Delhi District Court
State vs Si Amit Kumar on 24 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001757-2019
CC No. 335/2019
FIR No. 05/2018
U/S: 7/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section
120B IPC.
PS: Vigilance
State
Versus
1) SI Amit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Shyam Dass,
R/o H.No. D-194, New Police Line,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009.
Presently r/o H.No. 233-234, Pocket-H1,
Sector-11, Rohini,
New Delhi-110085.
2) Shekhar Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Singh,
R/o H.No. 84, DDA Flats,
Jaidev Park, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
Date of Institution : 31.08.2019
Date of Arguments : 28.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 24.12.2024
Appearance :
For the State : Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Ld.
Chief Public Prosecutor
For accused SI Amit : Sh. Sanjay Gupta, advocate,
Kumar Enrl. No. D-572/90.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 94
For accused Shekhar : Sh. Sanjay Gupta, advocate,
Kumar Enrl. No. D-382/87.
JUDGMENT
1) Brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2018,
complainant Surender Singh came to PS Vigilance Branch and
gave a handwritten complaint to Insp. Ajay Tyagi stating that the
complainant was owner of vehicle no. HR46D-5396. His driver
Jasvir had left from New Green Transport, Rampura, Delhi, after
loading the vehicle for Madras in the night of 07.05.2018. Due
to some reasons he had to unload half of the goods and he
delivered the remaining goods at Madras, where, upon asking of
Shekhar, owner of New Green Transport, his vehicle was stopped
and till the date of complaint, the vehicle was there only. The
complainant had delivered the remaining goods of Shekhar,
which were unloaded on the way. Shekhar had filed a complaint
at PS Punjabi Bagh against the complainant despite the fact that
Shekhar had kept his vehicle with him and had not even paid the
fare of the vehicle. On 16.05.2018 Shekhar took him to PS
Punjabi Bagh where they met IO/SI Amit Kumar. SI Amit
Kumar told him that he will put him behind bars for removing
the goods on the way or to give Rs. 5 Lakhs to him. The
complainant got scared and on 17.05.2018 i.e. the next day,
Shekhar sent the complainant with one Ashok of Anshu
Roadlines to the police station where IO/SI Amit Kumar took Rs.
2.5 Lakhs from him and asked him to get the remaining amount
on the next day. On 18.05.2018 he gave Rs. 30,000/- to IO/SI
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 94
Amit Kumar. SI Amit Kumar told him that he had time till
21.05.2018 for the remaining amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- or
otherwise he would file a case against him and put him behind
bars and he would not even get his vehicle. Last evening the
complainant called Shekhar and requested him to get the vehicle
released at which Shekhar told him to get the remaining amount
of Rs. 2,20,000/- to SI Amit Kumar at PS Punjabi Bagh as SI
Amit Kumar had called him many times. The complainant stated
that he was against bribery. On that day he had brought Rs.
50,000/- with him to take necessary action. The handwritten
complaint Ex. PW6/A was signed by the complainant, the panch
witness Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani and attested by Insp. Ajay
Tyagi.
2) Pre-raid proceedings were conducted. The serial
number of 25 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 2000/-
each were noted down in the presence of panch witness.
Phenolphthalein powder was applied upon the currency notes,
demonstration of the specialty of Phenolphthalein powder was
given. The complainant kept the Phenolphthalein smeared notes
in the right pocket of his wearing pant. During pre-raid
proceedings, the panch witness was also asked to remain with the
complainant and to hear the conversation regarding demand of
bribe money and the complainant was asked to hand over the
bribe money only upon demand. Meanwhile the complainant
called SI Amit Kumar from his mobile no. 8168961034 on his
mobile no. 9911456545 at which SI Amit Kumar told the
complainant to go and meet Shekhar. After completion of pre-
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 94
raid proceedings the raiding team proceeded for the spot and
reached near PS Punjabi Bagh and the panch witness and the
complainant left for the spot i.e. PS Punjabi Bagh and the raiding
team remained near PS Punjabi Bagh. Thereafter complainant
received a phone call of one Ashok c/o Anshu Roadlines, who
asked the complainant where he was and that Shekhar had
received many calls from Amit Kumar and why he had not
reached and asked him to talk to Shekhar. Thereafter the
complainant called Shekhar on his mobile phone, who asked the
complainant to come to his office. Thereafter the raiding team
went to the office of Shekhar, whose location was known to the
complainant.
