Ld. Senior Counsel has further argued that there is no
evidence to establish the angle of criminal conspiracy. He has
argued that the prosecution was duty bound to establish that there
was meeting of mind of the accused persons but no evidence has
been led to establish this key ingredient of criminal conspiracy. He
has also challenged the validity of the sanction mentioning that the
same was granted in a mechanical manner. He has contended that
the officer granting the sanction admitted in cross-examination that
he did not peruse the tape recorded conversations before granting
the sanction. He has argued that the entire material was not placed
before the sanctioning authority and the sanction was granted
without application of mind. He has argued that there is evidence
to substantiate the defence taken by A-1 that he has been falsely
implicated by the complainant. He has mentioned that there is
evidence to show that complainant was in huge arrears of rent and
he falsely implicated A-1. He has contended that the story of the
prosecution is doubtful and the accused needs to be acquitted. InCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 30 of 123
:: 31 ::
order to support his submissions, Counsel has placed reliance on
the decisions in the matters of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) (2023) 2 SCR 997, Sudesh Kaushik Vs. CBI 2022
SCC Online Del 4300, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra, Ashish Kumar Dubey Vs. State through CBI ILR
(2014) 111 Delhi 2331 and Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. Col. Ram
Singh 1985 (Supp) SCC 611.
Arguments on behalf of A-2 Subhash Goel
17. Sh. Naveen Kumar, Ld. Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel
argued more or less on the lines of the arguments advanced on
behalf of A-1 S.K. Singh. He has argued that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the charge under Section 7 of The PC
Act. He has contended that the prosecution came up with a story
that A-2 entered into a conspiracy with A-1 S.K. Singh but there is
no evidence to demonstrate that such a conspiracy was hatched at
any point of time. He has argued that although, A-1 and A-2 were
known to each other but this fact, in itself, is not sufficient to
establish the angle of criminal conspiracy. He has contended that
there are various loopholes in the prosecution’s story and the
recovery has been planted upon A-2. He has contended that the
sanction for the prosecution of A-1 is defective as the official
awarding the sanction was not competent to do so. He has
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 31 of 123
:: 32 ::
mentioned that the sanction was awarded in a mechanical manner
without application of mind and the sanctioning authority blindly
awarded the sanction on the basis of the draft provided by the CBI.
17.1 He has mentioned that the complainant was in huge arrears
of licence fee and he approached A-2 for preparing the documents
of the shed. He claimed that the amount brought by the
complainant was meant for the documents of the shed and it was
not towards the alleged bribe. He has mentioned that the
documents shown to have been prepared by the investigating
agency are ante-timed. He has stated that PW-13 Vivek Prakash
and PW-14 Sudesh Kumar are stock witnesses and no reliance can
be placed on the testimonies of such witnesses. He has claimed that
although, the complainant placed the money on the table of A-2
but he never accepted the same. He mentioned that A-2 neither
touched nor counted the currency notes. He has mentioned that the
officials of the trap team caught hold of the palms of A-2 and
transferred the traces of phenolphthalein powder on his hands for
creating false evidence. He has argued that there is evidence to
demonstrate that the CBI officials tried to execute the trap on
12.01.2022 and when the trap failed, they gave it a colour of
verification proceedings. He has contended that it can be seen from
the record that complainant brought the currency notes (to beCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 32 of 123
:: 33 ::
offered as bribe) on 12.01.2022 and handed over the same to the
CBI officials. He has mentioned that there is no evidence to show
that the chain of custody of these currency notes remained
unbroken.
17.2 Counsel has argued that there are various contradictions in
the testimony of the complainant while the testimonies of
independent witnesses are unreliable. He has mentioned that the
complainant was anticipating an action against the shed and
wanted to avoid the payment of the arrears of the licence fee. He
has contended that complainant falsely implicated the accused
persons because of the said reason. He has mentioned that the
complainant falls under the category of an interested witness and
his testimony must be read with caution. He has stated that there is
no reliable evidence to corroborate the version of the complainant.
He has contended that the reports of the chemical examiner and
handwriting expert are not reliable. He has argued that there is
evidence to show that the solution of the table wash remained
colourless but the chemical examiner has given a positive report
about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the said solution.
He has stated that the chemical examiner has furnished a report in
a mechanical manner without performing any tests and the report
needs to be discarded. He has argued that the report of the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 33 of 123
:: 34 ::
handwriting expert also needs to be discarded. He has mentioned
that the specimen voice samples and the specimen handwriting
were obtained in an illegal manner. He has stated that no other
handwriting except the handwriting of A-1 was sent for
comparison with the handwriting found on the slip. He has
submitted that the handwriting expert has given the report in a pre-
conceived manner.
17.3 Counsel has argued that there are serious infirmities in the
investigation. He has stated that prosecution has failed to establish
that the memory cards were properly sealed by the investigating
officer. He has mentioned that the prosecution came up with the
story that the memory cards were sealed and the seal was handed
over to an independent witness but the story does not inspire
confidence. He has stated that the memory cards were opened and
sealed on various occasions but the chain of custody was not
maintained. He has mentioned that no efforts were made by the
investigating officer to preserve the sanctity of the data copied from
the memory cards as the hash values were not collected. He has
stated that the investigation was done in a casual manner and there
are discrepancies in the time mentioned on the memos and the
chain of events narrated by the prosecution witnesses. He has
mentioned that the investigating officer failed to carry outCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 34 of 123
:: 35 ::
investigation about the outstanding dues of the shed and the
investigation was carried out in an arbitrary manner. He has
mentioned that prosecution has failed to prove the charges and A-2
should be acquitted.
17.4 In order to support these submissions, Counsel for A-2 has
relied on the decisions in the matters of M.S. Mohiddin Vs.
Unknown AIR 1952 MAD 561, Bharat Raj Meena Vs. CBI Crl.
Appeal No. 590/2016, Rao Shiv Rahadur Singh & Anr. Vs. The
State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322, Ramjanam Singh
Vs. The State of Bihar (1954) 2 SCC 655, Karim Kunju Vs. State
1971 KLT 672, Harish Kumar Vs. State (2016) 2 DLT (Crl.) 642,
Virendernath Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 (11) SCC, Suraj
Mal Vs. State 1979 (4) SCC 725, State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal
1998 SCC (Crl.) 1586, State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
(2005) 3 SCC 59, Gannu Vs. State of Punjab 2017 SCC Online
P&H 4660, Babubhai Vs. State of Gujrat (2010) 12 SCC 254,
State Vs. Bashir Ahmed & Ors. 23 (1983) DLT 486, State Vs.
Mohd. Afzal & Ors. 2003 (3) JCC 1669, Parkash Singh Badal &
Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2007) 1 SCC 1, Shivaji
Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 5 SCC 626, Jai
Narayan Vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 259/2007, Neeraj Dutta Vs.
State (2023) 4 SCC 731,Soundarajan Vs. State Crl. Appeal No.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 35 of 123
:: 36 ::
1592/ 2022, K. Shanthamma Vs. The State of Telangana Crl.
Appeal No. 261/2022, State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal
Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153, Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi Vs. The State
of A.P. (2024) 10 SCC 489, Rakesh Kapoor Vs. State of H.P.
(2012) 13 SCC 552 and State Vs. G. Kaleeswaran 2020 SCC
Online Mad 6705.
Arguments on behalf of Prosecution
18. Ld. PP for CBI has argued that prosecution has established
its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that there is
overwhelming evidence to establish that the accused persons
entered into a criminal conspiracy and committed the alleged
offence. He has mentioned that complainant has fully supported
the prosecution’s case and his testimony has remained un-
impeached. He has argued that independent witnesses have also
supported and corroborated the testimony of the complainant on
the material aspects. He has mentioned that although, there are
minor discrepancies in the testimony of the complainant but the
same are inconsequential. He has contended that minor
discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimony of a witness but
the same do not raise any doubt over his veracity. He has argued
that the testimony of the complainant also finds corroboration from
the recorded conversations. He has mentioned that the testimonies
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 36 of 123
:: 37 ::
of the complainant and independent witnesses, read in the light of
the transcripts of the recorded conversations, leave no scope for
doubt that A-1 demanded the bribe and A-2 received and accepted
it from the complainant on his behalf. He has argued that the expert
opinion has confirmed that the handwriting on the slip was of A-1.
He has contended that there is evidence to show that A-2 accepted
the bribe from complainant on behalf of A-1. He has mentioned
that there is overwhelming evidence to prove the charges.
18.1 Ld. PP for CBI has further argued that complainant is an
honest and truthful witness. He has argued that the testimony of the
complainant is reliable and there is no reason to doubt his version.
He has argued that the currency notes were recovered from the
possession of A-2 and the independent witness has also confirmed
that the bribe was handed over in his presence. He mentioned that
the traces of phenolphthalein powder were found not only in the
hand washes of A-2 but also in the table wash. He stated that the
CFSL has returned a positive finding about the presence of
phenolphthalein powder in the examined solutions and this fact
further corroborates the version of the complainant that the bribe
was accepted by A-2 on behalf of A-1.
18.2 Ld. PP for CBI has argued that although minor infirmities
have been pointed out in the investigation but the same do not effect
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 37 of 123
:: 38 ::
the outcome of the trial. He has argued that accused persons do not
stand to gain any advantage merely because of the reason that the
investigation could have been done in a more meticulous manner.
He mentioned that the investigating officer and the members of the
trap team have supported the prosecution’s case. He stated that
these witnesses have also corroborated the version of the
complainant.
18.3 Ld. PP for CBI has argued that there is evidence to show that
the accused persons, complainant and other officers of DSIIDC
were using the mobile phones on which conversations were made.
He has submitted that the CDRs of these mobile phones
demonstrate that the calls were made at the relevant time as the
same stand duly reflected in the CDRs. He has mentioned that the
version of the accused persons that they have been falsely
implicated by the complainant does not inspire confidence. He
mentioned that no prudent man would go to the extent of taking
pains of falsely implicating a public servant. He has stated that
each stage of investigation was duly documented and the
documents have been proved during trial. He has mentioned that
the sanctity of the case property was preserved by sealing it at
various stages. He has stated that there was no possibility of
tampering with the sealed case property. He has mentioned that
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 38 of 123
:: 39 ::
charges against both the accused persons have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and they should be convicted.
19. I have perused the record in the light of the respective
arguments and the judgments relied on by the parties.
Analysis & Findings
Legal Provisions and Ingredients of Section 7 of The PC Act
20. Before evaluating the evidence, it would be appropriate to
refer to the relevant legal provisions. It is the case of prosecution
that accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and committed
an offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act. Section 7 of
The PC Act, as amended by way of an amendment, which came
into effect from 26.07.2018, reads as under : –
“7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed –
Any public servant who, –
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any
person, an undue advantage, with the intention to
perform or cause performance of public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause
forbearance to perform such duty either by himself
or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an
undue advantage from any person as a reward for the
improper or dishonest performance of a public duty
or for forbearing to perform such duty either by
himself or another public servant; orCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 39 of 123
:: 40 ::
(c) performs or induces another public servant to
perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or
to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation
of or in consequence of accepting an undue
advantage from any person shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
three years but which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.–For the purpose of this section, the
obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an
undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence
even if the performance of a public duty by public
servant, is not or has not been improper.
Illustration.-A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’
to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to
process his routine ration card application on time.
‘S’ is guilty of an offence under this section.
Explanation 2.-For the purpose of this section,-
(i) the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or
“attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a
person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts”
or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for
himself or for another person, by abusing his
position as a public servant or by using his personal
influence over another public servant; or by any
other corrupt or illegal means;
(ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being
a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to
obtain the undue advantage directly or through a
third party.”
21. It can be seen that Section 20 of The PC Act provides for a
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 40 of 123
:: 41 ::
legal presumption where public servant accepts any undue
advantage. The Section reads as under:-
“20. Where, in any trial of an offence punishable
under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that
a public servant accused of an offence has accepted
or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for
any other person, any undue advantage from any
person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted to
obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward
under section 7 for performing or to cause
performance of a public duty improperly or
dishonestly either by himself or by another public
servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage
without consideration or for a consideration which
he knows to be inadequate under section 11”
22. It has been the uniform view of the Supreme Court of India
and various High Courts that the proof of demand of bribe by a
public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for
establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. This
interpretation was given by the Supreme Court of India in the
matter of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka” (2013) 3 SCC
721 by making the following observations:
“It is well settled in law that demand and acceptance
of the amount as illegal gratification is sine qua non
for constitution of an offence under the Act and it is
obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish
that there was an illegal offer of bribe and
acceptance thereof”.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 41 of 123
:: 42 ::
23. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs District
Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2015) 10
SCC 152, the Apex Court summarised the well settled law on the
subject in the following para:
“23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification,
thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence
thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail.
Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of
illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the
proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be
sufficient to bring home the charge under these two
sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the
prosecution to prove the demand for illegal
gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the
amount from the person accused of the offence under
Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his
conviction thereunder”.
24. In the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar
Laxman Rao (2009) 15 SCC 200, the Supreme Court expressed as
under:
“16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification
is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under
the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the
conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an
offence, viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of
the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied
or not, the court must take into consideration the
facts and circumstances brought on the record in
their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the
presumptive evidence, as is laid down in Section 20
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 42 of 123
:: 43 ::
of the Act, must also be taken into consideration but
then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of
burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the standard
of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ.
Before, however, accused is called upon to explain as
to how the amount in question was found in his
possession, the foundational facts must be
established by the prosecution. Even while invoking
the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is
required to consider the explanation offered by the
accused, if any, only on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and not on the
touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt”.
25. It is the settled proposition that the burden to prove the guilt
of the accused always remains on the prosecution and it does not
shift at any stage of the trial. However, by means of a presumption
provided under Section 20 of The PC Act, the onus of proof would
shift on the accused, in case, it is shown that he accepted or
obtained or agreed to accept or obtain any undue advantage. It has
been held by the Supreme Court of India that even to invoke the
presumption under Section 20 of The PC Act, it is essential that the
‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of the bribe must be established. In the
matter of B. Jayaraj Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC
55, the Apex Court has held as under:
“9…In so far as the presumption permissible to be
drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such
presumption can only be in respect of the offence
under Section 7 and not the offences under SectionCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 43 of 123
:: 44 ::
13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on
proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that
presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the
Act that such gratification was received for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance
of illegal gratification can follow only if there is
proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the
present case the primary facts on the basis of which
the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn
are wholly absent”.
26. In the matter of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) 2023 (4) SCC 731, the Supreme Court of India evaluated
the provisions of Section 7 of The PC Act, as it stood prior to the
amendment, and summarised the legal position as under:
“xxx
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the
guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter
of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 44 of 123
:: 45 ::
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved
by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral
and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public
servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without
there being any demand from the public servant and the
latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of
the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand
by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and
tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is
received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.
In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal
gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an
offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the
bribe giver and the demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact
in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an
illegal gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d),
(i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring
home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates
from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public
servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 45 of 123
:: 46 ::
accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment
made which is received by the public servant, would be an
offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and
acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may
be made by a court of law by way of an inference only
when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant
oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence
thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court
has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while
considering whether the fact of demand has been proved
by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of
fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the
absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns hostile or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in
the evidence of any other witness who can again let in
evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial
evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an
order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court
to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was
for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the
said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the
court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of
course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal.
Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 46 of 123
:: 47 ::
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred
to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory
presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
xxx”
27. The amended provisions of Section 7 of The PC Act came to
be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the matter of K.
Shanthamma Vs State of Telangana (Crl. Appeal No.261/2022,
decided on 21.02.2022) wherein it was observed that the offence
under Section 7 of the PC Act relating to public servants taking
bribe requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance
thereof. The Supreme Court reiterated that the proof of demand of
bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non
for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act. The
court made the following observations in para-7 of the judgment :
“We have given careful consideration to the
submissions. We have perused the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses. The offence under Section 7
of the PC Act relating to public servants taking bribe
requires a demand of illegal gratification and the
acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by
a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine
quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7
of the PC Act. In the case of ‘P. Satyanarayana
Murthy Vs District Inspector of Police, State of
Andhra Pradesh and another’ (2015) 10 SCC 152,
this Court has summarised the well-settled law on
the subject in paragraph 23 which reads thus:
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 47 of 123
:: 48 ::
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus,
is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof,
unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere
acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal
gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of
demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to
bring home the charge under these two sections of
the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to
prove the demand for illegal gratification would be
fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the
person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13
of the Act would not entail his conviction
thereunder.”
28. In the mater of Shrikant Vs State of Karnataka Crl.
Petition No.101560 of 2023, decided on 20.12.2023, the High
Court of Karnataka compared and examined the pre-amended and
post-amended provisions of 7 of the PC Act as well as the
interpretation given by the Supreme Court in various judgments
and held that in so far as the ingredients of the offence under
Section 7 of The PC Act are concerned, be it pre-amended or post-
amended, proof of demand and acceptance of gratification is sine
quo non for establishing the allegations. The court held that in case,
there is demand but no acceptance, it would not make an offence
under Section 7 of The PC Act and if there is acceptance but no
demand, still it would not be an offence under the said Section. It
held that an act alleged under Section 7 of The PC Act should have
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 48 of 123
:: 49 ::
both the ingredients i.e. demand and acceptance of gratification.
29. Thus, it can be seen that the Supreme Court of India has
reiterated in various judicial pronouncements that in order to bring
home a charge under Section 7 of The PC Act, there must be a
demand and acceptance of the gratification. The proof of demand
of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua
non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act.
Now, let us examine the evidence to see if the prosecution has been
able to establish both the ingredients of ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’
of illegal gratification. However, before doing that, I deem it fit to
deal with the common argument of the accused persons about the
defective sanction.
Sanction
30. It is the prosecution’s case that A-1 S.K. Singh committed
the offence under Section 7 of The PC Act while being on
deputation as a Senior Manager in DSIIDC. It has been stated that
A-1 S.K. Singh was working as an Assistant Ambulance Officer in
Centralised Accident & Trauma Services (CATS), Govt. of NCT of
Delhi but he was sent on deputation to DSIIDC. Since, A-1 was a
public servant, therefore, sanction to prosecute him was required
under Section 19 of The PC Act. The sanction order is on record
and the same is Ex.PW2/A. Sh. S.K. Jain, Director, CATS (PW-2)
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 49 of 123
:: 50 ::
is the officer, who accorded the said sanction. He stepped into the
witness box and deposed that he awarded the sanction after due
application of mind. He stated that he received a report from the
CBI along with the statements of witnesses and other relevant
documents. He has mentioned that he does not recollect whether
the draft sanction order was received from the CBI. He has
deposed that he perused all the documents and granted the sanction
after due application of mind. The sanction has been challenged
primarily on two grounds; (i) that the officer awarding the sanction
was not competent to grant it as A-1 was on deputation in a
different department; and (ii) that the same was awarded in a
mechanical manner without application of mind.
31. Let us first deal with the first ground of challenge that the
officer awarding the sanction was not competent to do so. It has
been argued by the counsel for A-2 that the official awarding the
sanction was not competent to remove the Senior Manager of
DSIIDC and therefore, he was not competent to grant the sanction
for prosecution under Section 19 of The PC Act. The argument is
misconceived. It is an admitted case that at the time of commission
of offence, A-1 was working on deputation at DSIIDC. The
concept of deputation was explained by the Apex Court in the
matter of State of Punjab Vs. Inder Singh 1997 (8) SCC 372
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 50 of 123
:: 51 ::
wherein it was observed as under:
18. The concept of “deputation” is well understood
in service law and has a recognised meaning.
“Deputation” has a different connotation in service
law and the dictionary meaning of the word
“deputation” is of no help. In simple words
“deputation” means service outside the cadre or
outside the parent department. Deputation is
deputing or transferring an employee to a post
outside his cadre, that is to say, to another
department on a temporary basis. After the expiry
period of deputation the employee has to come back
to his parent department to occupy the same position
unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in
his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules.
Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of
deployment or not is decided by the authority who
controls the service or post from which the employee
is transferred. There can be no deputation without
the consent of the person so deputed and he would,
therefore, know his rights and privileges in the
deputation post”.
32. The Supreme Court has observed in the matter of Umapati
Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar (1999) 4 SCC 659 as under:
“8. Deputation can be aptly described as an
assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as
the deputationist) of one department or cadre or
even an organisation (commonly referred to as the
parent department or lending authority) to another
department or cadre or organisation (commonly
referred to as the borrowing authority). The
necessity for sending on deputation arises in public
interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The
concept of deputation is consensual and involves a
voluntary decision of the employer to lend the
services of his employee and a corresponding
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 51 of 123
:: 52 ::
acceptance of such services by the borrowing
employer. It also involves the consent of the
employee to go on deputation or not.”
33. In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that where
the exigency of public service requires, the parent department
(lending authority) can send its employee on deputation to the
receiving department (borrowing authority) and such an
arrangement is preceded by consensus not only of these authorities
but also of the employee who has been sent on deputation. It
cannot be concluded that in such a case, there is severance of
relationship of the employee with his parent department. In so far
as the disciplinary control over the employee is concerned, such
control generally vests with the appropriate authority in the parent
department in which the substantive appointment is held.
34. In the present matter, the sanction has been awarded by
PW-2 S.K. Jain, Director, Centralised Accidents & Trauma
Services (CATS), who has deposed that he was competent to
remove A-1 from the post held by him in the parent department. He
has stated in cross-examination that an employee sent on
deputation continues to be an employee of CATS. He has conveyed
that although, an employee is sent on deputation but the
disciplinary control over him continues to be exercised by CATS. I
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 52 of 123
:: 53 ::
find no reason to disagree with the said explanation. Indeed, there
could be a situation where it may be provided by statutory rules or
conditions contained in the order of deputation that while an
employee is serving on deputation, he or she shall be subjected to
disciplinary control of the department to which he or she is
deputed but no evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate
that either of these conditions was existing in the case of A-1. It is
established that the sanction was granted by an authority who was
competent to remove A-1 from the post held by him in the parent
department. The ground of challenge that the sanctioning authority
was incompetent to grant the sanction deserves to be rejected.
35. Coming to the second ground of challenge that the sanction
was awarded in a mechanical manner. This is a common ground of
challenge taken by both the accused persons. It has been argued by
the Ld. Senior Counsel for A-1 that there is evidence to show that
the sanctioning authority was not provided the copies of the
recorded conversations and therefore, the sanction became
defective as the entire material was not placed before the said
authority. I have gone through the detailed testimony of PW-2 S.K.
Jain including his detailed cross-examination. He conceded in
cross-examination that the copies of the recorded conversations
were not placed before him but stated that the transcripts of those
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 53 of 123
:: 54 ::
conversations were forwarded along with the report. He deposed
that he perused the report as well as all the documents before
according the sanction. It can be seen that the testimony of this
witness has remained unblemished. Nothing has come on record
during his cross-examination which may demonstrate that the
sanction was granted by him in a mechanical manner without due
application of mind.
36. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the matter of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahesh C. Jain (2013) 8 SCC 119 that
an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating due
application of mind should not be dealt lightly and allowed to be
challenged on technicalities. The Apex Court made the following
observations:
“16. Presently, we shall proceed to deal with the
contents of the sanction order. The sanctioning
authority has referred to the demand of the
gratification for handing over TDS certificate in
Form 16A of the Income-tax Act, the acceptance of
illegal gratification by the accused before the panch
witnesses and how the accused was caught red
handed. That apart, as the order would reveal, he
has fully examined the material documents, namely,
the FIR, CFSL report and other relevant documents
placed in regard to the allegations and the statements
of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code
and, thereafter, being satisfied he has passed the
order of sanction. The learned trial Judge, as it
seems, apart from other reasons has found that the
sanctioning authority has not referred to theCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 54 of 123
:: 55 ::
elementary facts and there is no objective material to
justify a subjective satisfaction. The reasonings, in
our considered opinion, are absolutely hyper-
technical and, in fact, can always be used by an
accused as a magic trick to pave the escape route.
The reasons ascribed by the learned trial Judge
appear as if he is sitting in appeal over the order of
sanction. True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct
and sacred act and is intended to provide a
safeguard to the public servant against vexatious
litigation but simultaneously when there is an order
of sanction by the competent authority indicating
application of mind, the same should not be lightly
dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be
allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused.
In the obtaining factual matrix, we must say without
any iota of hesitation that the approach of the
learned trial Judge as well as that of the learned
single Judge is wholly incorrect and does not deserve
acceptance.”
37. I have perused the sanction order in the light of the
testimony of PW-2. I am of the considered opinion that the
sanctioning authority granted the sanction under Section 19 of The
PC Act after due application of mind. The sanctioning authority
considered all the documents including the verification memo,
handing over memo, transcripts of the conversations recorded on
memory cards marked as Q-1 to Q-4 as well as the nature of
allegations and thereafter, awarded the sanction. Defence has failed
to highlight any infirmity in the sanction order. The sanction is
valid and it was duly awarded. Now, let us evaluate the evidence,
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 55 of 123
:: 56 ::
including the testimonies of witnesses, to see if the prosecution has
been able to establish the criminal conspiracy and the charge under
Section 7 of The PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC.
