Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Bhagwan Etc on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000148-2022
C.C. No. 18/2022
FIR No. 03/2016
U/S: 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 120B IPC
PS: Anti Corruption Branch
State
Versus
1) Jai Bhagwan,
S/o Late Sh. Randhir Singh,
R/o H.No. 49, Near Khatu Shyam Mandir,
PO & Village Dhulsaris, Dwarka, Sector-24,
New Delhi.
2) Harpal Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander,
R/o H.No. D-143, West Vinod Nagar,
Delhi-110092.
3) Rajbir Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Dharam Singh,
R/o H.No. RZ-262/63,
New Roshanpura, X-Block,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2022
Date of Arguments : 18.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2025
Appearance :
For the State : Sh. Sukhbeer Singh,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 1 of 72
For accused persons : Sh. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel
for accused Jai Bhagwan and
Harpal.
: Sh. Satyakam Saini , ld. counsel
for accused Rajbir.
JUDGMENT
1) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2015 a
complaint of one Pramod Kumar was received at PS ACB
wherein it was stated that on 11.11.2015 he was going in his
vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383 alongwith the
driver. The vehicle was loaded with dust and was going from
Haryana via Delhi. On the way at South Extension at about
02.00 am, one team of Enforcement Department was checking
the vehicles on the Ring Road. One Head Constable signalled to
stop the vehicle at which his driver stopped it. The Head
Constable misbehaved with them, at which the complainant
switched on the recording on his mobile phone, at which the
Head Constable told them to break their head and he also
screamed. His name mentioned on the name plate was Harpal.
Upon seeing his behaviour, one ASI quickly came there who also
spoke rudely and the name indicated on his name plate was Jai
Bhagwan, who called one Rajbir. Rajbir came there running and
ASI Jai Bhagwan signalled by two fingers and told him to get the
vehicle weighed (Kata Karao). Thereafter Rajbir, who was
wearing plain clothes, told them that it was Diwali festival and
signalled with fingers that Rs. 2,000/- will be required and that
Jai Bhagwan would not agree as he was stubborn. At this the
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 2 of 72
complainant went to Jai Bhagwan alongwith Rajbir and handed
over Rs. 2,000/- to him, then he allowed them to leave.
2) The complainant further alleged that on 20.11.2015
he took the sting audio to the office of EO/HQ Kuljeet Singh and
met him and tried to make him listen to the audio recording,
however, he refused and asked him to tell his complaint verbally.
The complainant immediately switched on his phone recording.
After some time EO Joginder Singh was called via intercom and
the complainant told the entire incident to them that they were
given the rate of Rs.2000/- to leave the vehicle, at which EO
Joginder Singh also told that he also used to check the vehicles
on road and leave the vehicle for Rs. 200/- or Rs.300/- for
overloading and Rs. 2000/- was not the rate for overloading.
Both the EOs spoke to the complainant for 50-55 minutes and
agreed that no one charged Rs. 2000/- for overloaded vehicle or
used to take lessor amount. Subsequently, Joginder called the
complainant on 26.11.2015 at 03.00 pm and Kuljeet Singh told
the complainant to bring the photograph of private persons. The
complainant stated that corruption was going on due to
connivance. He also enclosed the sting operation dated
11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 in a CD alongwith the complaint for
appropriate action. On the basis of the abovesaid complaint Ex.
PW2/A the present FIR Ex. PW1/A was registered on 11.02.2016
under Section 7/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act
(hereinafter referred as PC Act) r/w Section 120B IPC.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 3 of 72
3) The investigation was handed over to Insp. Satender
Vashisht. On 02.03.2016 the complainant handed over a micro
SD card containing the recording dated 11.11.2015 and
20.11.2015 alongwith two copies of the recording in video CD
alongwith transcription of the recording, which was seized by the
IO in the presence of panch witness Sh. Satish Kumar. The same
was deposited in the malkhana at PS Civil Lines. The aforesaid
exhibit i.e. one micro SD card, two CDs marked as CD-1 and
CD-II alongwith sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini. The FSL
result was obtained on 19.07.2017, as per which there was no
indication of alteration in the video files on the basis of frame-
by-frame analysis. Subsequently, the voice samples of accused
HC Harpal Singh, Rajbir Singh and ASI Jai Bhagwan were taken
at FSL Rohini in the presence of panch witness Omvir Singh and
were seized by the IO and deposited in the malkhana.
Subsequently, the exhibits i.e. one micro SD card, two CDs and
voice samples of all the three accused persons were sent to FSL
Rohini for evaluation and analysis. The FSL result was obtained
on 24.05.2018 as per which the voice of speaker Marked -Q1
and Q3 in the questioned recording was stated to be the voice of
same person i.e. Rajbir and Harpal respectively. The voice of
speaker Marked-Q2 in the questioned recording and the sample
voice of accused Jai Bhagwan was stated to be possible voice of
same person i.e. Jai Bhagwan.
4) Since the voice sample of the complainant was not
taken and his signatures were not obtained on the transcription,
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 4 of 72
therefore, on 23.09.2019 the complainant joined the investigation
in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu Bhakt. In the
presence of panch witness one CD from the case file which was
received by ACB from Harjinder Singh, Chief Editor, The
Patriots of India, dated 03.12.2015, was played on the office
computer and compared with the transcription provided by the
complainant alongwith the complaint and found correct. The
complainant and the panch witness signed on the CD and the
transcription on the last page. The sample voice of the
complainant was obtained and subsequently his voice sample
alongwith the questioned exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. As
per the FSL report dated 17.02.2021 the voice of the speaker
Marked Exhibit Q-1 and Exhibit X-1 was voice of the same
person i.e. Pramod Kumar.
5) Posting details of the accused persons and Duty
Rosters were obtained from the office of Enforcement
Department. Sanction under Section 19 of PC Act was obtained
against the accused persons and after completion of necessary
investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused ASI Jai
Bhagwan, HC Harpal Singh and driver Rajbir Singh under
Section 7/13(1)(d) PC Act (hereinafter referred to as PC Act)
punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act r/w Section 120B IPC.
Cognizance of offence was taken against all three the accused
persons. Thereafter, accused persons were summoned and after
hearing arguments, accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan, Harpal
Singh and Rajbir Singh were charged for the offences under
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 5 of 72
section 120-B IPC and under section 7 & 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act,
punishable under section 13(2) P.C.Act, read with Section 120-B
IPC. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined
24 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution
witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 SI Sukhdev – Duty Officer, who recorded FIR
Ex. PW1/A on 11.02.2016, at about 01:15 pm on the basis of
rukka given by Insp. Satender Vashisth. He also made his
endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that he
handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to Insp. Satender
Vashisth for further investigation. PW1 further deposed that due
to clerical mistake, inadvertently he mentioned the date of DD
no. 10 as 11.02.2015 instead of 11.02.2016 on his endorsement
Ex.PW1/B i.e. at point X1.
ii) PW2 Pramod Kumar - the complainant. iii) PW3 SI Bhoop Singh collected the FSL result from
FSL, Rohini, and collected three sealed parcels duly sealed with
the seal of FSL and deposited the same with the MHC(M), PS
Civil Lines and he handed over the FSL result to the IO.
iv) PW4 ASI Vinay Pal Singh was the MHC(M), PS
Civil Lines. He deposed that On 02.03.2016, Insp. Satender
Vashisth deposited one sealed pulanda and two yellow colourCC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 6 of 72
envelopes duly sealed with the seal of SV, one sample seal of SV
alongwith two memos and he deposited the case property vide
entry in Register no. 19 Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that on
15.05.2017, sealed exhibits alongwith two sample seals were sent
to FSL, Rohini for examination through ASI Sanjay, vide RC no.
58/21/17 Ex.PW4/B and after depositing the case property
acknowledgment Ex. PW4/C was handed over to him.
v) PW5 HC Jitender – MHC(M), PS Civil Lines. He
deposed that on 20.11.2017, as per the directions of the IO, he
sent the sealed exhibits to FSL, Rohini for examination through
Ct. Ajit Singh, vide RC no.160/21/17 Ex.PW5/A and after
depositing the case property acknowledgment Ex. PW5/B was
handed over to him. PW5 further deposed that on 23.10.2017,
Insp. Yashpal Singh deposited one sealed envelope sealed with
the seal of YP alongwith sample seal and copy of seizure memo
and he made entry in Register no. 19 at serial no. 13/1034
Ex.PW5/C.
vi) PW6 V.D. Sharma deposed that on 29.03.2016, he
was posted as Enforcement Officer, Transport Department,
GNCT of Delhi, and pursuant to letter of IO Insp. Satender
Vashisth U/s 91 Cr.P.C., he provided the requisite information
and documents related to accused persons as well as of Sh.
Kuljeet Singh and Sh. Joginder Singh, Enforcement Officer, vide
his reply alongwith attested copies of the documents Ex.PW6/A
(colly).
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 7 of 72
vii) PW7 Geetesh Patel, Assistant Chemical Examiner
(Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, who proved his reports Ex.
PW7/A, PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C. He also correctly identified the
case property Ex. PW7/Article-1, Ex. PW7/Article-2 and Ex.
PW7/Article-3 before the court.
vii.a) PW7 deposed that on 15.05.2017, three sealed
parcels were received by him on 19.05.2017 from case section of
Physics Division, FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
vii.b) PW7 further deposed that a cloth parcel-1 sealed
with the seal of S.V at three places stated to be containing a
micro SD card was opened and one micro SD card was found
and it was marked as Exhibit-1 by him. Micro SD card of
Sandisk make was found containing relevant folder namely “asa”
having recordings in two video files namely “MOV0210A.avi”
and “MOV0218A.avi”.
vii.c) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-2 i.e. one envelope
sealed with the seal of S.V at five places was opened and it was
found containing CD marked “CD-I” and it was marked as
Exhibit-2 by him. The said CD-R of ‘Writex’ make contained
recordings in two video files namely “MOV0210A.avi” and
“MOV0218A.avi”.
vii.d) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-3 i.e. one envelope
sealed with the seal of S.V at five places was opened and it was
found containing CD marked “CD-II” and it was marked as
Exhibit-3 by him. The said CD-R of ‘Writex’ make contained
recordings in two video files namely “01.mp4” and “02.mp4”.
vii.e) PW7 further deposed that on detailed examination,
he gave detailed report Ex.PW7/A to the effect that (i) The
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 8 of 72
laboratory examination of recordings in video files in Exhibit-2
and Exhibit-3, there was no indication of alteration, on the basis
of frame by frame analysis using video analyst system and (ii)
On content analysis of recording confined in Exhibit-2 and
Exhibit-3 were found to be same as Exhibit-1.
vii.f) PW7 deposed that after examination, exhibits were
resealed with the seal of FSL x G:P x DELHI and sent to the
forwarding authority alongwith his report.
vii.g) PW7 further deposed that on 20.11.2017, four sealed
parcels were received in the case section of Physics Division,
FSL and same were assigned to him for examination. Parcel-1
was found containing one micro SD card bearing his seal i.e.
FSL x G:P x DELHI which was already marked by him as
Exhibit-1 containing two video files i.e. “MOV0210A.avi” and
“MOV0218A.avi” and Parcel-2 was also sealed with his seal and
it found containing one CD-R of Writex which was already
marked by him as Exhibit-2 having two video files i.e.
“MOV0210A.avi” and “MOV0218A.avi”. PW7 further deposed
hat Parcel-3 was also sealed with his seal and it found containing
Exhibit-3 i.e. CD-R of Writex containing two video files i.e.
“01.mp4” and “02.mp4”. Parcel-4 was sealed with the seal of YP
containing three audio cassettes which were marked as
Exhibit-4/A, Exhibit-4/B and Exhibit-4/C respectively.