3) The raiding team reached the spot i.e. the office of
Shekhar, New Green Transport Services, near Ashoka Park
Metro Station, Phool Bagh, Rampura, New Delhi. The
complainant and the panch witness went to the first floor of the
building where office of Shekhar was situated and the raid was
conducted and accused SI Amit Kumar was caught red-handed
and was apprehended. Rs. 50,000/- were recovered from the
right hand of accused SI Amit Kumar and seized by the police.
The right hand-wash of accused SI Amit Kumar in Sodium
Carbonate solution was taken which turned pink and the same
was kept in two sealed bottles. The statement of panch witness
was recorded. The Raiding Officer prepared the rukka and sent
the same for registration of FIR and the FIR was registered u/s
7/8/13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred
as the PC Act).
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 94
4) The investigation of the case was handed over to
Insp. Dharamveer Singh Gautam, who reached at the spot and
interrogated the accused. Accused persons were arrested, their
personal search was conducted, the site plan of the locality and
site plan of the spot of raid i.e. WZ-1, first floor, Phool Bagh,
Rampura, Delhi, were prepared at the instance of the
complainant, the disclosure statement of the accused persons
were recorded and case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
Thereafter search of the room of accused SI Amit at PS Punjabi
Bagh was conducted but the recovery of bribe money could not
be affected. During investigation, two mobile phones of the
accused Amit Kumar and two mobile phones of accused Shekhar
were seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. On 24.05.2018, the statement of complainant was got
recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. During investigation on 25.05.2018 the
mobile phone of the complainant was seized. The exhibits were
sent to FSL Rohini for evaluation and analysis. Voice sample of
accused persons, the complainant and Ashok Kumar were taken
at FSL Rohini. The documents including posting details of
accused Amit Kumar, report regarding complaint of accused
Shekhar, copy of case diary to prove the admitted handwriting of
SI Amit Kumar were seized. The certified copies of CDRs of
mobile phones of complainant, the accused persons and Ashok
were obtained. After transfer of IO/Insp. D.V.Gautam, the
investigation was assigned to Insp. Virender Mor. Specimen
handwriting and signatures of accused persons and complainant
were obtained and sent to FSL Rohini. The statements of
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 94
witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The FSL results were
obtained from FSL, Rohini, and placed on record. The
prosecution sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was obtained qua accused
SI Amit Kumar.
5) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the accused SI Amit Kumar and Shekhar Kumar u/s
7/8/13(i)(d) PC Act 1988 and cognizance of offence was taken
against the accused persons on 13.09.2019. After hearing
arguments, charge for the offence under Sections 120B IPC read
with Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act was framed against both
the accused persons. Accused SI Amit Kumar was also charged
for the offence under section 7 PC Act r/w Section 120B IPC
and for the offence under section 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act punishable
under section 13(2) of P.C. Act, r/w Section 120B IPC. Both the
accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined
29 witnesses. The brief summary of deposition of prosecution
witnesses is as under:-
i) PW1 ASI Kharak Singh was the Duty Officer, who
had recorded FIR in the present case and he proved copy of FIR
Ex. PW1/B, his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/C, DD No.
7A dated 23.05.2018 in respect of registration of the FIR as Ex.