Facts in Issue
38. The genesis of the trap lies in the previous demand of bribe
made by A-1 from the complainant, which became the basis of
laying of the trap by the investigating agency. In view of this, it was
for the prosecution to prove the demand as well as the acceptance
of the illegal gratification by the accused persons. The following
were the facts in issue;
(a) Around two months prior to lodging of the
written complaint dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A), A-1
S.K. Singh came at the shed of the complainant along
with some other employees of DSIIDC and threatened
him that his shed would be sealed as he is in
unauthorised possession. The officials pasted a notice
dated 31.12.2021 (Ex.PW3/A) on the shed;
(b) Thereafter, complainant met A-1 S.K. Singh at
his office where he demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs and
told him that he should meet A-2 Subhash Goel. In this
meeting, A-1 wrote the name and mobile number of
A-2 on a slip and handed it over to the complainant with
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 56 of 123
:: 57 ::
directions that he should contact him for getting the
documents of the shed prepared;
(c) Complainant did not intend to pay the bribe and
therefore, he lodged the handwritten complaint
(Ex.PW10/A) with the CBI;
(d) The allegations contained in the complaint were
verified in terms of verification proceedings dated
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A and
Ex.PW10/B respectively);
(e) On 11.02.2022, complainant met A-1 at his
office and during this meeting, A-1 reiterated the
demand of bribe and told the complainant to contact
A-2;
(f) During the verification proceedings of
12.01.2022, complainant contacted A-2 on the mobile
number provided by A-1 and was told by A-2 to come
on the next day;
(g) After verification of the allegations, FIR was
registered on 13.01.2022 and it was decided to
apprehend the accused persons red handed;
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 57 of 123
:: 58 ::
(h) A trap was laid on 13.01.2022 and during the
trap, A-2 accepted the bribe of Rs.1.70 lakhs from the
complainant and informed A-1 that the amount has
been received;
(i) A-2 was apprehended red handed and the bribe
was recovered from his possession and thereafter, he
made a call to A-1 at the instance of the CBI officials
disclosing that he has received the bribe and in response
thereof, A-1 replied, “theek hai ji (Okay)”. Thereafter,
A-1 was also arrested on 14.01.2022.
39. In order to prove the above stated facts and establish the
demand and acceptance of bribe, prosecution has relied on the
testimonies of the complainant Dev Dutt Sharma (PW-12) and
three independent witnesses i.e. Vivek Prakash (PW-13), Sudesh
Kumar (PW-14) and Sushil Kumar (PW-15). Prosecution has also
placed reliance on the telephonic conversations (Q-1 to Q-4))
which were captured during the verification and the trap
proceedings. The transcripts of these conversations have been
placed on record. In addition to this, prosecution has relied on the
testimonies of the expert witnesses for establishing that the
handwriting found on the slip was that of A-1 S.K. Singh and
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 58 of 123
:: 59 ::
phenolphthalein powder was detected in the hand washes and table
wash of A-2 Subhash Goel. The voice and handwriting of A-1 has
been identified by his senior, Mahesh Arora (PW-11) while the
voice of A-2 has been identified by his employee, Chanderpal
Tomar (PW-18). It is the prosecution’s version that the chain of
events was documented by preparing relevant memos at each stage
of investigation and the same were signed by the complainant and
the independent witnesses. The officers who participated in the
verification and trap proceedings have been examined to establish
the authenticity of these proceedings and the investigating officer
has been examined to prove the investigation.
Testimony of Complainant
40. Let us first examine the testimony of the complainant Dev
Dutt Sharma (PW-12). He gave a brief background of the manner
in which he came to occupy the shed and also deposed about the
visit of A-1 S.K. Singh. He deposed that he was running a
workshop from the shed for the last 20 years. He mentioned that he
purchased the shed against a valid consideration but lost the
ownership documents. He disclosed that A-1 used to visit his shed
and extend threats to seal the same. He mentioned that A-1
demanded bribe from him for not sealing the shed but since, he did
not intend to pay the same, he lodged the complaint with the CBI.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 59 of 123
:: 60 ::
He mentioned that A-1 initially demanded a bribe of Rs.1 lakh but
later on increased it to Rs.2 lakhs. He identified his signatures on
the handwritten complaint dated 11.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/A). He
gave an account of verification proceedings dated 11.01.2022 and
12.01.2022. He narrated the manner in which a team was
constituted for verifying the allegations levelled by him in the
written complaint. He stated that in order to verify the demand of
bribe, CBI officials called an independent witness, PW-14 Sudesh
Kumar, who accompanied him to the office of A-1. He conveyed
that PW-10 Insp. Suresh Chander Kushwaha arranged a recorder
(DVR) and a blank memory card for the purpose of recording his
conversation during the meeting with A-1. He stated that he met
A-1 on 11.01.2022 at his cabin and their conversation was captured
on the DVR. He mentioned that during the said conversation, the
independent witness was not present inside the cabin but he was
standing outside. He gave an account of his conversation with A-1.
He mentioned that he requested A-1 not to seal his shed on which,
A-1 asked him to meet A-2 Subash Goel and told him that he would
prepare the documents of the shed. He mentioned that during this
conversation, A-1 asked him to handover the bribe amount of Rs.2
lakhs to A-2 and also handed him over a slip containing the phone
number of A-2 with the name ‘Subhash’ written thereon.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 60 of 123
:: 61 ::
41. Complainant has deposed further that after the meeting was
over, he went back to the vehicle which was parked by the CBI
officials near the office of A-1. He mentioned that after returning to
the office of CBI, the conversation captured on the DVR was heard
in the presence of independent witness and the chip (memory card)
was sealed. He identified the slip in the handwriting of A-1
containing the mobile number and name of A-2 as Ex.PW5/D. He
conveyed that the record of the verification proceedings was
prepared and he signed the same. He identified his signatures on
the verification memo (Ex.PW10/A). He mentioned that he left the
office of CBI on conclusion of the verification proceedings but was
directed by the CBI officials to come again on the next day at
around 09:00 AM.
42. Complainant mentioned about reaching the office of CBI on
the next day and gave an account of the verification proceedings
conducted on 12.01.2022. He deposed that he reached the office of
CBI on 12.01.2022 at around 09:00 AM and the independent
witness PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was already present at the office. He
deposed about the presence of the second independent witness
PW-13 Vivek Prakash mentioning that CBI officials introduced
him with the said individual. He deposed that the CBI officials
produced the recorder (DVR) and inserted a new memory card and
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 61 of 123
:: 62 ::
thereafter, placed it in his pocket. After deposing these events, he
recollected that CBI officials directed him to bring the bribe
amount of Rs.2 lakhs on 11.01.2022 and he complied with the said
directions and handed over a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs to the CBI
officials on 12.01.2022. He mentioned that the bribe amount of
Rs.1.70 lakhs was in the form of currency notes in the
denomination of Rs.500 and Rs.2000/-. He stated that the currency
notes were counted by the CBI officials and the serial numbers
were noted down on a piece of paper. He conveyed that the
currency notes were treated with a powder and thereafter, the same
were handed over to the independent witness Sudesh Kumar, who
counted the same and handed them over to the CBI official. He
mentioned that thereafter, his hands were washed and the said
water turned pink. He conveyed that after these preparations, he
left for Karol Bagh along with the CBI officials. He mentioned that
on reaching Karol Bagh, he called on the mobile number
mentioned on the slip and A-2 picked up the call and told him that
he was not available at the office and he should come on the next
day. He conveyed that after this conversation, he returned back to
the office of CBI and handed over the DVR as well as the bribe
amount to the CBI officials. He identified his signatures on the
verification memo dated 12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B). He mentioned
that after these proceedings, CBI officials directed him to come toCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 62 of 123
:: 63 ::
the office on 13.01.2022.
43. Complainant deposed about the chain of events of
13.01.2022. He stated that he reached the office of CBI at around
09:00 AM and both the independent witnesses were already
present over there. He stated that he was handed over the bribe
money and he placed the same in his pocket. He conveyed that a
memory card was inserted in the recorder (DVR) and the same was
placed in his pocket. He deposed that after making these
preparations, the members of the trap team proceeded towards the
office of A-2 Subhash Goel on two separate vehicles. He
mentioned that the independent witness PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was
sitting with him while the second independent witness PW-13
Vivek Prakash was accompanying the CBI officials in the other
vehicle. He deposed that he went to the office of A-2 along with the
independent witness and disclosed him that he had brought a sum
of Rs.1.70 lakhs on the directions of A-1 S.K. Singh. He stated that
he handed over the bribe money to A-2. He conveyed that after
handing over the bribe, he made a request to A-2 that he should
intimate A-1 about having received the same but instead of doing
so, A-2 started counting the money. He mentioned that thereafter,
PW-14 Sudesh Kumar called an official of CBI and about 4 – 5 CBI
officials arrived at the spot. He deposed that after arriving at the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 63 of 123
:: 64 ::
spot, CBI officials grabbed the wrists of A-2 and took the hand
washes in two separate glasses and on each occasion, the solution
in the glasses turned red. He disclosed that the solutions were
poured in separate bottles and thereafter, a cloth was rubbed on the
top of the table and it was also dipped in a solution which turned
red. He mentioned that the said solution was also kept in a glass
bottle. He deposed that the bribe money was recovered from the
possession of A-2. He mentioned that thereafter, on the directions
of the CBI officials, A-2 called A-1 on his mobile number and
intimated him that he had received the bribe money. He stated that
this conversation was made by A-1 by keeping his mobile phone on
speaker mode. He mentioned that over this conversation, A-1 asked
for remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- and he told him that he would
give him the balance amount by next week. He identified his
signatures on the handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C) as well as the
recovery memo dated 13.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/D). He deposed that
thereafter, the CBI team returned to the office along with A-2 and
the remaining proceedings were carried out till midnight. He
identified A-2 as the same person to whom the bribe money was
handed over by him.
44. Complainant also mentioned about his participation in the
subsequent stages of investigation. He conveyed that after few daysCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 64 of 123
:: 65 ::
of the incident, he was summoned to the office of CBI. He stated
that during this visit, the conversations captured over the memory
cards (Q-1 to Q-4) were heard in the presence of PW-14 Sudesh
Kumar and the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified
his signatures on the voice identification memo Ex.PW12/A. The
envelopes containing the memory cards were produced and the
witness identified the same as Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C,
Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/L and Ex.PW12/M. The
digital files containing the introductory voices of independent
witnesses were played on a laptop and the witness identified the
same. In a similar manner, the other digital files containing the
recorded conversation were played on a laptop and the same were
identified by the witness. The recovered bribe money was
produced from the malkhana in a sealed envelope. The envelope
was opened in the court and the currency notes were shown to the
witness, who identified them as the same currency notes which
were recovered from A-2. The currency notes are Ex.PW12/F. The
glass bottles containing the solutions were also produced from the
malkhana and the witness identified them as the same bottles in
which the washes were kept. It can be seen that although the
complainant was subjected to a thorough cross-examination but his
testimony has remained unimpeached. He has given an exhaustive
account of the verification and trap proceedings. He has narratedCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 65 of 123
:: 66 ::
the manner in which A-1 demanded the bribe and directed him to
approach A-2 for handing over the same. He has given a detailed
account of the recovery and his testimony has remained unshaken.
Testimonies of Independent witnesses
45. The testimony of the complainant finds corroboration from
the testimonies of the independent witnesses. Record shows that
three independent witnesses were joined at various stages of the
investigation; (a) PW-13 Vivek Prakash, who participated in the
verification proceedings dated 12.01.2022; (b) PW-14 Sudesh
Kumar; who participated in the verification proceedings dated
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 as well as in the trap proceedings dated
13.01.2022 and (c) PW-15 Sushil Kumar, who participated in the
trap proceedings dated 13.01.2022. Each one of them has
supported and corroborated the testimony of complainant on all
the material aspects. Let us examine the testimonies of these
witnesses.