Exhibit-4/A was one audio cassette of SONY make containing
recording specimen speech sample of speaker Rajbir Singh
which was marked as Exhibit-S1. Exhibit-4/B was one audio
cassette of T-Series make containing recording specimen speech
sample of speaker Jai Bhagwan which was marked as Exhibit-S2.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 9 of 72
Exhibit-4/C was one audio cassette of SONY make containing
recording specimen speech sample of speaker Harpal which was
marked as Exhibit-S3. PW7 further deposed that he examined
the exhibits in the laboratory and gave his detailed report
Ex.PW7/B. After examining the exhibits the same were sealed
with the seal of FSL x G:P x DELHI and sent to the forwarding
authority through laboratory.
vii.h) In the report Ex. PW7/B, it is opined that (a) the
voice exhibits of speakers marked “Exhibit-Q1” and “Exhibit-
S1” are voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Rajveer); (b) the voice
exhibits of speakers marked “Exhibit-Q2” and “Exhibit-S2” are
possible voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Jai Bhagwan) and (c) the
voice exhibits of speakers marked “Exhibit-Q3” and “Exhibit-
S3” are voice of same persons (i.e. Sh. Harpal).
vii.i) PW7 further deposed that on 11.12.2019, four sealed
parcels were received in section of Physics Division, FSL and
same were assigned to him for examination.
vii.j) PW7 further deposed that Parcel-1 was found
containing micro SD card of ‘Sandisk’ make and it was found
containing a relevant folder “asa” having audio-video recording
in relevant video file namely “MOV0210A.avi” and same was
marked as Exhibit-1 in the laboratory.
vii.k) Parcel-2 was found containing one CD-R of
‘Writex’ make containing audio-video recording in relevant
video file namely “MOV0210A.avi” and the recording was found
to be same as in Exhibit-1 on the basis of their hash algorithm
and the CD was marked as Exhibit-2.
vii.l) Parcel-3 was found containing one CD-R of
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 10 of 72
‘Writex’ make containing audio-video recording in relevant
video file namely “01.mp4” and the contents of the recording
were found to be same with the recording in Exhibit-1 and
Exhibit-2 on the basis of their content analysis and the CD was
marked as Exhibit-3 in the laboratory.
vii.m) Parcel-4 was found containing one audio cassette of
‘Wave’ containing recorded specimen speech sample of the
speaker namely “Pramod Kumar”. The speaker was marked as
Exhibit-S1 in the laboratory and the audio cassette was marked
as Exhibit-4 in the laboratory.
vii.n) PW7 examined the exhibits and gave his opinion
that the voice exhibit of speaker marked “Exhibit-Q1” and
“Exhibit-S1” are voices of same person (i.e. Sh. Pramod Kumar).
His detailed report is Ex.PW7/C.
vii.o) PW7 correctly identified the case property i.e. micro
SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2, audio cassette containing voice
sample of Pramod Kumar Ex.PW2/Article-8, audio cassette
containing voice sample of Rajbir Singh Ex.PW7/Article-1,
audio cassette containing voice sample of Jai Bhagwan
Ex.PW7/Article-2 and audio cassette containing voice sample of
Harpal Ex.PW7/Article-3, as the same which were examined by
him and as mentioned in his reports Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C.
vii.p) CD Ex. PW2/Article-4, containing two files i.e.
MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi was played on the court
computer and after seeing the CD, PW7 stated that the same was
examined by him. CD Ex.PW2/Article-6 containing two files
01.mp4 and 02.mp4 was played on the court computer and after
seeing the CD, PW7 stated that the same was examined by him in
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 11 of 72
the laboratory.
viii) PW8 Naveen – the panch witness in respect of
taking of specimen voice sample of the complainant Pramod
Kumar by the FSL expert at FSL, Rohini, in the presence of IO
Insp. Praveen Kumar on 19.11.2019, which was seized by IO
vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. He correctly identified audio
cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8.
ix) PW9 Arvind – driver of complainant Pramod Kumar
(PW2) and an eye witness of the incident.
x) PW10 Satish Kumar – the panch witness. He
deposed that on 02.03.2016 complainant Pramod Kumar S/o Sh.
Surender Pal was present at ACB in the office of IO/ Insp.
Satender Vashisth and in his presence, complainant handed over
one micro SD card, two CDs and one transcript to IO. The CDs
were marked as CD-1 and CD-2 and kept in separate yellow
envelopes, which were marked as Mark-1 and Mark-2 and sealed
with seal of SV and seized the same vide seizure memos
Ex.PW2/C. He further deposed that micro SD card was kept in
an empty match box and converted the same into a white colour
pulanda and sealed with the seal of SV and seized the same vide
seizure memo Ex.PW2/B.
x.a) On a leading questions put to PW10 by Ld. Chief
P.P. for the State, he stated that he did not remember if the CDs
brought by complainant were also played by IO Insp. Satender
Vashishth on his office computer in his presence. He denied that
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 12 of 72
IO had given seal of SV after use to him.
x.b) PW10 correctly identified the micro SD card
Ex.PW2/Article-2, CD marked CD-1 Ex.PW2/Article-4 and CD
marked CD-II Ex.PW2/Article-6.
xi) PW11 Ombeer Singh – panch witness of voice
sample of accused persons deposed that on 23.10.2017, at 09:00
am, at ACB, Insp. Yashpal Singh introduced him with Jai
Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajvir Singh and obtained their
consent for the voice sample vide memos Ex.PW11/A (ASI Jai
Bhagwan), Ex.PW11/B (Rajbir Singh) and Ex.PW11/C (Harpal
Singh). He correctly identified all three accused persons before
the court. Thereafter, they all went to FSL, Rohini in Physics
Department and the official of FSL recorded the sample voices of
all the three accused persons in the audio cassettes and prepared
three original audio cassettes containing voice samples and three
copies of those cassettes and handed over the same to Insp.
Yahpal Singh, who kept the three audio cassettes in envelope and
took the same into police possession vide seizure memos
Ex.PW11/D1 and Ex.PW11/D2. His signatures were also
obtained on the audio cassettes. He correctly identified those
three audio cassettes Ex.PW7/Article-1 (of accused Rajbir), Ex.
PW7/Article-2 (of accused Jai Bhagwan) and Ex.PW7/Article-3
(of accused Harpal) before the court.
xii) PW12 Lal Babu Bhakt – panch witness of the
proceedings dated 23.09.2019 relating to verification of
transcript, deposed that on 23.09.2019, at about 11.00 am, at
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 13 of 72
ACB, one Pramod Kumar came at the room of Insp. Praveen and
Insp. Praveen played one CD on his office computer and it was
shown to him and a transcript was also shown. The contents of
the CD were similar with the contents of transcript. PW12 put his
signature on the transcripts Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F after
hearing the conversation of the CD. He correctly identified his
signatures on the CD Ex.PW12/Article-1 as the same CD which
was played by the IO on 23.09.2019 for comparing the contents
of recording with transcripts Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F.
xiii) PW13 ASI Jitender Kumar deposed that on
24.05.2018, on direction of IO Insp. Yashpal Singh he went to
FSL, Rohini and received sealed envelope containing FSL result,
which he handed over IO Insp. Yashpal Singh.
xiv) PW14 SI Sanjay Yadav deposed that on 15.05.2017,
on the direction of the IO, he took the sealed exhibits alongwith
sample seal from MHC(M) vide Road Certificate Ex.PW4/B and
deposited the same at FSL, Rohini and after depositing the
exhibits, he handed over the acknowledgment Ex.PW14/A of
case acceptance to MHC(M), PS Civil Lines.
xv) PW15 HC Ajit Singh deposed that on 20.11.2017,
on the direction of IO, he collected the sealed exhibits alongwith
sample seal from MHC(M), PS Civil Lines alongwith forwarding
letter with Road Certificate Ex.PW5/A, which he deposited at
FSL, Rohini, Delhi. After depositing the sealed exhibits, he
obtained the acknowledgment Ex.PW15/A, which he handed
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 14 of 72
over to MHC(M).
xvi) PW16 ASI Mukesh deposed that on 11.12.2019, on
the direction of Insp. Praveen Kumar, he collected the sealed
exhibits from MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, vide Road Certificate
Ex.PW16/A and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini. He
obtained case acceptance acknowledgment Ex.PW16/B from
FSL, Rohini, which he handed over to MHC(M).
xvii) PW17 Praveen Banjare deposed that on 09.02.2022,
he was posted as Depot Manager at Hari Nagar Depot, Delhi and
received a request letter of Dy. Vigilance Officer for grant of
sanction U/s 19 of PC Act against accused Rajbir Singh, who
was posted as driver in DTC and was posted in STA in diverted
capacity. He perused the material placed before him and after
applying his mind, being competent authority to remove said
Rajbir Singh, accorded sanction Ex.PW17/A U/s 19 of PC Act
against accused Rajbir Singh, who had already retired in the year
2019 from the services being medically unfit for the post of
driver.
xviii) PW18 ASI Baljeet Singh – MHC(M) deposed that
on 11.12.2019, the exhibits of this case were sent to FSL,
Rohini, vide RC no. 207/21/19 Ex.PW16/A through ASI Mukesh
who after depositing the exhibits had come back to PS and had
given him acknowledgment Ex.PW16/B obtained from the office
of FSL, Rohini. PW18 further deposed that on 19.11.2019, Insp.
Praveen had deposited two pulandas of cassettes of the voice
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 15 of 72
sample which he deposited vide entry no. 1100 dated 19.11.2019
Ex.PW18/A in register no. 19, in his handwriting.
xix) PW19 Insp. Satender Vashisth – first IO deposed
that on 11.02.2016, he received a complaint dated 23.11.2015
Ex.PW2/A of one Parmod Kumar and after taking approval from
competent authority, he prepared rukka Ex.PW19/A and got
registered the FIR and the DO handed over him original rukka
and copy of FIR.
xix.a) PW19 further deposed that on 12.02.2016, he called
the complainant to his office and informed him about the
registration of FIR. On 02.03.2016, complainant came to his
office and handed over him one micro SD card stating that the
said micro SD card contained recordings of some conversations
between him and officials of Transport Authority. In the
presence of panch witness Sh. Satish Kumar, PW19 seized the
said micro SD card vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. PW19
further deposed that complainant also handed over him two CDs
alongwith two transcripts dated 11.11.2015 Ex.PW2/E and
20.11.2015 Ex.PW2/F, stating that the said CDs also contained
the recordings of some conversations between him and the
officials of Transport Authority. PW19 played both the CDs on
his office computer at ACB and checked that the contents of the
CDs matched with the contents of transcripts and seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. Complainant also handed over the
certificate U/s 65B of I.E. Act Ex.PW2/D with regard to micro
SD card and the two CDs. PW19 recorded statements of
complainant Pramod Kumar and panch witness Satish Kumar U/s
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 16 of 72
161 Cr.P.C. PW19 deposited the case property in the Malkhana
of PS Civil Lines. PW19 further deposed that upon a notice
served upon the Transport Authority at Under Hill Road, Delhi,
they gave information regarding the transfer posting orders of
alleged persons vide reply Ex.PW6/A.
xix.b) PW19 correctly identified before court the case
property i.e. one micro SD card Ex.PW2/Article-2 as the same
which was handed over to him by the complainant on
02.03.2016, in which complainant had made the recordings. CD
Ex.PW2/Article-4 containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and
MOV0218A.avi and CD Ex.PW2/Article-6 containing two files
01.mp4 and 02.mp4 were played in the computer of court room
and after hearing the same he stated that the contents of the CDs
are the same which he had checked on the computer of his office
at ACB.
xx) PW20 Ashish Kundra, Principal Secretary,
Transport, Govt. of Delhi, Delhi, deposed that on 03.12.2021,
ACP of ACB sent a request letter alongwith documents for
obtaining sanction against accused Jai Bhagwan, Assistant Sub-
Inspector and Harpal Singh, Head Constable. He perused all the
documents carefully, which revealed that there was enough
material for launching prosecution against the accused ASI Jai
Bhagwan and HC Harpal Singh. He being the competent
authority, accorded the prosecution sanction on 17.02.2022
against ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal Singh U/s 19 of PC Act
1988 (and its amendments) vide Ex.PW20/A.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 17 of 72
xxi) PW21 ACP Dr. Rakesh Kumar – second IO deposed
that he sent notice to Sh. Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Pal
Singh for joining investigation but he did not join the
investigation. PW21 further deposed that on 15.05.2017, sealed
exhibits of the present case i.e. one micro SD card, one CD
containing audio-video file marked as CD-1, one CD marked as
CD-2 containing audio-video file and sample seal of SV were
sent to FSL, Rohini through ASI Sanjay Yadav.
xxii) PW22 Parminder – the helper on the vehicle no.