PW1/A and copy of DD No.27B dt. 23.05.18 Ex.PW1/D.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 94
ii) PW2 Ct. Mahender deposed that on 23.05.2018, he
was on duty as computer operator on CCTNS and on the
instructions of HC Jai Prakash, he typed the FIR of the present
case on CCTNS system and thereafter took a printout, handed it
over to DO alongwith rukka and in this regard he issued a
certificate u/Sec. 65B of I.E.Act Ex.PW2/A.
iii) PW3 ASI Barmeshwar Goswami produced bio-data
of accused SI Amit Kumar, s/o Sh. Shyam Dass, PIS No.
27010054 Ex.PW3/A and in this regard he issued certificate
under Section 65B of I.E. Act Ex.PW3/B.
iv) PW-4 ASI Josheph K.J. deposed that on 01.06.2018,
MHC(M) handed over to him right hand wash, which was sealed
with the seal of AK, to deposit the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC
no. 10/18, which he took to FSL, Rohini, however, there was
some objection in the documents, therefore, right hand wash
could not be deposited and he handed over the same to MHC(M).
v) PW5 SI Sagar Singh deposed that on 23.05.2018, he
was posted as MSI(M), PS Vigilance, Barakhamba Road, and
Insp. Dharambir Gautam deposited GC notes, hand wash, mobile
phones of both accused and personal search articles of both the
accused alongwith sample seal and copies of seizure memos. He
made entry at serial no. 115 in register no. 19 Ex.PW5/A. He
further deposed that on 25.05.2018, Insp. Dharambir Gautam
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 94
deposited mobile phone of Surender alongwith copy of seizure
memo vide entry at serial no. 116 Ex.PW5/B (OSR). He further
deposed that on 01.06.2018, he handed over the right hand wash
of accused SI Amit Kumar alongwith sample seal and documents
to ASI Joseph, vide RC No.10/21/18 dated 01.06.2018 Ex.
PW5/C in order to deposit at FSL, Rohini, however, the exhibits
could not be deposited in FSL due to some objections in the
documents and as such ASI Joseph deposited the same in
Malkhana. On 04.06.2018, he handed over to Ct. Sandeep the
exhibits i.e. right hand wash-I of SI Amit Kumar sealed with the
seal of AK alongwith documents and sample seal, vide RC
No.11/21/2018 dated 04.06.2018 Ex. PW5/D in order to deposit
at FSL, Rohini. Ct. Sandeep went to FSL, Rohini and deposited
the exhibits and handed over the acknowledgement receipt of
FSL Ex.PW5/E. PW5 further deposed that on 14.06.2018, Insp.
Dharambir Gautam deposited voice sample of one Ashok Kumar
and voice sample of complainant Surender Singh in the malkhana
vide entry at serial no. 117 Ex.PW5/F. On 15.06.2018, Insp.
Dharambir Gautam deposited sample voices of both the accused
persons vide entry at serial no. 118 Ex.PW5/G. On 24.04.2019,
HC Rakesh Kumar collected sealed FSL result and exhibits from
FSL, Rohini and deposited in Malkhana and he made entry in
register no. 19. PW5 further deposed that on 26.04.2019, HC
Rakesh Kumar collected FSL result and exhibits from FSL,
Rohini and deposited the same with him and he made entry in
register no. 19.
In his cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 94
Amit Kumar, PW5 deposed that he did not make any entry in
register no. 19 regarding sending of case property through ASI
Joseph K.J. to FSL on 01.06.2018 and redeposit of case property
by him due to objection raised by FSL. He further deposed that
the case property is sent through Road Certificate and only after
acknowledgment from FSL, an entry qua handing over of case
property to the concerned police official is made in Register no.
19. PW5 stated that he did not know what objections were raised
by FSL officials on 01.06.2018. He denied that no exhibits were
sent to FSL on 01.06.2018 through ASI Joseph K.J.
vi) PW6 Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani was the panch
witness, who deposed on 30.11.2021 that he did not remember
the date and month but it was around two years back, when he
reached the Vigilance office at 10:00 am, where he met the
complainant Sh. Surender through one SI, who briefed him about
his grievance and his complaint. Complainant told him about the
demand of money from him and he further told PW6 that he had
on one or two previous occasions paid money as per the demand.