46. PW-14 Sudesh Kumar has deposed about the manner in
which he was called at the office of CBI to join the verification
proceedings on 11.01.2022. He has deposed that he participated in
the verification proceedings on 11.02.2022 and 12.01.2022. He
gave a detailed account of the verification and trap proceedings as
well as the recovery of bribe. He mentioned that he joined the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 66 of 123
:: 67 ::
complainant in the trap proceedings on 13.01.2022 and the bribe
money was accepted by A-2 in his presence. He stated that at the
relevant time, he was working as a Manager at Food Corporation of
India, Barakhamba Road. He mentioned that he went to the office
of CBI on the directions of the Assistant General Manager. He
stated that he complied with the directions and reached the office
of CBI on 11.01.2022 at about 09:30 AM. He deposed that on
reaching the office, a CBI official directed him that he would be
required to accompany the complainant to the office of an official
who was demanding bribe. He deposed about the preparations
made by the CBI officials before sending him and the complainant
to the said office. He conveyed that CBI officials switched on a
recording device and kept it in the front pocket of the shirt of
complainant. He conveyed that although, he accompanied the
complainant but he could not enter the cabin of the suspected
official (A-1 S.K. Singh) as he was stopped by the guard. He
conveyed that complainant went inside the cabin and came out
after about half an hour. He stated that after coming out of the
cabin, complainant told him that the official had directed him to
meet a person at Karol Bagh. He mentioned that complainant
showed him a slip on which the name and phone number of the
said person was written. He mentioned that thereafter, they went
back to the spot where the CBI official had parked their vehicles.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 67 of 123
:: 68 ::
He conveyed that after going back to the office of CBI, the
conversation between the complainant and A-1 was played and
heard. He identified his signatures on the envelope wherein the
memory card was kept and also identified his signatures on the
verification memo. He stated that the memory card was sealed in
his presence and mentioned that seal after use was handed over to
him with directions to bring it on the next day.
47. PW-14 also gave an account of the verification proceedings
of 12.01.2022. He mentioned that he brought the seal on the next
day and handed over the same to the CBI officials. He stated that on
the said day, complainant brought currency notes and the same
were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He mentioned that the
demonstration about the properties of phenolphthalein powder was
given by CBI officials and thereafter, the water solution containing
the said powder was thrown away. He stated that the currency notes
were put in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. He stated that
the CBI officials inserted a new memory card in the recording
device (DVR). He mentioned about visiting the office of A-2 along
with the complainant. He stated that the CBI officials reached at
the spot in two vehicles and after reaching at a spot in Karol Bagh,
officials asked the complainant to connect a call on the number
mentioned on the handwritten slip. He stated that the complainantCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 68 of 123
:: 69 ::
called on the said number but the person on the other side did not
answer the call. He stated that after about 15 – 20 minutes,
complainant made a second call on the same number but the said
call also remained unanswered. He mentioned that after about 30
minutes, a call was received from the said number on the mobile
phone of the complainant. He stated that complainant talked with
the individual on the other side by keeping his mobile on speaker
mode and the entire conversation was captured on the DVR. He
disclosed about the contents of the conversation mentioning that
the complainant disclosed to the person that he had arranged a sum
of Rs.1.70 lakhs and the person told him that he would meet him
on the next day. He stated that thereafter, the CBI officials and the
complainant returned to the office of CBI. He mentioned that after
these proceedings, CBI officials returned him the brass seal and
directed him to bring it on the next day.
48. PW-14 gave an account of the proceedings of 13.01.2022.
He mentioned that on the said day, he again reached the office of
CBI at around 09:30 AM. He stated that the complainant and the
second independent witness were already present at the office. He
mentioned that the officials of the CBI made preparations by
inserting a new memory card in the DVR. He conveyed that
complainant brought the currency notes on 12.01.2022 but took
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 69 of 123
:: 70 ::
them back after the proceedings and again brought them back on
13.01.2022. He stated that the details of the currency notes were
typed on a paper and his signatures were obtained. He mentioned
that the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder
and the same were placed in the pocket of the complainant. He
narrated the chain of events mentioning that after reaching at a spot
near the office of A-2 at Karol Bagh, complainant made a call on
the mobile phone of A-2, who told him that he should come to his
office. He stated that this conversation was also made by the
complainant by keeping his phone on the speaker mode and the
same was captured on the DVR.
49. PW-14 mentioned that he accompanied the complainant to
the office of A-2. He stated that complainant met A-2 at his office
and disclosed him that he has been sent by A-1 S.K. Singh to
handover the bribe money. He stated that on hearing the same, A-2
responded in affirmative by nodding his head and thereafter, the
complainant handed him over the bribe money. He stated that on
the request of complainant, A-2 started counting the currency notes
and in the meantime, he stepped out of the cabin and gave a signal
to the members of the trap team by calling on the mobile phone of
one of the officials. He stated that on receiving the signal, CBI team
arrived at the spot and apprehended A-2. He stated that the handCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 70 of 123
:: 71 ::
washes of A-2 and the table wash were obtained and on each
occasion, the colour of the solution turned pink. He mentioned that
documents were prepared at the spot and same were signed by him
as well as by the complainant. He mentioned that after these
proceedings, the trap team left the spot and reached the office of
CBI. He stated about the proceedings carried out at the office of
CBI. He mentioned that the memory card was sealed at the office
of CBI with the seal which was brought by him and thereafter, the
seal was returned to him. He stated that on the next day, he
deposited the seal with the CBI. He mentioned about the arrest of
A-2 and identified his signatures on various documents such as the
arrest memo (Ex.PW14/C), transcript-cum-voice identification
memo (Ex.PW11/A) and site plan (Ex.PW14/A). He stated that he
again visited the office of CBI during the course of investigation
and during this visit, the recorded conversations were played and
the transcripts of the same were prepared. He identified his voice in
those conversations and also identified his signatures on the
transcripts.
50. Record reveals that PW-14 underwent an extensive cross-
examination but his testimony has remained unimpeached.
Defence has failed to bring about any serious contradiction during
his cross-examination which may raise question mark over his
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 71 of 123
:: 72 ::
reliability. He has stated various facts during cross-examination
which establish that he accompanied the complainant to the office
of A-1 on 11.01.2022. He stated in cross-examination that during
the visit of 11.01.2022, although, he could not enter the cabin of
A-1 but he saw the complainant and A-1 talking to each other
through the transparent glass door. He stated various facts which
confirm his presence at the office of A-2 on 13.01.2022. He
clarified that the currency notes were not placed in the pocket of
the complainant on 12.01.2022 and the same were placed in his
pocket on 13.01.2022. He reiterated that at the time of entering the
office of A-2, no other person was accompanying him except the
complainant. He reiterated that after accepting the currency notes
from the complainant, A-2 started counting them. He reiterated
that he gave signal to the CBI officials on completion of the
transaction. He reiterated that the seal after use was handed over to
him and the transcripts of the recorded conversations were
prepared. On appreciating his testimony, there remains no doubt
that he was accompanying the complainant during the verification
proceedings on 11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022 as well as during trap
proceedings on 13.01.2022. The witness has given the actual
account of the events and there is no reason to doubt or to
disbelieve his version. His testimony provides corroboration to the
version of the complainant about his visit to the office of A-1 onCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 72 of 123
:: 73 ::
11.01.2022. His testimony also corroborates the version of the
complainant that he handed over the bribe money to A-2 at his
office in Karol Bagh.
51. Coming to the testimony of PW-13 Vivek Prakash, who
participated in the verification proceedings of 12.01.2022. He has
also supported and corroborated the version of the complainant by
narrating similar chain of events. He gave a similar account of
preparations made at the office of CBI on 12.01.2022 before
proceeding to the office of A-2 Subhash Goel. He mentioned that
he was introduced with the complainant and the slip (Ex.PW5/D)
containing the name of ‘Subhash’ and a mobile number was also
shown to him. He stated that his introductory voice as well as the
introductory voice of PW-14 Sudesh Kumar was recorded through
the DVR. He mentioned that the CBI team reached Karol Bagh at
02:45 PM and stopped the vehicle at a spot on the road side. He
deposed that complainant made two calls on the number written on
the slip but the calls remained unanswered. He mentioned that after
some time, a call was received by the complainant from the same
mobile number and over this call, complainant disclosed the caller
that he had been sent by A-1 S.K. Singh and in response, the caller
told him that he was not available in the office. He mentioned that
the caller further told the complainant that he should come to hisCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 73 of 123
:: 74 ::
office on the next day and the caller mentioned that he would be
sending his location and tie-up for the meeting. He stated that the
entire conversation was recorded over the DVR as the complainant
had kept his mobile phone on speaker mode.
52. PW-13 mentioned that after the above stated conversation,
complainant called A-1 on his mobile phone and told him that he
had fixed a meeting with A-2 on the following day. He mentioned
that when the complainant talked about the bribe, A-1
disconnected the call. He mentioned that after returning back to the
office of CBI, a copy of the recorded conversation was prepared
with the help of ‘write blocker’. He mentioned that the recorded
conversation was played and heard in his presence as well as in the
presence of complainant and the second independent witness. He
mentioned that the memory card was taken out from the DVR and
it was kept in an envelope. He identified his signatures on the said
envelope (Ex.PW12/C) as well as the verification memo dated
12.01.2022 (Ex.PW10/B). The voice recordings were played in the
presence of the witness and he identified them to be same
recordings which were captured on 12.01.2022. The testimony of
PW-13 Vivek Prakash has also remained unimpeached. It can be
seen that he has supported and corroborated the statement of the
complainant on material aspects. He has given honest and truthfulCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 74 of 123
:: 75 ::
account of the events and not tried to exaggerate the facts. The
witness has been cross-examined at length but the defence has
failed to bring out any material contradiction which may raise
question mark over the credibility of this witness.
53. The prosecution’s case stands further fortified from the
testimony of the third independent witness. PW-15 Sushil Kumar
gave a detailed account of the trap proceedings as well as the
recovery of bribe. He narrated the chain of events of 13.01.2022
and mentioned about the preparations made by the trap team before
proceeding to the office of A-2. He stated that the trap team was
constituted by the CBI officials wherein the complainant and
another independent witness were joined. He stated that before
proceeding for the trap, his introductory voice as well as the
introductory voice of the other independent witness was obtained
with the help of an instrument (DVR) wherein the memory card
was inserted. He mentioned that complainant produced a sum of
Rs.1.70 lakhs and the serial numbers of the currency notes were
noted down on a paper. He mentioned that the currency notes were
treated with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration was given
about the properties of the said powder. He stated that the currency
notes laced with phenolphthalein powder were kept in the left side
pocket of the jacket of the complainant and he was directed not toCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 75 of 123
:: 76 ::
touch the said currency notes. He mentioned that personal search
of the members of the trap team was carried out and the
proceedings were reduced in writing. He identified his signatures
on the handing over memo (Ex.PW10/C) wherein all these
proceedings were documented.
54. After describing the preparations made at the office of CBI,
PW-15 deposed that between 11:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, the trap
team proceeded to a spot at Karol Bagh in two vehicles. He gave
details of the sitting arrangement in the vehicles mentioning that he
was sitting along with the complainant and the other independent
witness. He mentioned that while they were proceeding towards
the spot, complainant made a call to A-2 Subhash Goel by keeping
his mobile phone on speaker mode and told him that he has been
directed by A-1 S.K. Singh to meet him. He mentioned that
complainant asked A-2 about the place of meeting and in response,
A-2 conveyed his address and told him that he would be able to
meet him at around 01:45 PM. He mentioned that after this
conversation, the members of the trap team took lunch and
subsequently proceeded to the address disclosed by A-2. He
disclosed the manner in which the members of the trap team
assembled at a place near the office of A-2 and took position in the
adjoining area. He mentioned that the vehicles were parked at someCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 76 of 123
:: 77 ::
distance from the office of A-2 and the investigating officer Insp.
Vijay A. Desai instructed the complainant and independent witness
PW-14 Sudesh Kumar (wrongly recorded as Sushil Kumar) to go
inside the office and give a signal to the trap team on completion of
the transaction. He clarified that a recording device was handed
over to the complainant. He mentioned that on the directions of the
investigating officer, he took position near the main gate of the
office of A-2 and the members of the team took position near the
office.
55. PW-15 conveyed that complainant and Sudesh Kumar
(PW-14) went inside the office of A-2 and after about 5 – 10
minutes, PW-14 gave signal to the investigating officer. He also
gave an account of the recovery. He mentioned that on receiving
the signal of the independent witness, the members of the trap
team went inside the office of A-2 and he also followed them. He
disclosed that on entering the office, he saw that A-2 was counting
the currency notes. He deposed about the manner in which the
hand washes and the table wash were obtained. He mentioned that
the solution of one of the hand washes turned pink while the
solution of the other hand wash turned light pink. He stated that the
solution containing the table wash also turned pink. He mentioned
that the washes were packed and sealed separately. He deposed thatCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 77 of 123
:: 78 ::
the serial numbers of recovered currency notes were tallied with
the serial numbers noted down at the office of CBI and were found
to be the same. He disclosed about the phone call made by A-2 to
A-1 at the instance of CBI officials. He conveyed that on being
directed, A-2 called on the mobile phone of A-1 by keeping his
mobile phone on speaker mode and conveyed him that he had
received the bribe money and in response, A-1 replied, ‘okay’. He
disclosed that the conversation over this call was captured on the
DVR.