HR-55S-3383 (duster truck).
xxiii) PW23 Retired Insp. Yashpal Singh – third IO
deposed that on 18.07.2017 further investigation of this case was
marked to him. On 19.08.2017, SI Bhoop Singh handed over
FSL result alongwith CD, which he deposited with the MHC(M),
PS Civil Lines. He further deposed that on 23.10.2017, he
obtained the sealed envelope alongwith six empty audio cassettes
from MHC(M) and thereafter, he alongwith panch witness Ombir
Singh, MHC(M) HC Jitender and three accused persons namely
HC Harpal, Driver Rajbir and ASI Jai Bhagwan went to FSL,
Rohini, where FSL authority recorded voice sample of all the
three accused persons after taking their consent in the presence of
panch witness vide consent memo Ex. PW11/A of accused Jai
Bhagwan, consent memo Ex.PW11/B of accused Rajbir Singh
and consent memo Ex.PW11/C of accused Harpal. After
recording voice samples of all the three accused persons, the FSL
authority handed over three cassettes separately containing voice
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 18 of 72
samples of aforesaid three accused persons as well as three
cassettes of voice samples of aforesaid three accused persons for
office copy. PW23 further deposed that aforesaid three original
audio cassettes containing voice samples of accused persons
were kept in an envelope, sealed and seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW11/D1. Three audio cassettes (office copy) containing
voice samples of accused persons were kept in an envelope,
sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/D2. PW23
handed over both the sealed envelopes to HC Jitender, MHC(M)
to keep the aforesaid exhibits in safe custody in Malkhana. PW23
further deposed that on 24.05.2018, he received the FSL result
from Physics Department through HC Jitender, MHC(M).
xxiii.a) PW23 correctly identified three audio cassettes
containing sample voice of three accused persons i.e.
Ex.PW7/Article-1 (of accused Rajbir Singh), Ex.PW7/Article-2
(of accused Jai Bhagwan) and Ex.PW7/Article-3 (of accused
Harpal).
xxiv) PW24 Insp. Praveen Kumar – fourth IO deposed that
on 22.11.2018, further investigation of this case was marked to
him and he recorded statements of the witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
He further deposed that on 22.05.2019, he called driver Arvind,
conductor Parvinder and complainant Parmod in his ACB office
and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He collected self
attested copy of RC Ex.PW2/G of the vehicle which was
involved in this case from the complainant Parmod Kumar. He
took the bonds from driver Arvind, conductor Parvinder and
complainant Parmod U/s 170.2 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 19 of 72
and Ex.PW24/C respectively for their appearance in the court.
PW24 further deposed that he again called complainant Parmod
in ACB office on 23.09.2019 and got verified the transcriptions
Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F from him, in the presence of panch
witness Lal Babu. PW24 further deposed that transcription of one
spare CD Ex.PW12/Article-1, was also played on desktop
computer and the complainant also heard the same and stated that
the above mentioned transcript was of this CD. CD
Ex.PW12/Article-1 was played on the computer and heard by
PW24, who stated that this the same CD which was played by
him on 23.09.2019 and was heard by complainant Parmod
Kumar in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu.
xxiv.a) PW24 further deposed that on 19.11.2019, he
took the panch witness Naveen and the complainant Parmod to
FSL, Rohini where voice sample of complainant Parmod Kumar
was taken and it was recorded in one audio cassette and one copy
of same, and both audio cassettes were separately kept in two
envelopes, sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H.
PW24 further deposed that on 11.12.2019, he got deposited the
exhibits with FSL through ASI Mukesh vide RC no. 207/19. He
collected FSL result during investigation.
xxiv.b) PW24 further deposed that on 01.12.2021, he sent
the letters alonwith enclosures to DTC and Transport Department
for obtaining sanctions for prosecution U/s 19 of P.C. Act. On
receipt of the sanctions, he filed chargesheet in the court.
xxiv.c) PW24 correctly identified the case property
i.e. audio cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8 and stated that it was the
same audio cassette wherein his introductory voice, introductory
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 20 of 72
voice of panch witness Naveen and voice of complainant were
recorded. He also correctly identified one audio cassette
Ex.PW24/Article-1 and stated that it was the copy of the
recording made in this cassette from the cassette
Ex.PW2/Article-8.
7) After conclusion of prosecution evidence,
statements of all three accused persons were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the correctness of all the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them
and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the
present case.
8) Accused Jai Bhagwan further stated that the truck
no. HR-55S-3383 loaded with stone was stopped at about 03.15
am on 11.11.2015. Accused Harpal was wearing a full sleeves
jacket over his uniform shirt and his name was not visible on
name plate. However, accused Harpal had exchanged hot words
with driver/owner/complainant for not stopping the vehicle on
getting the signal. He further stated that he had not given any
signal while raising two fingers while sitting in the official
vehicle. He had only called accused Rajbir driver through
Sukhbir Singh SI to get the vehicle weighed ( Kaanta Karao) after
hearing the commotion between Harpal and driver/owner. He
further stated that accused Rajbir – driver was abducted by
complainant in conspiracy with the driver on that night on the
pretext of getting the vehicle weighed. He also stated that star on
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 21 of 72
the flap of his uniform shirt was not visible as he was wearing a
jacket.
9) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that
they did not commit any offence. The entire case against them
was instituted on the basis of false and fabricated allegations
made by the complainant. The investigating agency had also not
conducted the investigation in a fair and impartial manner. They
further stated that during the intervening night of 10/11.11.2015
they were members of the Enforcement Team, in which Rajbir
was driver/civilian and SI Sukhbir Singh was the supervisor /
leader of the team. They were on duty from 09.30 pm to 04.00
am on that night as per Ex. PW6/A in the area of South District,
Main Point at Badarpur for regulating the traffic and prosecution
of the violators of traffic rules. They further stated that HC
Harpal was having challan book and on that night he prosecuted
about 30 drivers for violation of the traffic rules and the copies of
challans were part of Ex. PW6/A(colly).
10) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that
on that night as usual they were wearing their official uniform
and the same was covered with full sleeves jacket to protect the
uniform shirt from being spoiled with dust / pollution and
emission of smoke from vehicles, heavy vehicles on the road at
night at the crossing border. Star/insignia affixed on the flap of
the uniform of the shirt were not visible and covered with the
jackets.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 22 of 72
11) Both the accused further stated that on that night
around 3.20 or 3.30 am on 11.11.2015 their Enforcement Team
in their official vehicle reached at Ring Road, South Extension,
New Delhi, for checking of the vehicles. At about the same time
a truck bearing no. HR-55S-3383 was seen coming from Dhaula
Kuan side being driven at a speed and HC Harpal gave a signal
for stopping the vehicle while flashing torch light. The driver did
not stop the vehicle and tried to flee but after great resistance the
vehicle was stopped at quite a distance. There was exchange of
hot words between Harpal and the driver of the truck as he had
not stopped the vehicle on getting the signal. HC Harpal asked
the driver to produce the documents of the vehicle and the
driving licence but the driver did not produce any document
despite persistent demand. A person sitting by the side of driver
who stated that he was the owner of the truck. The truck was
over-loaded with stone dust. Both the accused further stated that
in the meantime, on hearing the arguments between Harpal and
driver/owner, Jai Bhagwan called Rajbir – driver through SI
Sukhbir Singh and directed driver Rajbir to get the vehicle
weighed at Kanta (weighing scale) at Ashram Road, Mathura
Road. After some arguments driver Rajbir was allowed to sit in
the truck with the object to get the vehicle weighed at Kanta. The
remaining Enforcement Team continued to wait for quite some
time for the return of Rajbir – Driver with the truck but the truck
did not return. Later, they came to know that the driver of the
truck in connivance with its owner had abducted Rajbir – driver
and fled away. On mediation through one SI Pramod Kumar,
Delhi Transport Department of Village Palam and known to
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 23 of 72
complainant, it came to their notice that Rajbir had been taken to
a building material store at Village Bhopra, UP. SI Pramod
Kumar had informed that they could take Rajbir – driver from
Bhopra and that thereafter Rajbir was brought back by them in
the early hours of the morning of 11.11.2015. Both the accused
further stated that Jai Bhagwan had informed the Control Room
(Transport Department) and in the morning a report was also
made in the office. Since Rajbir-driver had been abducted,
therefore, under such peculiar circumstances which were beyond
their control, complainant/driver could not be challaned.
12) Accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that
departmental enquiry under rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 was
ordered to be initiated against them by the competent
authority/Commissioner/ Secretary Transport Department vide
orders dated 16.03.2018 and 21.09.2020 respectively, on the
basis of the same, similar and identical allegations, as are
contained in the present complaint/FIR of this case. Accused Jai
Bhagwan and Harpal further stated that after the completion of
the defence evidence proceedings, they were exonerated from the
said false allegations made in the complaint vide orders dated
18.09.2020 Ex. PW24/DA and 21.09.2020 Ex. PW24/DB
respectively passed by Ms. Manisha Saxena, the then Secretary-
cum-Commissioner, Transport Department and copy of the said
orders were officially given to them. Both the accused further
stated that a copy of the order of exoneration was given to IO
Praveen PW24 during investigation, but he deliberately and
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 24 of 72
intentionally and knowingly suppressed the said order of
exoneration from the competent authority, which caused
prejudice to them. They stated that if the IO had brought the
order of exoneration to the notice of Sanctioning Authority, it
was probable that the Sanctioning Authority might have refused
to grant sanction.