56. PW-15 identified his signatures on the handing over memo
and conveyed that the proceedings continued at the office of A-2
till midnight. He also identified his signatures on the site plan. He
disclosed that the copies of the conversations were prepared. He
mentioned that on reaching the office of CBI, he observed that A-1
S.K. Singh was also present over there. He stated that specimen
voice samples of A-1 and A-2 were obtained. He mentioned that
the specimen handwriting of A-1 was also obtained by the CBI
officials. He claimed to have left the office of CBI at around 03:00
AM after completion of the proceedings. He deposed that he also
participated in the proceedings dated 18.01.2022, which took place
at the office of CBI. He mentioned that on the said date, the
conversations captured over the memory cards were played withCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 78 of 123
:: 79 ::
the help of a laptop and the transcripts of the same were prepared.
He identified the sealed bottles (containing the hand washes and
table wash), the recorded conversations and the recovered currency
notes. He also identified his signatures on the seizure memos
(Ex.PW12/L and Ex.PW12/M and Ex.PW15/A) whereby the
mobile phones of A-1 and A-2 were seized.
57. Record shows that the testimony of this witness has also
remained unblemished. He reiterated in cross-examination that
after entering the office, he saw A-2 counting the currency notes.
He stated that he does not recollect whether A-2 was counting the
notes with one hand or with both hands. He reiterated in cross-
examination that the solution of one of the hand washes turned
pink while the other one turned light pink. The cross-examination
of this witness goes on to show that he has reiterated most of the
facts which were mentioned by him in examination-in-chief. He
has withstood a detailed cross-examination but his testimony has
remained unshaken.
Tape recorded conversations
58. The testimony of the complainant finds further
corroboration from the electronic evidence in the form of tape
recorded conversations and the CDRs. It is the case of the
prosecution that during the meetings of 11.01.2022 and
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 79 of 123
:: 80 ::
13.01.2022, the conversations were captured on a DVR, which was
kept hidden on the person of the complainant. Besides this, the
telephonic conversations of 12.01.2022 between the complainant
and A-2 Subhash Goel and the complainant and A-1 were also
captured on the DVR. The conditions for admissibility of tape
recorded statements have been laid down by the Supreme Court of
India in the matter of Ram Singh Vs. Col. Ram Singh 1985 Suppl.
SCC 611 as under:-
“(1) the voice of the speaker must be identified by the
maker of the record or by others who recognise his
voice. Where the voice is denied by the maker it will
require very strict proof to determine whether or not
it was really the voice of the speaker;
(2) The voice of the speaker should be audible and
not distorted by other sounds or disturbances;
(3) The accuracy of the tape recorded statement has
to be proved by the maker of the record by
satisfactory evidence;
(4) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of
a part of the tape recorded statement must be ruled
out;
(5) The statement must be relevant according to the
rules of evidence; and(6) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed
and kept in safe custody.”
59. In order to identify the voice of A-1 S.K. Singh, prosecution
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 80 of 123
:: 81 ::
examined his immediate superior. PW-11 Sh. Mahesh Arora,
Divisional Manager, DSIIDC deposed that he was controlling and
supervising A-1 S.K. Singh during his tenure at CWC Division. He
identified the voice of A-1 in all the recorded conversations. The
conversation recorded on four files (Q-1 to Q-4) were played in the
court and after hearing the same, the witness identified the voice of
A-1 in each of these conversations. He also identified the
handwriting of A-1 on the slip (Ex.PW5/D). The competence of
the witness to identify the voice of A-1 has not been challenged by
the accused persons. Similarly, the voice of A-2 Subhash Goel in
the tape recorded conversation was duly identified by his
employee. PW-18 Sh. Chanderpal Tomar identified the voice of
A-2 in all the recorded conversations. His competence to identify
the voice has also remained undisputed. The witnesses identifying
the voices of A-1 and A-2 deposed that they were called to the
office of CBI on 18.02.2022 where all the recorded conversations
were heard and the transcripts were prepared. It may be taken that
the witnesses who identified the voices of A-1 and A-2 must have
heard their voices on multiple occasions during the natural course
of events and therefore, they were fully competent to identify the
voices. Thus, the first criteria of identification of the voice of the
accused persons stands satisfied.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 81 of 123
:: 82 ::
60. The testimonies of the complainant and the officials of the
CBI demonstrate that due precautions were taken for recording the
conversations. On each occasion, a new memory card was obtained
and the introductory voices of the independent witnesses were
recorded. The recorded conversations not only contained the actual
conversation but also other pieces of background noise which
corroborates the chain the events narrated by the complainant. No
question mark can be raised over the accuracy of these recorded
conversations. Defence has failed to point out any serious
shortcoming which may show that there was a possibility of
tampering with these voice recordings. The memory card on which
the conversations were captured were duly sealed and on each
occasion, the seal after use was handed over to an independent
witness. There is no evidence to suggest that there was a possibility
of tampering with the recorded conversations. The voice
recordings are fully reliable and the same can be used for the
purpose of corroboration as the conditions enumerated in Ram
Singh‘s case (supra) stand duly fulfilled.
61. The recorded conversations fully support the version of the
complainant and the independent witnesses. The relevant
transcripts of the recorded conversations have been placed on
record. The conversations were also played during the examination
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 82 of 123
:: 83 ::
of the complainant. In the recorded conversations of 11.01.2022,
A-1 S.K. Singh can be heard telling the complainant that he should
hand over the money (bribe) to his contact at Karol Bagh whose
number has already been provided by him. The conversation of the
subsequent day i.e. 12.01.2022 between the complainant and A-2
Subhash Goel is also in line with the chain of events narrated by the
complainant and the independent witnesses. In the conversation of
13.01.2022, A-2 can be heard convincing the complainant about
the bribe by stating, “ek admi ka role nahi hai isme” (thereby
conveying that more than one persons were involved in it), “Haan
Ji ye puri setting hoti hai inki” (conveying that various other
officials were also involved). These conversations provide support
and corroboration to the testimonies of the complainant and the
independent witnesses.
Call Details Records
62. The testimonies of the complainant and independent
witnesses find further corroboration from the CDRs. The CDR of
the complainant shows that he made and received the calls
mentioned by him in his deposition. The CDRs of PW-3 Satish
Chandra Verma and PW-4 Gautam Kar provide corroboration to
the version of these witnesses that they connected a call to A-1 S.K.
Singh from the shed of the complainant. The calls of these officials
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 83 of 123
:: 84 ::
as well as that of complainant stand duly reflected in the CDR of
A-1. The CDR of A-2 Subhash Goel provides corroboration to the
version of complainant and independent witness that A-2 informed
A-1 over a phone call that he has received the bribe amount of
Rs.1.70 lakhs. It also substantiates the case of the prosecution that
after the recovery, A-2 made a phone call to A-1 conveying that he
has received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and in response, A-1 replied,
“theek hai ji (okay)”. It may also be noted that A-1 has not denied
these calls in the statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C.Opinion of handwriting expert
63. The prosecution has established that the handwriting found
on the slip (Ex.PW5/D) was of A-1. PW-11 Mahesh Arora has
identified the handwriting of A-1 mentioning that he is acquainted
with his handwriting. The CFSL report has also concluded that the
handwriting on the slip was of A-1. PW-8 Smt. Alka Gupta, Senior
Scientific Assistant, CFSL has given a finding to this effect in the
CFSL report Ex.PW8/D. It can be seen that not only the specimen
handwriting but also the admitted handwriting of A-1 was sent for
comparison with the handwriting on the slip. PW-8 has deposed
that she compared these handwritings and came to a conclusion
that the slip was written by A-1 S.K. Singh. Her testimony has
remained unimpeached. This is an additional fact which
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 84 of 123
:: 85 ::
corroborates the version of the complainant that A-1 wrote the
name and the mobile number of A-2 on a slip and told him to
contact him. It is noticed that A-1 has also not denied his
handwriting on the said slip in the statement recorded under
Section 313 of Cr. P.C. He has cleverly tried to cover up this fact by
mentioning that although, the slip was in his handwriting but it was
not handed over by him to the complainant. He has conveyed that
he might have handed over the slip to his subordinate but has not
explained as to how the slip landed up in the hands of complainant.
The reasons are obvious. He has tendered a false explanation to
conceal his culpability but has failed to do as there is
overwhelming evidence to establish that the slip was prepared and
handed over by him only.
Criminal Conspiracy
64. The case of the prosecution revolves around the criminal
conspiracy allegedly hatched by the accused persons. It has been
alleged that the offence punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act
was committed by A-1 S.K. Singh in furtherance of the common
object of the said conspiracy and A-2 Subhash Goyal played an
active role in the conspiracy by accepting the bribe on behalf of
A-1. It is a settled law that conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself
punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 85 of 123
:: 86 ::
committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct
offence for which individual offenders are liable to be punished
independent of the conspiracy. In the present case, there is no
direct evidence to prove the conspiracy and it is an inference which
the prosecution insists on drawing on the basis of the alleged acts
committed by the accused persons and the outcome of these acts.
Before evaluating the evidence from the angle of conspiracy, it
would be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of law and the
considerations that are required to be kept in mind for arriving at a
finding about the existence of criminal conspiracy.
65. Section 120A of IPC defines “criminal conspiracy” and
states that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal, by illegal
means such an agreement is designated as “criminal conspiracy”.
In view of this definition, the gist of the offence is “an agreement to
break the law”. The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal
conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii)
the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a)
an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done
by illegal means.
66. The ingredients of criminal conspiracy and the manner in
which the same is required to be established was elaborated by the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 86 of 123
:: 87 ::
Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. P.
Sugathan & Anr. 2000 (8) SCC 203 wherein it was observed that
an agreement forms the core of a conspiracy and the conspiracy
must surface in the evidence through criminal manifestation. It was
observed that just like in all other criminal cases, even for the
purpose of establishing a conspiracy, the prosecution has to
discharge its onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. It
was observed that a few bits of evidence here and there on which
the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting
the accused with the commission of the offence of criminal
conspiracy. It was pointed out that the most important ingredient of
the offence is the agreement between two or more persons to do an
illegal act. It was held that in a case where criminal conspiracy is
alleged, the court must enquire whether the two persons are
independently pursuing the same or they have come together to
pursue the unlawful object. The former does not hold them to be
conspirators but the later does. It was emphasised that for the
offence of conspiracy, some sort of physical manifestation of
agreement is required to be established, although, the express
agreements need not be proved. However, it was pointed out that
merely the evidence of transmission of thoughts sharing the
unlawful act would not be sufficient to prove criminal conspiracy.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 87 of 123
:: 88 ::
67. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu
(2005) 11 SCC 600, it was held as under:
“101. One more principle which deserves notice is
that the cumulative effect of the proved
circumstances should be taken into account in
determining the guilt of the accused rather than
adopting an isolated approach to each of the
circumstances. Of course, each one of the
circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of
evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must
take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties
must be conscious and clear enough to infer their
concurrence as to the common design and its
execution.”
(emphasis supplied)
68. In the matter of Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State
of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156, the Supreme Court of India
cautioned that the courts should remain cautious while
appreciating the circumstantial evidence to ascertain the existence
of criminal conspiracy. It was observed as under :
“45. The principle for basing a conviction on the
basis of circumstantial evidences has been indicated
in a number of decisions of this Court and the law is
well settled that each and every incriminating
circumstance must be clearly established by reliable
and clinching evidence and the circumstances so
proved must form a chain of events from which the
only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the
accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis
against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly
sounded a note of caution that in a case depending
largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 88 of 123
:: 89 ::
a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the
place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that
various circumstances in the chain of events have
been established clearly and such completed chain of
events must be such as to rule out a reasonable
likelihood of the innocence of the accused. It has also
been indicated that when the important link goes, the
chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other
circumstances cannot, in any manner, establish the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It
has been held that the Court has to be watchful and
avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the
place of legal proof for sometimes, unconsciously it
may happen to be a short step between moral
certainty and legal proof. It has been indicated by
this Court that there is a long mental distance
between “may be true” and “must be true” and the
same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.
[Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991) 3 SCC 27)]”
(emphasis supplied)
69. Since, the conspirators are tried jointly, therefore, in cases of
joint trial, there must be cogent and convincing evidence against
each of the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy as it is
difficult in tracing the precise contribution of each member. For the
purposes of considering the conduct of the accused so as to deduce
about his complicity with the other conspirators, a “rule of
caution” has been laid down. In a joint trial care must be taken to
separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the
judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence
admissible only against others. These words of caution were
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 89 of 123
:: 90 ::
delivered in the matter of State Vs. Nalini 1999 (5) SCC 253
wherein it was observed:
“There is a need to guard against prejudice being
caused to the accused on account of the joint trial
with other conspirators. The learned Judge observed
that “there is always difficulty in tracing the precise
contribution of each member of the conspiracy but
then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence
against each one of the accused charged with the
offence of conspiracy”.
70. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it
can be concluded that the condition precedent for holding the
accused persons to be guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy
must be considered on the anvil of the facts i.e. meeting of minds of
two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act
or an act by illegal means and the said facts must be established by
the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt either by direct or
circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must establish the entire
chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the angle of conspiracy. It
is equally correct that while drawing an inference from the material
brought on record to arrive at a finding as to whether the charge of
the criminal conspiracy has been proved or not, the court should
always bear in mind that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is
difficult to obtain direct evidence to establish the same. The
manner and circumstances in which the offence has been
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 90 of 123
:: 91 ::
committed and the role played by each of the accused is also
relevant to arrive at a finding about criminal conspiracy.
71. Coming back to the present case. It is the common argument
advanced by the Counsels of both the accused persons that
prosecution has failed to adduce any direct evidence to substantiate
that there was any meeting of minds between the public servant
and the private individual. It has been further submitted by them
that in the absence of direct evidence, the conspiracy could only be
established on the basis of such circumstantial evidence as to form
a chain of events leading to an irresistible conclusion about their
guilt but the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden.
The evidence on record, including the statements of witnesses and
the documents, need to be evaluated to ascertain whether the
prosecution has been able to establish the charge of conspiracy and
the substantive offences.
72. On perusing the record, I have reached a conclusion that
there is overwhelming evidence to show the meeting of mind
between A-1 S.K. Singh and A-2 Subhash Goel. It stands
established that complainant contacted A-2 on the basis of the
details mentioned in the handwritten slip (Ex.PW5/D). A-1 handed
over the said slip to the complainant and told him to handover the
bribe to A-2, whose phone number was mentioned on the slip. The
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 91 of 123
:: 92 ::
recorded conversations of 11.01.2022 show that on being told by
the complainant that he had managed to arrange a sum of Rs.1.70
lakhs, A-1 told him that he should handover the same to the person
at Karol Bagh. The recorded conversation of 12.01.2022 shows
that after talking to A-2, complainant informed A-1 that he had
contacted ‘Subhash Ji’ who had told him that he would be meeting
him tomorrow. In response thereof, A-1 replied ‘theek hai’ (okay).
The recorded conversation of 13.01.2022 demonstrates that A-2
was fully aware that he was accepting the bribe amount on behalf
of A-1. In the said conversation, A-2 enquired from the
complainant as to when would he pay the balance amount of
Rs.30,000/-. In response thereof, the complainant assured him that
he would be paying the balance amount by the next week. It has
also been proved that after accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1.70
lakhs, A-2 made a confirmation call to A-1 that the amount has
been received to which, he replied, “theek hai ji (okay)”. These
proved set of circumstances leave no scope for doubt that there was
meeting of mind of both the accused persons and they were acting
towards the common object of the criminal conspiracy. Each one of
them played his role in the conspiracy. A-1 demanded the bribe
from the complainant and told him that the amount should be
handed over to A-2. A-2 played his role by accepting the bribe on
behalf of A-1.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 92 of 123
:: 93 ::
73. In a case of criminal conspiracy, each one of the accused is
held accountable for the acts of the other which have been
committed in furtherance of the common object of the conspiracy.
It stands proved that both the accused persons entered into a
conspiracy and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the bribe was
received by A-2 on behalf of A-1. As observed earlier, there is
evidence to demonstrate that the complainant came in contact with
A-2 only on the basis of the phone number provided by A-1. There
is evidence to show that A-1 wrote the mobile number and the
name of A-2 on the slip and conveyed to the complainant that he
should meet that person to hand over the bribe. It was only on the
basis of the said slip that complainant called A-2 on 12.01.2022,
who told him that he should come on the next day. The
complainant went to the office of A-2 on 13.01.2022 on the basis of
the address disclosed by him over the phone call of 13.01.2022. On
the said day, as per the direction of A-1, complainant handed over
the bribe money of Rs.1.70 lakhs to A-2, who not only accepted it
on behalf of A-1 but also enquired about the balance amount of
Rs.30,000/-. During the conversation at his office, A-2 convinced
the complainant that he is doing a right thing by paying the bribe
and various other officials of the department were in collusion with
A-1. A-2 accepted the bribe and thereafter, informed A-1 that the
amount has been received and in response, A-1 replied in
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 93 of 123
:: 94 ::
affirmative by saying, “theek hai ji (okay)”. The proved chain of
facts and circumstances leads to an inescapable conclusion that the
accused persons were acting towards the common object of the
conspiracy. It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and they were
acting towards the common object of the criminal conspiracy.
Demand and Acceptance
74. It is a matter of common understanding that the ‘demand’
precedes the complaint of corruption. There is evidence to
establish that there was a background in which A-1 demanded the
bribe from the complainant. Complainant disclosed the said
background in his written complaint (Ex.PW10/A) and reiterated
the contents of the complaint in his testimony. He has categorically
mentioned that A-1 demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs for not taking
any action against his shed. He has conveyed that A-1 reiterated the
demand during the meeting on 11.01.2022. His deposition stands
corroborated from the recorded conversation (Q-1) whose
transcripts has been placed on record. It can be seen that during
this conversation, A-1 asked the complainant whether he has talked
with the person whose number was provided by him. Complainant
disclosed in this conversation to A-1 that he has managed to
arrange a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs and in response thereof, A-1 told
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 94 of 123
:: 95 ::
the complainant that he should pay the same to his contact at Karol
Bagh i.e. A-2 Subhash Goel.
75. It is not the requirement of Section 7 of The PC Act that the
demand should be always either be expressed or in a specific form.
The demand can be expressed by words, gestures, signs, indication
or even by adopting a clever methodology so that the purpose of
conveying the message is served. The making of demand is a
matter of understanding between the person who precedes to pay.
The demand may not be direct and categorical by the public person
but it should be clearly discernible from the evidence of his
conduct. It is also not the requirement of law that the ‘demand’
must always be proved by direct evidence. The element of demand
can also be established by circumstances surrounding the
transaction of acceptance or agreement to accept illegal
gratification. The inference from the facts and attending
circumstances must be natural, probable and based upon the
process of intelligent reasoning.
76. The testimony of the complainant, read in the light of the
transcripts of the recorded conversation and the background, as
narrated by the complainant, establish beyond reasonable doubt
that A-1 S.K. Singh demanded illegal gratification from the
complainant for not taking any action against his shed. There is
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 95 of 123
:: 96 ::
evidence to show that the officials from the DSIIDC pasted a show
cause notice at the shed of the complainant on 31.12.2021. PW-3
Satish Chandra Verma (employee of DSIIDC) has deposed that the
said notice was prepared by him at the instance of A-1 and this part
of his testimony has gone unrebutted. After the notice was pasted at
the shed, complainant met A-1 at his office and during this
meeting, A-1 demanded bribe from him for not taking the action.
Complainant has mentioned in the written complaint that during
this meeting, A-1 demanded the bribe and handed him over a slip
containing the name and phone number of A-2 Subhash Goel. It
can be seen from the record that complainant again met A-1 during
the verification proceedings on 11.01.2022 and in this meeting,
A-1 told him that he should hand over the money (bribe) to his
contact (Subhash) at Karol Bagh. The testimony of the
complainant and the recorded conversation of 11.01.2022 establish
this fact. Further, the testimonies of the complainant and
independent witnesses, read in the light of the recorded
conversation of 13.01.2022, establish that A-2 accepted the bribe
on behalf of A-1. The recovery stands duly proved. There is
evidence to show that after receiving the bribe from the
complainant, A-2 called A-1 on his mobile phone and conveyed
him that the bribe amount has been received by saying, “ye aye
hain 1.7”. This conversation was captured over the DVR and formsCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 96 of 123
:: 97 ::
part of Q-3. There is also evidence to establish that after being
apprehended, on the directions of the CBI officials, A-2 again
called on the mobile phone of A-1 and informed him that the bribe
amount has been received and in response thereof, A-1 replied,
“theek hai ji (okay)”. This conversation forms part of Q-4. Thus,
both the ingredients ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ stand proved.
Interested Witness
77. Counsels for the accused persons have challenged the
testimony of the complainant on the ground that he falls under the
category of an interested witness. Counsel for A-2 Subhash Goel
has argued that independent witnesses are perhaps stock witnesses
and no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. There is no
substance in the argument that the testimony of the complainant
should be disbelieved or discarded on the ground that he is an
interested witness. The testimony of a complainant cannot be
doubted merely on the ground that he is a person interested in the
success of the trap. Indeed, the testimony of the complainant needs
to be examined and scrutinised with caution but his testimony
cannot be discarded on this ground. More-so, when it does not
suffer from any infirmity and also stands corroborated from the
other material placed on record. It has been held in the matter of
Raju @ Balachandran and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2012
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 97 of 123
:: 98 ::
(12) SCC 701:
“… 29 The sum and substance is that the evidence of
a related or interested witness should be meticulous
and carefully examined. In a case where the related
and interested witness may have some enmity with
the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the
evidence of the witness would have to be examined
by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.
However, this is only a rule of prudence and not one
of law, as held in Dalip Singh [AIR 1963 SC 364]
and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh [(1976) 4
SCC 369] in the following words: (Sarwan Singh
case [ (1976) 4SCC 369, p.3376, para 10)“10 ……The evidence of an interested
witness does not suffer from any infirmity as
such, but the courts require as a rule of
prudence, to as a rule of law, that the
evidence of such witnesses should be
scrutinized with little care. Once that
approach is made and the court is satisfied
that the evidence of the witnesses has a ring
of truth such evidence could be relied upon
even without corroboration.”
78. The testimony of the complainant does not suffer from any
infirmity which may raise doubt over his credibility. He has given
an actual account of the incident and not tried to exaggerate the
facts. He did not conceal that arrears were due against the shed. He
admitted in cross-examination that arrears of Rs.8,88,324/- were
due against the shed and he did not pay the licence fee after
09.12.2021. He admitted that on a previous occasion, his
neighbour Ram Preet Yadav had lodged a complaint against A-1
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 98 of 123
:: 99 ::
S.K. Singh and he signed the said complaint as an attesting witness.
It can be seen from his testimony that he is an honest and truthful
witness who has given the actual account of the incident. His
testimony inspires confidence and does not suffer from any
infirmity. I find no reason to doubt the testimony of such a witness.
Contradictions and discrepancies
79. Much emphasis has been laid by the defence counsels on the
discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the
complainant and independent witnesses. Defence has also pointed
out some minor discrepancies and contradictions in the case of
prosecution. Counsel for A-2 has pointed out that PW-14 Sudesh
Kumar has deposed that the solution of hand washes was poured in
a polythene whereas the other witnesses have stated that the said
solution was poured into a glass bottle. It has been argued by the
counsel that there is evidence to suggest that the CBI officials tried
to execute the trap on 12.01.2022 but the trap failed and the
officials converted the proceedings into verification proceedings.
He has submitted that there is evidence to show that the
complainant brought the currency notes on 12.01.2022 and the
same were placed in his pocket on the said day after being treated
with phenolphthalein powder. He has mentioned that the
complainant as well as the independent witness Sudesh Kumar has
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 99 of 123
:: 100 ::
stated so but the prosecution has tried to project a case that the
currency notes were brought by the complainant on 13.01.2022. He
has submitted that the prosecution did not correctly record this fact
in the verification memo of 12.01.2022 and therefore, no reliance
can be placed on the said memo.
80. I find no merit in the argument that the testimony of
complaint and the independent witnesses should be discarded on
account of the above stated contradictions. Indeed, there is a minor
discrepancy in respect of the date on which the complainant
brought the currency notes but the testimony of the complainant
cannot be discarded because of the same. Complainant has
deposed that on the directions of the CBI officials, he brought the
currency notes to the CBI office on 12.01.2022. PW-14 Sudesh
Kumar has also deposed that complainant brought the currency
notes on 12.01.2022. It can be seen that there is a minor
contradiction in the statement of the complainant and the
independent witness about the custody of the currency notes.
Complainant has deposed that the currency notes kept lying with
the CBI officials on 12.01.2022 whereas the independent witness
has mentioned that the complainant took back the currency notes
on 12.01.2022 and brought them again on 13.01.2022. I am of the
considered opinion that these contradictions do not affect the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 100 of 123
:: 101 ::
outcome of the trap. The currency notes were used in the trap on
13.01.2022 and therefore, the fact that they were brought by the
complainant either on 12.01.2022 or on 13.01.2022 is immaterial.
Similarly, the fact that the currency notes either kept lying with the
CBI or were taken back by the complainant on 12.01.2022 is also
irrelevant as it has no bearing on the reliability of the trap
proceedings of 13.01.2022, which stands duly recorded in handing
over memo (Ex.PW10/C). Moreover, the complainant and the
independent witnesses have given exact account of the trap
proceedings of 13.01.2022 and their testimonies find corroboration
from the other material placed on record.
81. Defence has also pointed out some other minor
contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and argued that
his statement has become doubtful because of the said
contradictions. It has been pointed out by the counsel for A-2 that it
is the case of prosecution that during the verification proceedings
of 12.01.2022, complainant called on the mobile phone of A-2 on
two occasions and the calls remained unanswered but after a gap of
around 30 minutes, A-2 returned this call and the conversation took
place over the said call. Counsel has argued that the testimony of
the complainant contradicts this story as he has stated that he
called A-2 only once and the conversation took place over the said
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 101 of 123
:: 102 ::
phone call. He has pointed out that the independent witness has
deposed that complainant called twice on the mobile phone of A-2
but on each occasion, the call remained unanswered. Counsel has
submitted that this contradiction raises question mark over the
credibility of the complainant as well as independent witnesses.
82. Indeed, there are some minor contradictions in the statement
of the complainant about the number of calls and the date on which
the slip (Ex.PW5/D) was handed over to him by A-1 S.K. Singh. It
was the prosecution’s case that the said slip was handed over by
A-1 to the complainant on a prior occasion in a meeting that took
place before 11.01.2022 while the complainant has deposed that
the slip was handed over to him when he met A-1 during the
verification proceedings on 11.01.2022. It can be seen from the
record that complainant disclosed in the handwritten complaint
(Ex.PW10/A) that A-1 handed him over the slip during a prior
meeting at his office. He mentioned in the complaint that he met
A-1 at his office a few days prior to the lodging of the handwritten
complaint and during the said meeting, the slip was handed over by
A-1. Record shows that there is a time gap of around 22 months
between the date of incident and the time when the testimony of
the complainant was recorded. The incident of handing over of the
slip must have taken place somewhere in the month of January,
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 102 of 123
:: 103 ::
2022 (prior to 11.01.2022) whereas the testimony of the
complainant was recorded on 30.11.2023. It can be further seen
from the record that the complainant is an old man and his
testimony was recorded in parts on different dates i.e. 30.11.2023,
16.12.2023, 12.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. In view of these
circumstances, minor variations are bound to occur in his
testimony due to the time gap and natural lapse of memory. It is
settled proposition that minor contradictions do not dent the
reliability of a witness, who is otherwise honest and truthful.
83. It is noticed that none of the accused persons has disputed
the fact that complainant was carrying a slip containing the name
and the mobile number of A-2. Neither A-1 nor A-2 has put even a
single question to the witness during cross-examination to
challenge the existence of the said slip. It has been established that
complainant came in contact with A-2 only through the phone
number contained in the slip. Complainant has deposed that he
made a conversation on the phone number mentioned in the slip
and A-2 told him to come on the next day. It has been proved on
record that the phone number mentioned in the slip was that of
A-2. The CAF of the mobile number 9810016555 of A-2
(MarkPW7/1) has established the said fact. In these circumstances,
the minor contradictions about the number of calls and the date on
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 103 of 123
:: 104 ::
which the slip was handed over to the complainant are
inconsequential.
84. It is the settled proposition that minor contradictions and
irrelevant details which do not corrode the credibility of a witness
cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions. In appreciating
the testimony of a witness, the court is not required to adopt a
hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context
here and there from the testimony of a witness. Minor
discrepancies of trivial nature that do not touch the core of the case
do not affect the credibility of a witness. Similarly, the court is not
required to attach much importance to some technical error
committed by investigating officer which does not go to the root of
the matter. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the decisions
in the matters of State of U.P. Vs. M.K. Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48,
State Vs. Sarvanan & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152.
85. The Supreme Court of India cautioned about attaching too
much of importance on minor discrepancies in the evidence of
witnesses in the matter of Bharvada Bhoginbhai Hirabhai Vs.
State of Gujrat 1983 AIR 753 by making following observations:
“5. … We do not consider it appropriate or
permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or
reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the
minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by theCC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 104 of 123
:: 105 ::
learned counsel for the appellant. Overmuch
importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to
possess a photographic memory and to recall the
details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is
overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An
object or movement might emboss its image on one
person’s mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the
part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by
them or heard by them. They can only recall the main
purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect
a witness to be a human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make
their estimates by guess work on the spur of the
moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or reliable
estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the
time-sense of individuals which varies from person
to person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 105 of 123
:: 106 ::
accurately the sequence of events which takes place
in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness
is liable to get confused, or mixed up when
interrogated later on.
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing
cross- examination made by the counsel and out of
nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding
sequence of events, or fill up details from
imagination on the spur of the moment. The
subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so
operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or
being disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him–perhaps it is a sort of a
psychological defence mechanism activated on the
spur of the moment.”
86. It has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements
that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach
must be whether the evidence of a witness, read as a whole,
appears to have a ring of truth. Indeed, there are minor
contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and
independent witnesses but the same are inconsequential. Defence
has failed to point out any serious contradiction or discrepancy in
the testimonies of these witnesses which may go to the root of the
matter. On appreciating the testimonies of complainant and the
independent witnesses, I have reached a conclusion that they have
given an honest and truthful account of the verification and the trap
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 106 of 123
:: 107 ::
proceedings. The testimonies of independent witnesses cannot be
discarded by categorising them as stock witnesses. The
independent witnesses have supported and corroborated the
testimony of each other on all the material aspects. The minor
discrepancies, as pointed out by the defence counsels, are
immaterial.
Report of Chemical Examiner
87. Coming to the argument of the defence counsels about the
unreliability of the report of chemical examiner. Defence has
questioned the credibility of the CFSL report in respect of the hand
washes and table wash. Counsel for A-2 has mentioned that the
prosecution has set up a case that after being apprehended, hand
washes of A-2 were obtained and the solution of the right hand
wash turned pink while the solution of the left hand wash remained
colourless. He has submitted that besides the hand washes, the
table wash, where the accepted bribe money was allegedly kept by
A-2 was also taken and as per the story of prosecution, the said
solution also turned pink. He has mentioned that these facts stand
recorded in the handing over memo whereas the CFSL has
returned a finding that phenolphthalein powder was detected in all
the solutions. He has mentioned that this goes on to show that
CFSL report has been furnished in a mechanical manner to provide
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 107 of 123
:: 108 ::
legs to the prosecution’s case and in view thereof, serious doubts
have been casted over the prosecution’s story. I do not agree with
the said line of reasoning. It can be seen from the record that there
is a minor discrepancy between the handing over memo and the
testimonies of the spot witnesses in respect of the change of colour
of the solution of left hand wash of A-2. Complainant and
independent witnesses have deposed that there was a colour change
in the solutions of hand washes as well as table wash whereas it
stands recorded in the handing over memo that the solution of left
hand wash remained colourless.
88. Record shoes that PW-16 Vijay A. Desai (trap laying officer)
has deposed in tune with the facts recorded in the handing over
memo that the solution of the left hand wash remained colourless
while the solutions of the other washes turned pink. On the other
hand, the complainant and independent witnesses have deposed
that there was a change of colour in the solutions of all the washes.
I have considered this discrepancy in the light of the evidence
placed on record. It stands proved on record that A-2 was found
counting the currency notes at the time when the CBI officials
entered his cabin. The complainant, independent witnesses as well
as the officials of the CBI have stated so and their testimonies have
gone unrebutted on this aspect. It is a matter of common
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 108 of 123
:: 109 ::
understanding that it is not humanly possible to count the stack of
currency notes with a single hand. These circumstances indicate
that there was a strong likelihood of detecting the phenolphthalein
powder in both the hand washes. There is direct ocular evidence to
substantiate the prosecution’s story that the bribe was recovered
from the possession of A-2. In view of this, the discrepancy in the
testimonies of the spot witnesses about the change of colour of left
hand wash solution does not, in any manner, dents the
prosecution’s case. Admittedly, the evidence of hand washes and
table wash is a corroborative piece of evidence. I am of the
considered view that even if this evidence is discarded, still there is
sufficient evidence to conclude that the bribe money was handed
over to A-2 and the same was recovered from his possession. It may
be noted that A-2 has not denied that the complainant was carrying
a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs. He has tried to cover up the acceptance by
stating that complainant did not hand him over the money but
placed it on his table. The fact that after receiving the bribe amount
of Rs.1.70 lakhs, he conveyed about the same to A-1 over a phone
call, provides corroboration to the statements of complainant and
independent witnesses that the bribe was accepted by A-2. In these
circumstance, the evidence of the hand washes is not of much
significance. The discrepancy, as pointed out by the defence
counsel, has no bearing on the aspect of recovery.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 109 of 123
:: 110 ::
Minor Infirmities in the investigation
89. Defence Counsels have also pointed out some minor
infirmities in the investigation. It has also been argued by them that
there is an inordinate delay in the registration of FIR. Counsels
have submitted that although, the verification proceedings were
concluded on 12.01.2022 but the FIR was registered on 13.01.2022
and no explanation has been tendered for the said delay. Besides
this, it has been mentioned by the Counsel for A-2 that although,
there is evidence to suggest that the rough transcripts of the tape
recorded conversations were prepared but the same were not
placed on record. He has also raised question mark over the manner
in which the specimen voices were obtained. He has contended that
no reliance can be placed on the recorded conversation as the
specimen voice was not obtained in the prescribed manner. He has
also argued that the Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) was not
competent to carry out the verification in terms of Section 17 of
The PC Act. He has argued that at the time of carrying out the
verification proceedings, Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) was
posted as a Sub-Inspector in CBI and therefore, he was not
competent to carry out the investigation under Section 17 of The
PC Act, which mandates that the investigation cannot be carried
out by an officer below the rank of an Inspector. Counsel for A-1
has also pointed out similar infirmities in the investigation. He has
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 110 of 123
:: 111 ::
mentioned that the voice recordings do not contain the concluding
voice of the independent witnesses and therefore, the same are not
reliable. I find no substance in these arguments.
90. The Prevention of Corruption Act was intended to make
effective provisions for the prevention of bribery and corruption
rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation
intended to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is
designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object. The
provisions of the Act must receive such construction at the hands of
the court as would advance the object and purpose underlying the
Act and at any rate not defeat it. If the words of the statute are clear
and unambiguous, it is the duty of the court to give effect to the
natural meaning of the words used in the provision. Reliance in this
regard can be placed on the decisions in the matters of State of
M.P. v. Ram Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88 and R.S. Nayak v. A.R.
Antulay (1984) 2 CC 183.
91. The argument that the Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10)
was not competent to carry out the verification proceedings has no
merit. Section 17 of the PC Act prescribes that in the case
registered by CBI, the investigation shall not be carried out by a
police officer below the rank of an Inspector. It can be seen from
the record that Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) has only
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 111 of 123
:: 112 ::
carried out the verification proceedings but the investigation has
been carried out by Vijay A. Desai (PW-16), who was an Inspector
in CBI. In view of this, the argument that the investigating officer
was not competent to carry out the investigation deserves to be
rejected. Suresh Chandra Kushwaha (PW-10) has deposed that the
Superintendent of Police, CBI introduced him to the complainant
and marked him the complaint for verification. In view thereof, he
carried out the verification proceedings on 11.02.2022 and
submitted the verification report to his supervising officer. He has
deposed that on the directions of the supervising officer, he carried
out further verification proceedings on 12.02.2022 and again
submitted the report to the supervising officer. Thereafter, the FIR
was registered and the investigation was assigned to Vijay A. Desai
(PW-16), who was on the rank of an Inspector. In view of this, the
argument about the non-compliance of the provisions of Section
17 of The PC Act deserves to be rejected. No prejudice has been
caused to the accused persons merely because the verification
proceedings have been carried out by a Sub-Inspector of CBI.