13) Accused Rajbir in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. further stated that a truck no. HR-55S-3383 was
intercepted/stopped on the night of 10/11.11.2015 at about 03.15
am, when he was sitting in his official vehicle no. DL8CL-7021,
Tavera, Chevrolet, alone being its driver at a distance of about
300 sq. feet from the stoppage point of aforesaid truck. He
further stated that names of ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal
were not visible as both were wearing full sleeves jackets over
their uniform shirt. He further stated that he heard some loud
unclear voices from the stoppage point of said truck and at no
point of time he saw Jai Bhagwan giving any signal by raising of
two fingers while sitting in the official vehicle. He was directed
by SI Sukhbir to get the truck no. HR-55S-3383 weighed. When
he was about to get in the said truck to get it weighed, PW2
complainant was trying/attempting/offering bribe to the officials
of Transport Department to avoid challan of his truck, on the
pretext of occasion of Diwali festival, but same was refused. He
further stated that he merely suggested/advised PW2 Pramod not
to request him and he could request the Incharge of the team for
any lenient view, if any, as he was only a driver. Rs. 2000/-
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 25 of 72
being the minimum penalty amount of offence of overloading
vehicle hence, he had suggested to him to carry with him said
amount of Rs. 2000/- to pay minimum penalty amount, if so
agreed by the Incharge of the team Sh. Sukhbir SI. He further
stated that PW2 Pramod never gave Rs. 2000/- to him or any
other official at any time hence, there was no question of keeping
the said amount with him or paying to any other official. In fact,
when he was accompanying PW2, PW9 and PW22 in the truck to
get the said truck weighed at Dharam Kanta near Ashram
Chowk, the driver of the vehicle PW9 Arvind on instruction from
PW2 did not stop the said truck and all of them kidnapped him in
conspiracy and PW2 Pramod snatched his mobile phone while
threatening to kill him if made any noise and PW22 Parminder,
who was already sitting in the truck, over powered him and all of
them did not allow him to get out of the truck. He further stated
that he was released at Bhopura, Ghaziabad and they returned his
mobile instrument only after intervention of Enforcement Staff
and one SI Pramod, r/o Palam, Sector-7, Dwarka, of Enforcement
Staff, Transport Department known to the complainant PW2. He
further stated that even otherwise there is no iota of evidence that
he indulged in any kind of malpractice for which he has been
charged in this case, which are false and fabricated.
14) All three accused persons preferred to lead evidence
in their defence and they examined the following witnesses :
i) DW-1 Satish Kumar – TTC, Hari Nagar Depot,
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 26 of 72
Delhi, who produced the summoned record i.e. disciplinary
proceedings dated 03.05.2016 of Rajbir Singh and statement of
Parmod Kumar dated 03.05.2016 Ex. DW1/A (colly) as well as
copy of complaint dated 23.11.2015 addressed to Chief Minister,
as record in case no. HND-11/AIT/CS/2016/207 dated
19.01.2015 Mark-DW1/X.
ii) DW2 Insp. Parmod Kumar deposed that on
11.11.2015, it was the festival of Diwali and he was at his house
and not in his office on that day. At about 04:00-04:15 am, ASI
Jai Bhagwan called him on his mobile phone and told that his
driver Rajbir was sent to weigh the truck of Parmod, who was
known to him, and Rajbir had not returned and told him to
enquire about his whereabouts. DW2 called Rajbir on his mobile
phone but same was picked up by someone else hence, he told
him to let him talk to Rajbir. Rajbir was weeping and told him
that he was sent to weigh the truck but the driver of truck took
him to Bhopra, Ghaziabad. Thereafter DW2 talked to the person,
who was with Rajbir and probably it was Parmod, who used to be
a transporter and the said truck belonged to him, and he asked
Parmod to leave Rajbir. Thereafter, ASI Jai Bhagwan again
called DW2 and DW2 told him the whereabouts of Rajbir being
taken to Bhopra border, Ghaziabad.
(iii) DW3 – accused Rajbir Singh, who got examined
himself as a witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
15) Thereafter vide order dated 16.05.2025, the defence
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 27 of 72
evidence was closed.
Arguments :
16) It is argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused
persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is
contended by ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir that the allegation
against him is that he had demanded Rs. 2000/- from the
complainant for not impounding his truck which was overloaded
with dust. It is stated that the complainant is a disgruntled
transporter, who used to ply trucks carrying materials which were
challaned regularly by the Enforcement Officials and hence, he
has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. It
is stated that the incident took place on 11.11.2015 and the
present complaint was lodged on 23.11.2015 as an afterthought.
It is urged that the minimum fine for overloaded trucks in terms
of Section 194 M.V.Act is Rs. 2000/- and the accused had merely
told the complainant to send his driver with that amount to the
Incharge to avoid getting his truck weighed. It is contended that
the complainant did not produce his mobile phone with which he
had made the alleged video recording in issue and hence, the
micro SD card which is merely a storage device cannot be relied
upon by the prosecution to prove its case against the accused
persons in absence of proved source of the video recording. It is
stated that though the complainant has claimed that the alleged
video recording in issue was of the entire incident of demand
and acceptance, however, the recording is incomplete and not of
the entire incident as thereafter the complainant had made
accused Rajbir sit in his truck and abducted him and took him to
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 28 of 72
Bhopra in his truck. It is further asserted that the transcription
Ex. PW2/E is not in accordance with the alleged video recording.
It is contended that neither demand nor acceptance has been
proved by the prosecution. It is accordingly urged that no case
under section 7/13 of PC Act is made out against accused Rajbir
and he is liable to be acquitted.
17) It is argued on behalf of accused Jai Bhagwan and
accused Harpal that there is no evidence of either demand or
acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by them or on their
behalf. It is urged that there are material contradictions in the
testimony of the witnesses and none of the witnesses have
corroborated each other on material particulars. It is stated that
the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 PC Act granted by
PW20 sh. Ashish Kundra vide sanction order Ex. PW20/A is
invalid. It is also argued that the original recording instrument
i.e. the mobile phone with which the audio-video recording was
allegedly made by the complainant was never produced before
the court nor seized during investigation and hence, in absence of
the original recording instrument or any details with respect to its
make, model etc., the Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2, CD-1
Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 cannot be relied
upon by the prosecution as the primary or secondary evidence. It
is stated that the complainant allegedly also produced an undated
transcription Ex. PW2/E and no effort was made by the IO to
make an independent transcription of the audio-video recording.
Moreover, the person who has made the transcription has not
been examined before the court. It is stated that the complainant
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 29 of 72
himself deposed that he knew little English, hence, he could not
have prepared a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act nor he was aware of the contents thereof. It is
stated that during their testimony the complainant PW2 or PW9
or PW22 did not identify any voices in the alleged audio-video
recording. Moreover, there is no basis of the manner in which
the names were mentioned against conversation in the
transcription Ex. PW2/E. It is stated that as per Ex. PW7/A only
the video of the recording was analyzed and no analyses of the
audio of the recording was done. It is urged that as per the FSL
report Ex. PW7/B when the voices were analyzed, the video was
not analyzed and there is no analysis as to whether the audio was
superimposed on the video in the recording in issue. It is stated
that there are no documents in support of the FSL reports.
18) It is also argued that there is no site plan on record
in the present case and hence, an essential aspect of the
investigation is missing and therefore the exact location of the
incident cannot be ascertained which goes to the root of the
prosecution case. It is stated that even the possibility of
tampering of the case property cannot be ruled out.
19) It is urged that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/-
by the accused persons. It is urged that there are material
contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. There are no
allegations of demand by accused Jai Bhagwan or by accused
Harpal either in the complaint or in the testimony recorded
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 30 of 72
before the court and in absence of any evidence, a conspiracy
between the accused persons cannot be assumed. It is
accordingly prayed that accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal are
liable to be acquitted of the offences they are charged with.
20) On the other hand, it is argued by ld. Chief P.P. for
the State that there was no delay in registration of the FIR and the
delay, if any, has been sufficiently explained. It is further urged
that the allegations of demand and acceptance are proved through
the testimony of PW2, PW9 and PW22 even though PW22 is
hostile on certain aspects. It is urged that PW2 and PW9
corroborate each other on material points. It is argued that the
complainant PW2 has categorically made the allegations of
demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- by the
accused persons. He also handed over a video recording of the
incident in the Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2, CD-1 Ex.
PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6, which corroborate
the version of the complainant. It is also urged that the FSL
reports Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/B and Ex. PW7/C are incriminating
against the accused persons as there was no indication of
alteration in the audio-video recording. Moreover, the voice of
Rajbir and Harpal were found to be the voice of speakers in the
recording and the voice of accused Jai Bhagwan was stated to be
his possible voice in the recording. It is thus argued that the oral
testimony of witnesses alongwith scientific evidence in the form
of audio-video recording is sufficient evidence to prove the
charges against the accused persons. It is further urged that there
is nothing on record to show that the complainant had any reason
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 31 of 72
to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is accordingly prayed
that the accused persons are liable to be held guilty of the
offences they are charged with.
21) I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
22) It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused Jai Bhagwan-
ASI and Harpal-HC that perusal of the sanction order dated
17.02.2022 Ex. PW20/A reveals that there was no application of
mind by the sanctioning authority before grant of sanction. It is
stated that there is nothing on record to show that any request
letter was sent by IO for the sanctioning authority PW20 for
grant of sanction. It is stated that even the dispatch number is not
mentioned on the prosecution sanction dated 17.02.2022 Ex.
PW20/A to indicate that the same was sent to ACB through
proper channel. It is argued that the sanction order was prepared
by the IO and was got signed directly from the sanctioning
authority, therefore, no request letter or the dispatch number of
the sanction order are available on record. It is further argued
that the prosecution sanction in the list of documents mentions
“statement of witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C.” thereby
indicating that only statement of one witness was a part of
documents sent for obtaining the sanction and the statements of
all witnesses were not sent. It is further urged that the allegations
against the accused persons are not mentioned in the sanction
order and the sanction order does not state that the accused
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 32 of 72
persons had demanded any illegal gratification from the
complainant or any other witnesses and it merely states that “they
took Rs. 2000/- from him to avoid prosecution”. It is stated that
the IO had suppressed the fact before the sanctioning authority
that the accused persons had been exonerated in the
Departmental Enquiry vide order dated 18.09.2020. Moreover,
the sanction order Ex. PW20/A does not mention that the CD
containing the recording in issue was sent to it, thereby implying
that the CD was not sent to the sanctioning authority at the time
of grant of sanction. It is also urged that the sanctioning
authority did not apply its mind properly in as much as the word
‘audio’ recording has been used in relation to the alleged
recording of the incident and not the word ‘audio-video’
recording.
23) As regards application of mind by sanctioning
authority, in State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain,
2013 (8) SCC 119, which has also been relied upon by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of CBI vs. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295, cited by ld. Counsel for
the accused, following principles were culled out:-
“14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to
prove that the valid sanction has been granted
by the sanctioning authority after being
satisfied that a case for sanction has been made
out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show
that the sanctioning authority has perused the
material placed before it and, after
consideration of the circumstances, has
granted sanction for prosecution.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 33 of 72
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing
the evidence that the material was placed
before the sanctioning authority and its
satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the
material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an
administrative function and the sanctioning
authority is required to prime facie reach the
satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute
the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before
the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into
by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the
sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused
all the materials placed before it and some of
them have not been proved that would not
vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as
it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public
servant against frivolous and vexatious
litigants, but simultaneously an order of
sanction should not be construed in a pedantic
manner and there should not be a
hypertechnical approach to test its validity.”
24) It was further held that :
“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.”
(emphasis supplied)
25) Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function
and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is
needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before
the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 34 of 72
does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is
an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating
application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with.
Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in
the hands of accused.
26) The sanction order dated 17.02.2022 Ex. PW20/A
was passed by PW20 Ashish Kundra, who deposed that he
perused all the documents carefully and it was revealed that there
was enough material for launching prosecution against accused
ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal and after considering all the
facts and circumstances and material placed on record, he
accorded sanction under Section 19 of PC Act against accused
ASI Jai Bhagwan and HC Harpal. He also detailed the
documents sent alongwith the draft charge-sheet. In his cross-
examination he denied that the sanction order was already
prepared by the police official and was handed over to him for
signatures or that he had simply appended his signatures thereon
at the asking of the IO. He denied that he had not applied his
mind before grant of sanction or that he had granted sanction in a
mechanical manner. He denied that he had not perused the
documents mentioned in the sanction order or that he had not
viewed any CD before passing sanction order.
27) Perusal of the sanction order Ex. PW20/A reveals
that the documents supplied alongwith the draft charge-sheet also
included transcription of the recording with CD, thereby
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 35 of 72
implying that the CD was also supplied to PW20 alongwith other
material/record for grant of sanction. Hence, the contention of ld.
Counsel for the accused in that regard holds no ground.
28) Perusal of the sanction order further indicates that
the stamp of ACB upon receipt of sanction order is reflected on
the sanction order Ex. PW20/A. The dispatch number is also
mentioned as a part of reference number of the sanction order
dated 17.02.2022 i.e. F.4(21)/Vig/TPT/2020/138-139/13432,
hence, the contention that the sanction order was prepared by IO
and got signed by the IO himself from the sanctioning authority,
without it being accorded in due manner by the sanctioning
authority or sent through proper channel, is without any basis.
29) The contention of ld. Counsel for the accused
persons that the word “audio” recording of the incident made by
the complainant, indicates that the sanctioning authority did not
apply its mind properly to the entire material before it and
referred to the recording as audio recording whereas the
recording in issue was an audio-video recording. In that regard,
it may be noted that the video in the audio-video recording in
issue is entirely dark and only voices can be heard, hence,
reference to the audio-video recording in issue as an audio
recording cannot be viewed as fatal to the sanction order.
30) Additionally, the contention that the sanction order
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 36 of 72
merely states that the accused persons had stopped the vehicle
and “took Rs. 2000/- from the complainant to avoid prosecution”
does not reveal any demand of illegal gratification from the
complainant or any other witness, is without any merit. The
sanction order Ex. PW20/A refers to the complaint dated
23.11.2015 Ex. PW2/A of the complainant Pramod and also
refers to the allegations made in the said complaint, in brief. It
also mentions that it was alleged in the complaint that at about
2:00 AM on 11.11.2015 the complainant was passing from South
Extension area Ring Road on his loaded truck number HR-55
S-3383 where an Enforcement team of Delhi Transport
Department comprising ASI Jai Bhagwan, H/C Harpal Singh and
Driver Rajbir Singh were conducting vehicle checking. Merely
because further details of the complaint are not mentioned in the
sanction order does not lead to the conclusion that the sanction
order is vitiated. Non-mention of the words that Rs. 2000/- were
obtained from the complainant by the accused persons as illegal
gratification, specifically, does not entail that the sanction order
does not reveal that Rs. 2000/- were obtained from the
complainant as illegal gratification in as much as the import of
the words “they stopped him and took Rs. 2000/- from him to
avoid prosecution” reflects obtainment of Rs. 2000/- from the
complainant as illegal gratification to avoid challan.
31) Nothing was revealed in the cross-examination
indicating that there was no application of mind by the
sanctioning authority. Accordingly, no ground is made out toCC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 37 of 72
show that the sanction was accorded without considering the
relevant material or without application of mind. Accordingly,
the challenge to the sanction order Ex. PW20/A is without any
basis and is misconceived.
32) Before appreciating evidence in this case, it is
important to note that even in a case under Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the
the foundational facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede
Crl.Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, d.o.d. 29.07.2009 held that the
foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. It was
also observed that that while invoking the presumption under
section 20 of PC Act, the court is required to consider the
explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touch
stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Supreme
court made the following observations in this regard:
“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 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 wouldCC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 38 of 72
differ. Before, however, the 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.” (emphasis supplied)
33) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v. State of
Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the purport of the
statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled
that the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond
reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the
accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established
otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved
to record a conviction.
34) The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no.
1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of proof
necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under Section 7 or
13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, summarized as under :-
” 68. (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 theCC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 39 of 72
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 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
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 40 of 72
demand by the public servant when
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 20 of the Act is distinct from
presumption of fact referred to above in point
(e) as the former is a mandatory presumption
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 41 of 72
while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
(emphasis supplied)
35) Viewed in light of law discussed herein-above, it
has to be examined as to what extent the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the charge against the accused persons. It
is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons namely Jai
Bhagwan, Harpal Singh and Rajbir Singh conspired and
demanded and accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.
2,000/- from the complainant for not impounding the overloaded
vehicle i.e. truck carrying dust and accordingly they committed
the charged offences.
TESTIMONIES OF MATERIAL WITNESSES :
36) Prosecution has examined complainant Pramod as
PW2. He deposed that in the year 2015, he was having 3-4
trucks and was a transporter. On 11.11.2015, he alongwith his
driver Arvind were going on vehicle no. HR-55S-3383 i.e. truck
carrying dust from Gurgaon to Ghaziabad, U.P. At about 02:00
am (night) when they reached at South Extension Point, one team
of enforcement was present and they pointed torch light towards
their vehicle in order to stop the truck. Thereupon one member
of the enforcement team whose name was mentioned on the
name plate as Harpal came and he started talking rudely with
them while saying “maarunga bahut” when his driver Arvind
alighted from the truck. He also told the driver Arvind that he
would break his head “sar fod dunga”. Upon hearing this, PW2CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 42 of 72
also alighted from the truck and enquired from that official while
saying “isme maarne ki kya baat hai”. PW2 also put his phone
on recording mode to record the incident. Meanwhile one
official whose name was revealed as Rajbir came there and he
asked them not to quarrel. Another official whose name was
later revealed as Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in the official
vehicle, gave signal by raising two fingers. Thereafter, Rajbir
asked them to get the vehicle weighed (kaanta karaane ke liye
kaha) and to impound the vehicle. PW2 told them that it was the
occasion of Diwali festival on that day and not to spoil their
festival. Thereupon Rajbir asked his driver Arvind to come on a
side and PW2 also followed them. Rajbir told them that the
officer was stubborn (afsar adiyal hai) and that they had no
experience and asked them to give Rs.2,000/- for getting the
vehicle released. PW2 told them that Rs.2,000/- was too much
and they did not have so much saving but Rajbir did not agree for
less than Rs.2,000/-. PW2 gave Rs.2,000/- to Rajbir, who kept
the said amount with him and thereafter they were allowed to go
from there with their truck. The entire incident was recorded in
his mobile phone. PW2 correctly identified all the three accused
persons before the court.
37) PW2 further deposed that after 4-5 days i.e. on
20.11.2015, he alongwith his maternal uncle Raj Kumar went to
the office of Enforcement Department and met with Sh. Kuljeet
Singh, Enforcement Officer. PW2 narrated the entire incident to
Kuljeet Singh. PW2 also recorded the conversation between him
and Kuljeet Singh on his mobile phone. PW2 stated that KuljeetCC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 43 of 72
Singh threatened them to impound the vehicles of the
complainant. Thereupon Kuljeet Singh called his ACP Joginder
Singh in his office and told him about the grievance. He asked
them to come after two days to his office. After enquiring his
caste, Joginder Singh talked with PW2 properly while saying
“aap bhi jaat ho hum bhi jaat hai”.
38) PW2 further deposed that on 23.11.2015, he gave
his complaint to ACB Ex.PW2/A and also annexed two CDs
regarding the incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 alongwith
his complaint. After about three months of his complaint, PW2
was called at the ACB and he handed over the micro SD card on
which he recorded the incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 on
his mobile phone. The micro SD card was taken into possession
by Insp. Satender Vashishth vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. The
copies of CDs were also taken into possession and both the CDs
were played in the office computer of ACB and PW2 identified
the same as the one which were recorded by him. PW2 also
handed over the transcript of both the recordings to the IO and
same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW2/C.
PW2 also gave the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PW2/D. PW2 got prepared the two CDs which he handed
over to IO with the computer which was at his home and PW2
stated that the transcription was got prepared with the help of his
children. The copy of the transcripts regarding recording of
11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 are Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F
respectively.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 44 of 72
39) PW2 further stated that he handed over the copy of
RC of his truck bearing registration no. HR-55S-3383
Ex.PW2/G.
40) PW2 further deposed that his voice sample was
taken at FSL, Rohini in presence of one another person whose
name he did not remember and taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW2/H.
41) PW2 correctly identified case property i.e. one cloth
pulanda Ex.PW2/Article-1 containing one micro SD card
Ex.PW2/Article-2 and stated that it was the same micro SD card
on which the recordings were made by him.
42) PW2 also correctly identified one CD
Ex.PW2/Article-4 on which CD-I and Exhibit-02 etc. were
mentioned. The CD Ex.PW2/Article-4 was found containing two
files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and MOV0218A.avi and after seeing
the said files in the CD, PW2 stated that as the recordings were
done during night hours, the picture was not clearly visible but
the voice in CD was very clear and he identified the CD as
containing the recordings made by him on 11.11.2015 and
20.11.2015 regarding the accused persons.
43) PW2 also correctly identified the CD on which CD-
II and Exhibit-03 were mentioned as Ex.PW2/Article-6
containing two files 01.mp4 and 02.mp4 and after seeing the said
files in the CD, PW2 submitted that the CD contained recordings
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 45 of 72
of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015.
44) PW2 also correctly identified his sample voice in the
audio cassette Ex.PW2/Article-8.
45) On being cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the
State, PW2 affirmed that accused Rajbir took him to the accused
Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in his official vehicle. PW2 denied
that the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- was given to accused ASI Jai
Bhagwan. He was confronted with the relevant portion of his
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in that regard.
PW2 also affirmed that when he paid Rs.2,000/-, accused Jai
Bhagwan did not issue challan and released his truck. PW2 also
denied that he had been won over by accused Jai Bhagwan or
that he was trying to save him.
46) PW9 Arvind was driver of complainant PW2. He
deposed that on 11.11.2015, he was working as a driver with
Pramod Kumar and driving his vehicle i.e. truck no.
HR-55S-3383. On that day at about 02:00-02:30 am, he
alongwith Sambhu, conductor and Pramod, owner were coming
from Naurangpur, Haryana after loading dust in the said vehicle
for its supply at Bhopra, Ghaziabad. When they reached at South
Extension, one police official whose name was revealed as Rajbir
gave signal to stop the truck and PW9 stopped the truck at a little
distance. Rajbir came to them and asked them to make the entry
of the vehicle. 11.11.2015 was the day of Choti Diwali and he
told Rajbir that they did not have money for making entry and
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 46 of 72
Rajbir demanded Rs.5,000/- and PW9 took Rs.2,000/- from
Pramod and handed over the same to Rajbir. Thereafter, they
were allowed to leave. PW9 further deposed that Jai Bhagwan
told them to give the money otherwise they would give them
beatings. PW9 further deposed that he did not remember other
facts due to lapse of time.
47) During his examination PW9 pointed towards
accused Rajbir and Jai Bhagwan and stated that he did not know
the name of third person who was present in court, although he
was present at the spot. It was observed that PW9 wrongly
identified accused Harpal as accused Jai Bhagwan.
48) On being cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP for the
State, PW9 affirmed that their truck was signalled to stop by the
staff of 5 number (i.e. Transport Department) and as the truck
was loaded with dust, he stopped the truck little ahead of the spot
where the signal was given to stop it. He also affirmed that
thereupon one Hawaldar came there and started abusing them for
stopping the truck at a distance from where he gave them the
signal and that they objected to being abused by the said
Hawaldar. PW9 also affirmed that initially accused Harpal had
abused them. He also affirmed that the three of them alighted
from the vehicle and went alongwith papers to an officer of one
star (phool) who checked their documents and asked for weight
slip (kaanta parchi) of the vehicle.
49) Upon the attention of PW9 being drawn towards
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 47 of 72
accused Jai Bhagwan by Ld. Chief P.P. for the State with a
suggestion that he was the same person who had checked the
documents of the vehicle and asked for the weight slip ( kaanta
parchi) of the vehicle, PW9 affirmed the same.