92. The argument about the irregularity in obtaining the
specimen voices also does not hold ground. It can be seen that the
specimen voice of A-1 was taken in the presence of the
independent witnesses. The memory card on which the specimen
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 112 of 123
:: 113 ::
voice was obtained was duly sealed and the seal, after use, was
handed over to the independent witness. The independent witness
has deposed that the specimen voice was obtained in his presence
and the memory card was duly sealed. The voice of A-1 has been
identified by his superior Mahesh Arora (PW-11) not on the basis
of specimen voice but on the basis of the actual recorded
conversations and the competence of this witness to identify the
same has not been challenged. In these circumstances, the
argument about the irregularity in collecting the voice sample loses
relevance.
Delay in registration of FIR
93. There is no content in the argument that the prosecution case
should be doubted merely because there is delay in registration of
FIR. It is an admitted case of prosecution that the verification
proceedings were concluded on 12.01.2022 whereas FIR came to
be registered on the next day on 13.01.2022 at 10:00 AM. The
delay in lodging of an FIR cannot be regarded as a sufficient
ground to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution nor
could it be treated as fatal for the prosecution’s case. The court has
to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case. In case, the causes are not attributable to
concoct a version, mere delay by itself would not be fatal to the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 113 of 123
:: 114 ::
prosecution’s case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the
decisions in the matters of Ravinder Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of
Punjab 2001 (7) SCC 690 and Hari Prasad @ Kishan Sahu Vs.
State of Chhatisgarh Neutral Citation 2023 INSC 986.
94. In the present matter, after the allegations levelled by the
complainant were confirmed from the verification proceedings on
11.01.2022 and 12.01.2022, no effective proceedings could have
been done after the conclusion of the verification proceedings of
12.01.2022 as A-2 had directed the complainant to meet him on the
next day. In view of this, it cannot be concluded that the delay gave
any opportunity to the investigating agency for any possible
concoction of a false version. The delay cannot be considered as
fatal for the prosecution’s case. Similarly, the minor infirmities in
the investigation, pointed out by the defence counsels, also do not
affect the outcome of the trial. It has been held in the case of Paras
Yadav & ors. vs. State of Bihar 1999 (2) SCC 126, as under:
“8. .. the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer
should not be taken in favour of the accused, may be
that such lapse is committed designedly or because
of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is
required to be examined de hors such omissions to
find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not.
For this purpose, it would be worthwhile to quote the
following observations of this Court from the case of
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar and others, J.T.
(1998) 3 SC 290.
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 114 of 123
:: 115 ::
“In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have
to be examined de hors such omissions and
contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the
mischief which was deliberately done would be
perpetuated and justice would be denied to the
complainant party and this would obviously shake
the confidence of the people not merely in the law
enforcing agency but also in the administration of
justice.”
95. The above stated view point was reiterated by the Supreme
Court of India in a recent decision in the matter of Edakkandi
Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala Neutral
Citation 2025 INSC 28 wherein, it was observed that principle of
law is crystal clear that on account of defective investigation, the
benefit will not inure to the accused on that ground alone and it is
well within the domain of the courts to consider the rest of the
evidence gathered by the prosecution including the testimony of
eye witnesses and other relevant material. It was observed in this
matter that an accused cannot claim acquittal on the ground of
faulty investigation done by the prosecuting agency.
96. The evidence placed on record suggests that the
investigation could have been done in a more meticulous manner
but this in itself cannot be a ground to discard the other evidence
collected by the investigating agency. The testimonies of the
complainant and the independent witnesses establish the aspect of
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 115 of 123
:: 116 ::
‘demand’ as well as the ‘acceptance’ of the bribe. The testimonies
of the officials of DSIIDC have not only provided corroboration to
the statement of the complainant but also substantiated the
prosecution’s story. The reports of the handwriting expert and the
chemical examiner have provided further corroboration to the
statement of the complainant. The tape recorded conversations
have also corroborated the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. The CBI officials have also corroborated the testimony
of the complainant by deposing exactly on the same lines. They
have given a similar account of the verification and trap
proceedings. They have also supported the recovery.
No Adverse inference
97. It has also been argued on behalf of the accused persons that
the prosecution has failed to examine all the CBI officials who
participated in the trap proceedings and therefore, an adverse
inference needs to be drawn. I do not find force in these
submissions. The prosecution’s case cannot be disbelieved merely
because it has not examined all the members of the trap team. It is
the settled proposition that it is the quality of evidence which is
relevant in criminal trial and not the quantity. There is no rule of
evidence that the prosecution needs to examine all the witnesses
who have witnessed an incident. The prosecution has examined the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 116 of 123
:: 117 ::
complainant as well as independent witnesses who were present at
the spot during the trap proceedings. In addition to this, two CBI
officials, who were member of the trap team have also been
examined. These witnesses have given a detailed account of the
incident and each one of them has been cross-examined at length.
In these circumstances, there appears to be no reason to draw an
adverse inference merely because the prosecution has not
examined all the CBI officials.
Foundational facts stands proved
98. It is proved from the evidence placed on record that the
accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy and in
furtherance thereof, demanded and accepted illegal gratification
from the complainant. Once these foundational facts are
established, presumption under Section 20 of The PC Act
invariably arises to the effect that bribe was accepted by accused as
a motive or reward for giving favour in the matter in which
complainant has been interested. The presumption is of law and
has to be rebutted by proof and not just by explanation which may
seem to be plausible, although, the test of strict proof may not be
required.
99. It has been held in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State
of Maharashtra 2000 (8) SCC 571:
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 117 of 123
:: 118 ::
“The premise to be established on the facts for
drawing the presumption is that there was payment
or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise
is established the inference to be drawn is that the
said gratification was accepted ‘as motive or reward’
for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the
word ‘gratification’ need not be stretched to mean
reward because reward is the outcome of the
presumption which the court has to draw on the
factual premises that there was payment of
gratification. This will again be fortified by looking
at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to
each other like ‘gratification or any valuable thing’.
If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw
the presumption that it was accepted as motive or
reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act,
the word ‘gratification’ must be treated in the context
to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the
public servant who received it.”
100. In the case B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 2006 (12)
SCC 277, it has been held by Supreme Court :
“When it is proved that there was voluntary and
conscious acceptance of the money, there is no
further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by
direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to
be deduced from the facts and circumstances
obtained in the particular case ….”
Defence taken by accused persons
101. The accused persons have put forward a stereotype defence
that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. The
defence taken by A-1 is not only unbelievable but also absurd. A-1
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 118 of 123
:: 119 ::
came up with a story that complainant was in huge arrears of
licence fee and he falsely implicated him to avoid the payment. I
fail to understand as to how the complainant would have succeeded
in avoiding the payment of the licence fee by implicating A-1 in the
present case. Indeed, there is evidence to show that DSIIDC has
not recovered the arrears of licence fee from the complainant but
there is nothing on record to show that the department was
impeded to recover the arrears on account of the present case. It is a
matter of common understanding, which the complainant might be
surely aware of that any other officer of DSIIDC could have
continued with the proceedings of recovering the licence fee even
after the arrest of A-1. In such circumstances, the stereotype
defence of false implication deserves to be rejected.
102. Record shows that accused persons took the line of defence
during the trial that complainant approached A-2 for preparing the
documents of the shed. The answers given by the accused persons
in the questions put to them in the statements recorded under
Section 313 of Cr. P.C. also point in that direction. A-2 did not
dispute that on 13.01.2022, complainant brought a sum of Rs.1.70
lakhs at his office. He has conveyed that he was under an
impression that the said amount was the consideration for
preparing the documents of the shed. A-1 has admitted in his
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 119 of 123
:: 120 ::
testimony as a defence witness that A-2 was known to him. He has
tried to convey that A-2 used to help him in recovering the arrears
of licence fee from various allottees of sheds. He has admitted
having met the complainant at his office in the month of January,
2022. He has admitted that he referred the complainant to A-2. He
has conveyed that in the meeting at his office, he told the
complainant that A-2 could be helpful in preparing the documents
of the shed. He has deposed that he told the complainant that A-2
can take out the date of the allotment letter from the old list at the
office of his Association. He has deposed that he told the
complainant that A-2 can be found present at the flatted factory
complex at Karol Bagh. He has admitted having received the call of
the complainant on 12.01.2022 and the call of A-2 on 13.01.2022.
He has also admitted his conversation with PW-3 Satish Chandra
Verma on 11.01.2022. He has admitted that A-2 disclosed him over
the phone call of 13.01.2022 that he has received a sum of Rs.1.70
lakhs. He has conveyed that there was nothing unusual about this
call as A-2 often used to give him such information after receiving
the arrears from the shed owners.
103. It is apparent from the testimony of A-1 that he has
hopelessly tried to cover up his guilt by presenting an illogical
explanation. In what capacity, A-2 was collecting the arrears of
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 120 of 123
:: 121 ::
licence fee on behalf of DSIIDC? In what capacity he would have
prepared the documents of the shed of the complainant as he was
neither the owner nor the registered allottee of the said shed? On
the one hand, A-1 has deposed that on the information given by
A-2 that he had received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs, he got an
impression that the amount has been received towards the arrears
of the shed, while on the other hand, A-2 has deposed that he was
under an impression that the amount was a consideration for
preparing the documents. It is not possible to reconcile these
contradictory versions. The reasons are obvious. The accused
persons are trying to project a false story to wriggle out of their
wrong but they have failed to do so. It can be seen that after A-2
conveyed A-1 that he has received a sum of Rs.1.70 lakhs, A-1
made no further enquiries from him and simply replied, “theek hai
ji (okay)”. This goes on to show that there was a meeting of mind
between both the accused persons. A-2 fully knew at the time of
accepting the money that he was accepting it as a bribe on behalf of
A-1. On receiving the telephonic message from A-2, A-1 was fully
aware and certain that the bribe money has been received and it
was because of this reason that he did not make any further
enquiries from A-2.
104. It can be seen that A-1 has tried to cleverly cover up the
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 121 of 123
:: 122 ::
verification as well as the trap proceedings but while doing so, he
has almost admitted the entire case of the prosecution. He admitted
his meeting with the complainant and also admitted that during
this meeting, he disclosed the complainant about A-2. He admitted
that he had written the phone number and the name of A-2 on a slip
but deposed that the same was not handed over by him to
complainant. He stated that the complainant might have got hold of
the said slip from his subordinate. He admitted that a conversation
took place between him and the complainant on 11.01.2022. He
admitted that complainant made him a phone call on 12.01.2022
and informed him that A-2 was not present at his office. He also
admitted that after receiving the bribe money, A-2 connected a call
to him and disclosed him over this call that he had received a sum
of Rs.1.70 lakhs and he replied, “theek hai ji (okay)”. The
admissions can be found in his testimony recorded as DW-1. The
admissions serve as an addition piece of evidence to corroborate
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and further fortifies
the conclusion that A-1 committed the alleged offence.
Conclusion
105. In view of the discussion made in the aforesaid paras, I have
reached a conclusion that prosecution has established beyond
reasonable doubt that A-1 S.K. Singh, a public servant and A-2
CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 122 of 123
:: 123 ::
Subhash Goel, a private individual, hatched a criminal conspiracy
to demand and accept bribe from the complainant and acting in
furtherance of the said conspiracy, A-1 committed an offence
punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act read with Section 120B
of IPC. It has been established that A-1 demanded the bribe from
the complainant which was accepted on his behalf by A-2.
Explanation-2(ii) of Section 7 of The PC Act clarifies that it shall
be immaterial whether the public servant obtains or accepts the
undue advantage directly or through a third party. The judgments
relied upon by the accused persons are distinguishable as the facts
of the present case are on different footing and there is
overwhelming evidence to establish the charges. Thus, the charges
stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. A-1 S.K. Singh and A-2
Subhash Goel stand convicted for committing an offence under
Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 of The PC Act and A-1
S.K. Singh also stands convicted for committing an offence
punishable under Section 7 of The PC Act.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court
by SUDHANSHU
SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK
KAUSHIK
on this 29th day of May, 2025
Date: 2025.05.29
15:22:22 +0530(Sudhanshu Kaushik)
Special Judge (PC Act)/ CBI-11
Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
29.05.2025CC No. 45/22
CBI Vs. S.K. Singh & Anr. Page No. 123 of 123