50) PW9 affirmed that thereupon Jai Bhagwan called
accused Rajbir and asked him to get their truck weighed by a
weighing machine (kaanta) and that when they reached near the
vehicle accused Rajbir demanded Rs.2,000/- from them and that
upon not paying the same, he threatened them to impound their
vehicle. PW9 affirmed that thereafter, he alongwith his employer
Pramod returned to the officer, who was of one star ( ek phool
wala), and in his presence, Pramod gave Rs.2,000/- to accused
Jai Bhagwan and thereafter, they were allowed to take their truck
from there. He stated that he was illiterate and could only put
his signatures and that due to lapse of time he could not recollect
complete facts.
51) PW22 Parminder deposed that Parmod was the
owner of the vehicle no. HR-55S-3383 truck carrying dust on
which Arvind was the driver and he was the helper. On
11.11.2015, he alongwith driver Arvind and Parmod Kumar were
going from Gurgaon to Bhopra, Ghaziabad, U.P. and while they
were on the way from Gurgaon towards Delhi, their truck was
stopped somewhere in the area of Delhi but he did not remember
the exact place where it was stopped. He deposed that there were
four persons at the point where their vehicle was stopped. Out of
those four persons, one person came to their truck and told them
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 48 of 72
to stop it but their truck stopped some distance away from where
they were given signal to stop. The person who came to them
asked as to why they had not stopped the vehicle and told him to
show the papers of the vehicle but they did not show any papers.
52) PW22 was unable to identify the accused person
who had signalled to stop the vehicle and submitted that his left
eye was severely damaged and he could not see properly with
his right eye as well as it had 30% vision.
53) PW22 further deposed that the person who stopped
the vehicle told him to get the weight of the load of the truck
“kaanta karwao”. PW22 further stated that he did not remember
anything further about the case.
54) During cross-examination by Ld. Chief PP for State,
PW22 was unable to identify accused Harpal, Rajbir despite the
accused being pointed out to him and PW22 stated that he could
not identify the accused persons as he was unable to see properly.
55) PW22 denied that accused Harpal started abusing
him when they stopped the vehicle some distance away. PW22
affirmed that their vehicle was stopped at South-Extension area
in Delhi. He denied that they protested when accused Harpal
abused. He further denied that he alongwith driver Arvind and
owner Parmod went to another person who was standing at the
point and was bearing a star on his uniform or that the said
officer also abused them and asked the third person to get the
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 49 of 72
vehicle weighed. PW22 was confronted with the relevant
portions of his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Mark-PW22/A.
56) PW22 affirmed that the person who was wearing
one star asked the other person calling him as Rajbir and said to
him “kaanta karwa ke laao” and he correctly identified accused
Rajbir who was present in the court.
57) PW22 denied that accused Rajbir demanded
Rs.2,000/- and threatened that the vehicle would be impounded
on non-payment. PW22 denied that driver Arvind and owner
Parmod went to accused Jai Bhagwan to pay Rs.2,000/- and
accused Rajbir was also with him. PW22 denied that after
paying Rs.2,000/- to accused Jai Bhagwan, driver Arvind told
him that he had paid Rs.2,000/- to Jai Bhagwan.
58) PW22 further deposed that he was getting treatment
of his eyes after the incident. However, he did not produce any
document of his treatment. PW22 denied that he was deposing
falsely to save the accused persons or that he had been won over
by the accused persons. He denied that he had seen accused
Rajbir demanding Rs.2,000/- at the spot for allowing them to go
with their truck or that Rs.2,000/- was paid to accused Jai
Bhagwan by his driver Arvind on the demand made by accused
Rajbir.
59) PW22 denied that accused Harpal also abused and
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 50 of 72
stopped their truck on 11.11.2015 at around 02:30 am. He
denied that he had compromised with the accused persons due to
which he had deposed falsely to save the accused persons.
60) From the testimony of complainant PW2 it is
emerges that accused Harpal stopped their vehicle and upon
being signalled by accused Jai Bhagwan, accused Rajbir asked
them to get the vehicle weighed and to impound the vehicle.
Upon the complainant telling them that it was Diwali festival,
accused Rajbir asked the driver of the complainant to come on a
side and the complainant also followed. Accused Rajbir told
them that the officer was stubborn and asked them to give Rs.
2000/- for getting the vehicle released. Despite telling accused
Rajbir that Rs. 2000/- was too much, accused Rajbir did not
agree for less than Rs. 2,000/- and PW2 gave Rs. 2,000/- to
Rajbir, who kept the said amount with him and thereafter they
were allowed to go from there with the truck.
61) In his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for the
State, PW2 denied that bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- was given to
accused Jai Bhagwan or that he had been won over by accused
Jai Bhagwan or that PW2 was trying to save him.
62) It may be noted that in the initial complaint Ex.
PW2/A the complainant had alleged that accused Rajbir, who
was in plain clothes, had told them that it was the occasion of
Diwali and they will have to give Rs. 2000/- ( Do Hazar Rupay
Lagenge) and that accused Jai Bhagwan will not agree as he was
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 51 of 72
stubborn, at which the complaint went to accused Jai Bhagwan
alongwith accused Rajbir and took Rs. 2000/- with him and gave
the money to him, at which he allowed them to go.
63) Hence, in the initial complaint Ex. PW2/A the
complainant stated that accused Rajbir told them to get the
vehicle weighed and that they will have to give Rs. 2000/- ( Do
Hazar Rupay Lagenge) and that the said amount was later handed
over to accused Jai Bhagwan and then they were allowed to
leave. However, in his testimony recorded before the court, the
complainant stated that the said money was given to accused
Rajbir who kept the said money with him and he allowed them to
go from there with their truck. Hence there is a material
contradiction in the testimony of the complainant vis a vis his
complaint Ex. PW2/A, regarding the person to whom Rs. 2000/-
was handed over by him and who also allowed them to leave.
64) The driver of the truck PW9 Arvind stated in his
testimony that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 5000/- for making
entry and after taking Rs. 2000/- from Pramod, PW9 gave the
same to accused Rajbir and thereafter they were allowed to go.
He stated that accused Jai Bhagwan told them to give the money
or they will give them beatings. PW9 wrongly identified accused
Harpal as accused Jai Bhagwan before the court. However, in his
cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State, upon his
attention being drawn to accused Jai Bhagwan with the
suggestion that he was the person who checked the documents of
the vehicle and asked for weight slip, he affirmed the suggestion
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 52 of 72
of the Ld. Chief P.P. He also affirmed that accused Rajbir
demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and he threatened them to
impound the vehicle for not paying the amount and that in his
presence PW2 gave Rs. 2000/- to accused Jai Bhagwan and
thereafter they were allowed to take their truck from there. Thus,
in his examination-in-chief PW9 deposed that Rs. 2000/- were
given by PW2 to accused Rajbir and in his cross-examination, he
simply affirmed that PW2 gave the said amount to accused Jai
Bhagwan, thereby contradicting his own version given in
examination-in-chief and no satisfactory explanation was given
by PW9 regarding the said inconsistency.
65) The aforesaid facts reveal that the testimony of PW2
and PW9 is not unblemished and entirely trustworthy and their
testimonies have to be dealt with a pinch of salt and cautiously.
It is the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs. 2000/- was
handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan by the complainant, who
after accepting the same allowed them to leave with the truck.
Both PW2 and PW9 stated in their examination-in-chief that the
amount of Rs. 2000/- was given to accused Rajbir, who allowed
them to leave with the truck. From the aforesaid discussion, it is
manifest that both PW2 and PW9 did not state in their
examination-in-chief that any amount was handed over to
accused Jai Bhagwan by PW2 complainant Pramod Kumar and
PW2 even in his cross-examination denied that the bribe amount
of Rs. 2000/- was given to accused Jai Bhagwan, despite the fact
that he had stated so in his complaint Ex.PW2/A. PW9 in his
cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State only affirmed a
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 53 of 72
suggestion in that regard. Hence, there is contradiction in the
testimony of PW2 and PW9 inter-se as well, on a material aspect
regarding the person to whom the amount of Rs. 2000/- was
handed over. In these circumstances, the prosecution has not
been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount of
Rs. 2000/- was handed over to accused Jai Bhagwan in as much
as both PW2 and PW9 did not aver about handing over to bribe
money to accused Jai Bhagwan in their testimony and PW9
merely affirmed a suggestion in that regard by ld. Chief P.P. for
the State in his cross-examination after identifying accused Jai
Bhagwan as accused Harpal in his examination-in-chief.
66) Furthermore, PW22 Parminder, driver of the vehicle
did not support any allegations against the accused persons
regarding demand or acceptance of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/-
by the accused persons. He was cross-examined in detail by the
Ld. Chief P.P. for the State, however, he stuck to his version
despite being confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. He denied that he had compromised the matter with the
accused persons. Accordingly, the testimony of PW22 does not
incriminate the accused persons.
67) As regards incident of demand, PW2 deposed that
the truck was stopped by accused Harpal who misbehaved with
them and after stopping the truck and alighting from it, he put his
phone on recording mode. Meanwhile, accused Rajbir came
there and asked them not to quarrel and accused Jai Bhagwan,
who was sitting in an official vehicle, gave signal by raising two
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 54 of 72
fingers. Thereafter accused Rajbir asked them to get the vehicle
weighed and to impound their vehicle. PW2 told them that it was
occasion of Diwali festival and not spoil their festival. Thereupon
accused Rajbir told them “Afsar Adiyal Hai” and that they had
no experience and asked them to give Rs. 2000/- for getting the
vehicle released. PW2 told him that Rs. 2000/- was too much but
accused Rajbir did not agree for less than Rs. 2000/-. PW2 gave
Rs. 2000/- to Rajbir, who kept the same with him, and thereafter
they were allowed to leave from there.
68) PW9, the driver of the vehicle, who was also a
witness to the incident, stated that accused Rajbir gave signal to
stop the vehicle and he came to them and asked them to get done
the entry of the vehicle. It was the day of Chotti Diwali on
11.11.2015 and PW9 told accused Rajbir that they did not have
money for making entry and accused Rajbir demanded Rs.
5000/- and PW9 after taking Rs. 2000/- from complainant
Pramod gave the same to accused Rajbir. Thereafter they were
allowed to go. In his cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the
State, PW9 affirmed that accused Harpal had abused them
initially and that accused Jai Bhagwan called accused Rajbir and
asked him to get the truck weighed from the weighing machine
(Kaanta). He also affirmed that when they reached near the
vehicle, accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and
threatened them to impound the vehicle, if the amount was not
paid.
69) Hence, there are inconsistencies in the version of
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 55 of 72
PW2 and PW9, both of whom are eye witnesses to the incident,
in as much as, PW2 did not state any demand of Rs. 5000/- was
made by accused Rajbir and PW9 did not state about any signal
of two fingers being made by accused Jai Bhagwan to accused
Rajbir. The object of demand of money was stated by PW9 in
his examination-in-chief to be for making an entry, though in his
cross-examination by ld. Chief P.P. for the State, he affirmed that
accused Jai Bhagwan called accused Rajbir and asked him to get
the truck weighed at the weighing machine and further affirmed
that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- from them and
threatened them to impound the vehicle, if the money was not
paid. PW2 stated at the outset that the money was demanded for
release of the vehicle without getting it weighed. Essentially,
both PW2 and PW9 stated that accused Rajbir demanded Rs.
2000/- for release of vehicle/non-impounding of vehicle, without
getting it weighed.
70) It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir that he
had never demanded an amount of Rs. 2000/- as bribe from the
complainant or his driver. He referred to the statement of accused
Rajbir recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he detailed
his version of facts that transpired and he also stated that when he
was going to get the truck weighed, PW2 tried to bribe the
officials of the Transport Department stating that it was occasion
of Diwali festival, however, it was refused. Accused Rajbir had
advised PW2 not to request him and to request the Incharge of
the Team for a lenient view as he was only a driver. He stated
that since Rs. 2000/- was the minimum penalty amount of
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 56 of 72
offence of overloading of the vehicle, hence, he had suggested
him to carry an amount of Rs. 2000/- with him for the minimum
penalty amount, if the Incharge of Team SI Sukhbir agreed to the
same.
71) Accused Rajbir also examined himself as DW3 and
he deposed that in the year 2015 he was employed as driver in
DTC. On 10.11.2015 he was on duty between 09:00 pm to 05:00
am on Tavera vehicle bearing no. DL-8CL-7021, in Enforcement
Department, Transport Department. On that day, Incharge of
Team No. 18 was SI Sukhbir Singh alongwith ASI Jai Bhawan
and HC Harpal Singh and at about 03.00-03.15 am when they
were on checking duty at South Extension, New Delhi, the
checking staff stopped a truck bearing registration no.
HR-55S-3383. At that time, accused Rajbir was sitting in the
Tavera vehicle on the driver seat. The truck stopped at about 300
feet from the checking point and heated arguments took place
between the checking staff and the truck driver. SI Sukhbir
Singh, who was standing near the Tavera vehicle told him that
accused Jai Bhagwan was calling him to get the truck weighed.
When he reached near the truck, the owner of the truck was
requesting to leave the truck without challan after taking Seva
Pani due to Diwali festival. When the checking staff did not
agree, the truck owner Pramod started requesting him ” Diwali Ka
Tauhar Hai, Kaanta Mat Karwao, Seva Pani Rs.500/- le lo” .
Accused Rajbir told them that he was only a driver and did not
have any authority to get the vehicle weighed. He told the owner
of the truck Pramod to send the driver Arvind to the Checking
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 57 of 72
Incharge with Rs. 2000/- which was the minimum challan
amount for overloaded vehicle. But the Team Incharge also did
not agree. Thereafter he told them to come to Kaanta at Ashram
Chowk, which was under the flyover to get the vehicle weighed.
Thereafter he alongwith driver Arvind and owner of the truck
Pramod sat in the truck and they left for Ashram for getting the
vehicle weighed. The aforesaid facts were also stated by accused
Rajbir in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and
the said defence was also put to PW2 and PW9 during their
cross-examination.
72) It is thus manifest from the defence taken by
accused Rajbir that he admitted that the accused persons were on
checking duty at South Extension, New Delhi, on 11.11.2015 at
about 03.00-03.15 am. He also admitted that the truck bearing
registration no. HR-55S-3383 i.e. truck of the complainant was
stopped and further that the truck stopped some distance away
from the checking point. He also admitted that heated arguments
took place between the checking staff and the driver of the truck.
He also admitted that he was told by accused Jai Bhagwan to get
the truck weighed and that the complainant was requesting to
leave the truck as it was Diwali festival. He also admitted that he
had told the owner of the truck Pramod to send the driver with
Rs. 2000/- to the checking Incharge. Hence, accused Rajbir has
admitted the essential facts comprising the incident, however, it
is stated by him that Rs. 2000/- was the minimum challan amount
and therefore he had asked the driver to take the said amount to
the checking Incharge and not any lessor amount.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 58 of 72
73) Ld. Counsel for accused Rajbir has referred to
Section 194 of Motor Vehicles Act relating to driving a vehicle
that exceeds permissible weight limit. Section 194 of MV Act
1988 is provides as follows :
“194. Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight.
– [(1) Whoever drivers a motor vehicle or causes or
allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention
of the provisions of section 113 or section 114 or
section 115 shall be punishable with minimum fine
of two thousand rupees and an additional amount of
one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load,
together with the liability to pay charges for off-
loading of the excess load.]
(2) Any driver of a vehicle who refused to stop and
submit his vehicle to weighing after being directed
to do so by an officer authorised in this behalf under
section 114 or removes or causes the removal of the
load or part of it prior to weighing shall be
punishable with fine which may extend to three
thousand rupees.”
74) Thus, section 194 of M.V.Act 1988 provides for a
minimum fine amount of Rs. 2000/- for overloading of a vehicle.
75) As discussed hereinabove, the testimony of PW2
contains contradictions on material points vis a vis his initial
complaint Ex.PW2/A and similarly there are contradictions in the
testimony of PW9 also. The testimonies of PW2 and PW9 are
also inconsistent with each other regarding the person to whom
Rs. 2000/- were handed over by the complainant amongst other
facts as discussed hereinabove. Their testimonies therefore
cannot be treated as wholly trustworthy and reliable and thus the
court has to be circumspect while evaluating their testimonies
and their testimonies cannot be made sole basis to arrive at the
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 59 of 72
guilt of the accused persons unless corroborated.
76) The prosecution has also relied upon the audio-
video recordings made by the complainant Pramod Kumar of the
incident on 11.11.2015 and another video recording made by the
complainant on 20.11.2015 with his mobile phone when he met
with Sh. Kuljeet Singh, Enforcement Officer.
77) The complainant annexed two CDs regarding the
incidents of 11.11.2015 and 20.11.2015 alongwith his complaint
Ex. PW2/A. Subsequently, the complainant handed over the
Micro SD card Ex. PW2/Article-2 containing the abovesaid
recordings made by him with his mobile phone to the IO, which
was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B dated
02.03.2016. The complainant also handed over two CDs i.e.
CD-I Ex. PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 to the IO
alongwith two transcripts of the recordings dated 11.11.2015 Ex.
PW2/E and 20.11.2015 Ex. PW2/F, which were seized by the IO
vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C dated 02.03.2016.
78) Complainant PW2 identified the Micro SD card on
which the recordings were done by him and which was handed
over to the IO as Ex. PW2/Article-2. He also identified the CD
Ex. PW2/Article-4 containing two files i.e. MOV0210A.avi and
MOV0218A.avi and stated that the said recordings relating to the
accused persons were made by him on 11.11.2015 and
20.11.2015 and since the said recordings were made during night
hours, the picture was not clear but voice was clear. He also
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 60 of 72
identified another CD Ex. PW2/Article-6 containing the said
recordings in two files i.e. 01.MP4 and 02.MP4.
79) No charge has been framed qua the recording dated
20.11.2015 as it does not relate to any demand or acceptance by
the accused persons and is merely a recording of the subsequent
meeting between the complainant PW2 with Sh. Kuljeet Singh in
relation to the incident and is a fact subsequent to the incident in
issue.
80) During final arguments of this case, CD Ex.
PW2/Article-4 containing the aforesaid audio-video recording in
issue was played and the picture in the video was not visible, as
also stated by the complainant PW2 in his testimony, however,
the audio of the recording could be heard.
81) During investigation, the complainant handed over
the transcription Ex. PW2/E of the incident dated 11.11.2015 to
the IO on 02.03.2016 alongwith the audio video recordings. In
his cross-examination the complainant stated that the said
transcript was prepared by him with the help of his son Aditya on
his computer. His son, who had typed the transcription never
joined the investigation. PW2 denied the suggestion that the
transcript Ex. PW2/E was not in accordance with the recordings.
It may be noted that no further transcript of the recordings was
prepared by the IO during investigation and the initial transcript
Ex. PW2/E, which was handed over by the complainant with his
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 61 of 72
complaint has been relied upon by the prosecution. It is deposed
by Insp. Praveen Kumar PW24 that on 23.09.2019 he called the
complainant at ACB Office and got verified the transcription
from him and again obtained his signatures on the last page of
transcription dated 11.11.2015. He further deposed that the panch
witness Lal Babu also verified the said transcript and appended
his signatures thereon. In this regard, PW12 Lal Babu Bhagat
deposed that Insp. Praveen played on CD on his office computer
and showed him the transcript and the contents of CD were
similar to the contents of the transcript. He identified the CD
played before him as Ex. PW12/Article-1. In his cross-
examination PW24 Insp. Praveen Kumar deposed that he had
never met Harjinder Singh, who was Chief Editor of the Patriots
of India and on scrutiny of the file, one complaint of the
complainant alongwith the CD, which was forwarded by
Harjinder Singh was on record. The said CD was got played by
him in his office in the presence of complainant and panch
witness. He had not examined Harjinder Singh regarding the
source of CD.
82) Hence, it is revealed in the testimony of IO/ PW24,
that the CD Ex. PW12/Article-1 was played by PW24 on
23.09.2019 in the presence of panch witness Lal Babu Bhakt
PW12 and the complainant to verify the contents of the
transcription. The said CD had been forwarded alongwith the
complaint by one Harjinder Singh, Chief Editor of the Patriots of
India. The said CD had not been handed over by the complainant
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 62 of 72
during investigation and the transcript had been verified on the
basis of the said CD Ex. PW12/Article-1. The said CD was not
put to the complainant during recording of his testimony to verify
if it contained the same recording as he had handed over
alongwith his complaint. Infact the complainant has deposed that
he had prepared two CDs of the recordings dated 11.11.2015 and
20.11.2015 i.e. Ex. PW2/Article-4 and Ex. PW2/Article-6. The
complainant PW2 specifically deposed that he had not sent any
complaint or CD to Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover, Chief Editor of
the Patriots of India. He further stated that he did not know if his
complaint or CD was also sent by Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover to
Chief Minister of Delhi, LG and State Transport Authority.
Hence, the complainant categorically denied having sent any
complaint or CD to Sh. Harjinder Singh Grover, Chief Editor of
the Patriots of India. Moreover, even the complainant PW2 has
not deposed regarding the proceedings dated 23.09.2019. There
is no observation memo on record regarding the proceedings
dated 23.09.2019 and PW12 stated that no separate memo was
prepared regarding those proceedings. PW12 denied that he had
signed the transcript at the instance of the IO without comparing
the same with the CD. No fresh transcript was got prepared by
the IO and the Panch Witness is stated to have merely compared
the contents of the transcription handed over by the complainant
with CD Ex. PW12/Article-1. In these circumstances, the
transcripts Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F, which have been stated to
have been tallied with the said CD Ex. PW12/Article-1, the
source of which is not established on record, cannot be stated to
have been properly verified during investigation.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 63 of 72
83) Additionally, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the
accused persons that the recording contained in the micro SD
card Ex. PW2/Article-2 or in the CDs i.e. CD-I Ex.
PW2/Article-4 and CD-II Ex. PW2/Article-6 cannot be stated to
be complete recording as it does not indicate that any money was
handed over to any accused person and hence the same cannot be
relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused
persons. It is further stated that the transcript Ex. PW2/E which is
based on an incomplete recording cannot be treated as a proper
and complete transcript and the complainant had manufactured
the transcript Ex. PW2/E to suit his own version.
84) It may be noted that in his testimony, the
complainant PW2 stated that accused Rajbir had asked them to
give Rs. 2000/- for getting the vehicle released and he did not
agree for less than Rs. 2000/-. Thereafter he gave Rs. 2000/- to
Rajbir, who kept the said amount with him and thereafter they
were allowed to go from there with their truck. The complainant
thus did not depose regarding the words used by accused Rajbir
when the demand of Rs. 2000/- was made by him and has merely
stated that accused Rajbir demanded Rs. 2000/- for releasing the
vehicle without detailing the specific manner in which the
demand was made.
85) At this stage, without going into the veracity of the
audio-video recording, its admissibility and the authenticity of
the transcript, upon perusal of the transcript Ex. PW2/E and upon
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 64 of 72
hearing the conversation contained in the audio video recording
in issue i.e. CD Ex. PW2/Article-4, it is noted that the initially
the conversation between the speakers is regarding stopping the
vehicle and for showing the papers of the vehicle for checking.
(Harpal: Malik Hai To Kagzat Check Karva.) The conversation
as mentioned in the transcript Ex. PW2/E reveals that an
argument took place between accused Harpal and the
complainant regarding stopping of the vehicle. (Harpal: Gadi
Bhaga Raha Tha, Jhooth Bolta Ja Raha Tha; Pramod: Kamal Kar
Rahe Hai, Hamne to Bhai Gadi Side Mein Lagai; Jai Bhagwan:
O Kaante Par Chada Gadi Ko Bhejiyo) Thereafter accused Jai
Bhagwan insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed and the
complainant repeatedly requested accused Jai Bhagwan that it
was the occasion of Diwali festival and therefore, he should leave
the vehicle. (Jai Bhagwan: Pahle Kaanta Kara Le, Phir
Dekhenge Tere Tauhar Ka Din Hai.) The complainant also gave
reference of one Pramod, a police official, known to the
complainant, however, despite the same, accused Jai Bhagwan
still insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed and complainant
continued to request him to leave them. (Pramod : Bhai Sahab
Pramod Hai Palam Ka Aapke Staff Ka Hai, Jaankar Hai; Jai
Bhagwan: Mai Dekh Lunga, Kitne Jaankar Hai, Kya Karega,
Gadi Chudwa Dega, Mere Se Order Dega Ki Gadi Chodh De; Jai
Bhagwan : Rajbir Gadi Le Ja Kaante Per, Dekh Lunga Gadi
Chudwata Hai.) Thereafter the complainant started requesting
accused Jai Bhagwan and told him to take something ( Jai
Bhagwan : Pahle Kaanta Kara La; Pramod: Tyohar Ka Din Hai,
Chote Chote Balak Baant Dekh Rahe Hai, Aap Batao Seva-pani;
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 65 of 72
Jai Bhagwan: Kaanta Kara Lo) and upon insisting accused Rajbir
told him that the vehicle could be released by the Incharge for
Rs. 2000/- who was stubborn and would not agree for a lessor
amount. (Rajbir: Bola Hath Jodaa, Bola Ki Len Den Ki, Bola
Hath Jode; Pramod: Aap Bol Do; Rajbir: Do Hazar Chodh Dega;
Pramod: Do Hazar Rupey To Ghane Ho Jayge Bauji; Pramod:
Do Hazar Rupey Jyada Hai; Rajbir: Na Mane, Bahut Akad Hai.)
Thereafter, complainant Pramod requested him to take Rs. 500/-,
at which accused Rajbir told him that if he went to Jai Bhagwan,
he would scold him and told the complainant to send the driver
with minimum Rs. 2000/-. (Pramod: Do Hazar To Ghane Hai,
500 Rupey Le Lo; Rajbir: To Ise Band Kara Lega, Mai Udhar
Jauga To Mere Daant Maar Dega, Do Lekar Chala Ja, Manega
Nahi, Kamse Kam Do Lekar Chala Ja; Pramod: Aacha; Rajbir:
Tu Mat Ja, Ye Kaya Karega; Driver: Ye Malik Hai; Rajbir: Kaun
Hai Malik,Tere Se Bat Na Bane, Driver Mana Liya Kare, In
Chijo Ka Hum To Uske Samne Bol Bhi Na Sakte.) Complainant
Pramod again insisted accused Rajbir to request accused Jai
Bhagwan (Pramod: Bhai Hath Jodkar Pav Pakarke), at which
accused Rajbir told that it will not resolve if the owner goes to Jai
Bhagwan. (Rajbir: Jey Jid Le Hai, Malik Jane Se Bat Nahi Le,
Mai Jakar Kahu.). Thereafter the transcription and the audio-
video recording ends. It may be noted that the transcription Ex.
PW2/E is not entirely in consonance with the audio-video
recording dated 11.11.2015 and as discussed the transcription Ex.
PW2/E was not verified properly during investigation.
86) Be that as it may, it is revealed in the aforesaid
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 66 of 72
transcription Ex. PW2/E and the recording in issue dated
11.11.2015 relied upon by the prosecution that there is no
conversation regarding money between the complainant and
accused Harpal and the conversation is limited to stopping the
vehicle and checking the papers; that accused Jai Bhagwan
insisted upon getting the vehicle weighed despite requests by the
complainant to leave the truck as it was the occasion of Diwali;
that subsequently complainant requested accused Jai Bhagwan by
telling him to take seva paani, thereby suggesting an offer of
bribe by the complainant and it does not indicate any demand by
the accused persons; that despite the same, accused Jai Bhagwan
does not demand any bribe or money and continues to insist upon
getting the vehicle weighed; that accused Rajbir suggested to the
owner Pramod to send Rs. 2000/- through his driver to the officer
for releasing the truck and not any lessor amount; that the
complainant PW2 was told by accused Rajbir that the officer was
stubborn, which would imply that he would not have left the
complainant with his truck without getting it weighed; that
accused Rajbir did not ask the money to be handed over to him
for release of the truck. The fact that accused Rajbir did not take
the money himself and continued to suggest to the owner
complainant Pramod to send Rs. 2000/- to the officer through the
driver for releasing the truck, cannot be termed as demand or
acceptance of the offer of any bribe of Rs. 2000/- by accused
Rajbir.
87) It is also noteworthy that the transcription Ex.
PW2/E and the audio-video recording dated 11.11.2015, which is
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 67 of 72
in issue in the present case, ends abruptly after accused Rajbir
was suggesting to the complainant how to get the vehicle
released by sending the driver to the Incharge alongwith
Rs.2000/-. In his testimony the complainant PW2 stated that he
had handed over Rs. 2000/- to accused Rajbir and thereafter
challan was not issued and his truck was released. In his cross-
examination he stated that accused Rajbir was not interested in
taking them to accused Jai Bhagwan as he was demanding bribe
from them but thereafter, they along with accused Rajbir went to
accused Jai Bhagwan, who was sitting in the car, in order to
confirm whether demand was raised for release of vehicle.
Hence, it is the version of the complainant PW2 himself that they
were not sure if the demand was raised for release of vehicle and
therefore, they went along with accused Rajbir to accused Jai
Bhagwan, who was sitting in the car, in order to confirm the
same. It is noteworthy that neither the recording in issue nor the
transcription indicates that the complainant alongwith driver and
accused Rajbir went to accused Jai Bhagwan and what
conversation took place between them in that regard which also
demonstrates that the recording or the transcription Ex. PW2/E
cannot be taken as a complete record of the entire incident.
88) As discussed, there are no words in the audio-video
recording whereby accused Rajbir asked the complainant to give
Rs. 2000/- to him or that he would leave the vehicle after getting
that amount. He was suggesting to the complainant to send his
driver with the money to the officer as the officer was stubborn
and would not agree. Since the audio-video recording ends
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 68 of 72
abruptly, therefore, it cannot be deciphered as to what happened
thereafter. Considering the fact that as per Section 194 M.V.
Act, Rs. 2000/- was also the minimum fine amount for
overloading of the vehicle, the version of accused Rajbir that he
had asked complainant Pramod to send driver Arvind with Rs.
2000/-to request the Incharge so that the vehicle could be
released with minimum fine, appears plausible. The tenor of
conversation in the transcription Ex. PW2/E and the recording in
issue also supports the version given by the accused.
89) Moreover, even if the audio video recording dated
11.11.2015, which is in issue in the present case, is taken into
account without going its admissibility and authenticity, the same
does not appear to be a complete record of the entire incident,
hence, it would not be prudent to rely upon the said recording or
the transcript Ex. PW2/E as evidence against the accused
persons.
90) In these circumstances, it cannot be stated without
reasonable doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was demanded
and accepted by accused persons in conspiracy with each other as
a bribe amount. The fact that the complete audio-video
recording is not brought before the court, casts a shadow of doubt
over the version of the complainant in as much as the
complainant appears to be hiding the true and complete facts
from the court. In Dhyaneshwar Laxman Rao case (Supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even while invoking the
provisions of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, the court is required to
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 69 of 72
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. The version of
accused Rajbir has to be viewed in light of the law as settled by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
91) Additionally, as discussed above, accused Rajbir has
stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as
well as while examining himself as DW3 that when he
accompanied PW2, PW9 and PW22 in the truck to get it weighed
at Dharam Kaanta near Ashram Chowk, the driver of the vehicle
PW9 on the instructions of PW2 did not stop the said truck and
he was abducted by them.
92) PW9 Arvind, driver of the vehicle, in his cross-
examination by the accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal stated that
after remaining there for 10 minutes, they proceeded for Bhopra.
Accused Rajbir sat with them for getting the truck weighed at
Dharam Kaanta. He affirmed the suggestion that there was a
weighing machine (Kaanta) at Ashram Chowk, Mathura Road.
He stated that the vehicle was not got weighed at Ashram
Chowk, Mathura Road, and that they ran away with the truck
towards Bhopra so that they were not stopped by the police
officials at any other point. They reached Bhopra at about
03.30/04.00 am and unloaded the truck. The said facts have been
denied by PW2 complainant in his cross examination by the
accused persons.
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 70 of 72
93) From the aforesaid testimony of PW9, it emerges
that accused Rajbir sat in the truck alongwith PW2, PW9 and
PW22 to get it weighed at Dharam Kaanta at Ashram Chowk. It
may be noted that as per the testimony of PW2 and PW9, the
amount of Rs. 2000/- was taken by accused Rajbir and after the
same was handed over, they were allowed to leave with the truck.
In the event the bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- stood accepted and
they were allowed to leave with the truck, then there was no
occasion for accused Rajbir to have sat in the truck for getting it
weighed. These facts as deposed by PW9, lend credibility to the
version of accused Rajbir that money was not demanded as bribe
or was handed over to the accused persons. Hence, the accused
persons have been able to create a dent in the prosecution version
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 2000/-
by the accused persons.
94) As discussed hereinabove, the recording or the
transcription Ex. PW5/B cannot be taken as a complete record of
the entire incident and thus the same cannot be relied upon by the
prosecution. Moreover, as discussed the oral testimony of the
witnesses PW2 and PW9 is not entirely reliable and hence cannot
be made the basis of arriving at the guilt of accused persons
without due corroboration. Since an incomplete audio-video
recording or the transcript Ex. PW5/B cannot afford
corroboration of the version of the said witnesses, therefore, their
testimonies remain uncorroborated. Even otherwise as discussed,
the audio-video recording dated 11.11.2015 does not reveal that
any demand of bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- was made by the
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 71 of 72
accused persons in conspiracy with each other. The prosecution
has thus failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
amount of Rs. 2000/- was demanded by accused Rajbir in
conspiracy with accused Jai Bhagwan and Harpal. The
prosecution has also not been able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that the amount of Rs. 2000/- was accepted as illegal
gratification by accused Jai Bhagwan in conspiracy with accused
Rajbir and Harpal.
95) The cumulative impact of the aforesaid discussion is
that the prosecution has not been able to discharge the onus upon
it to prove the foundational facts regarding demand and
acceptance of bribe by the accused persons through the oral
testimony of the witnesses PW2, PW9 and PW22. The
allegations of demand and acceptance are also not corroborated
through the video recording in issue and the transcript Ex.PW2/E
of the incident. The prosecution has thus not been able to prove
the guilt of accused persons regarding demand and acceptance of
bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Jai Bhagwan,
Harpal Singh and Rajbir Singh are given benefit of doubt and are
acquitted of the offences they are charged with. Their bail bonds
stand cancelled and sureties stand discharged.
96) File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance. Digitally signed by
DEEPALI DEEPALI SHARMA
Announced in the open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
16:13:01 +0530
on 26th July, 2025 ( Deepali Sharma )
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
New Delhi
CC No.18/2022 FIR No.03/2016, PS ACB St. Vs Jai Bhagwan & Ors. Page 72 of 72