On that day also the complainant had brought an amount of
Rs.50,000/- for paying to SI Amit Kumar. The complainant
handed over that amount to one SI who had applied some
chemical on the said currency notes. The currency notes were
then handed over to the complainant for giving the same to the
accused. Nothing else was done prior to that. Thereafter his
examination-in-chief was deferred at the request of Ld. Addl.P.P.
for the State.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 94
On 09.05.2022 PW6 further deposed that he had
visited the office of Vigilance on 23.05.2018 and complainant
Surender Singh had given a written complaint Ex. PW6/A at the
office of Vigilance, on which he identified his signatures. The
complaint was in writing regarding demand of bribe by SI Amit
Kumar of PS Punjabi Bagh. PW6 went through the complaint
and also made enquiries from the complainant. The complainant
had brought Rs.50,000/- with him. Thereafter, Insp. Ajay Kumar
had asked PW6 to sign the complaint of Surender. Insp. Ajay
Kumar also noted down the serial numbers of the GC notes in his
pre-raid report. PW6 further deposed that he also checked the
numbers of the GC notes. Insp. Ajay Kumar applied chemical
powder on the GC notes and directed him to touch the said
powder smeared GC notes with his right hand. His right hand
wash was taken in Sodium Carbonate solution and the colourless
solution turned pink. Insp. Ajay Kumar had also explained the
importance of the powder which was applied on the GC notes.
The GC notes were 25 notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination each.
The aforesaid powder smeared GC notes were handed over to
Surender, who kept the same in the right pocket of his pant. The
complainant was directed by Insp. Ajay Kumar that he should
keep PW6 with him so that he could see the transaction and
overhear the conversation between the complainant and the
accused. The complainant was further directed to hand over the
money to the accused only after his specific demand and not
otherwise. After giving the demonstration, the pink solution was
thrown and the glass jar was washed. The remaining chemical
powder was handed over to Duty Officer. PW6, complainant
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 94
Surender and Insp. Ajay Kumar washed their hands. Thereafter,
complainant Surender Singh called SI Amit telephonically and SI
Amit asked complainant to talk to Shekhar. Thereafter, Insp.
Ajay Kumar constituted a raiding team comprising of five
persons alongwith complainant and him (PW6) and they all
departed for PS Punjabi Bagh. When they reached at the gate of
PS Punjabi Bagh, complainant Surender received a call from one
Ashok, who directed complainant to call Shekhar as SI Amit had
made several calls. Complainant then contacted Shekhar
telephonically and the complainant was directed by Shekhar to
come to his office. Thereafter, raiding team left for the office of
Shekhar at Rampura. PW6 and Surender reached at his office
alongwith the raiding party. PW6 alongwith Surender went to
the first floor to the office of Shekhar. Surender made call to
Shekhar and he asked Surender to wait for five minutes as he was
coming. After about 5 minutes Shekhar came there. Shekhar
made call to SI Amit Kumar from there. After talking to SI
Amit, Shekhar informed the complainant that SI Amit would
come in 10-15 minutes in the office. After 15 minutes, SI Amit
Kumar came there. PW6 correctly identified accused Amit
Kumar and Shekhar before the court. PW6 deposed that SI Amit
Kumar wrote a compromise-type statement in his handwriting.
When PW6 was shown the compromise document, he showed
ignorance about the said document/compromise. PW6 deposed
that thereafter, Shekhar told Surender “jo laaye ho inko de do”.
Thereafter, complainant gave the powder smeared GC notes to
accused Amit. Accused Amit kept those notes in his right hand
and thereafter, PW6 came down to 2-3 steps and made pre-
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 94
appointed signal to the raiding party. The raiding party and the
RO came upstairs to the office of Shekhar. RO gave introduction
of the raiding party to SI Amit and offered his search as well as
search of the raiding party to him prior to the search of SI Amit.
Accused Amit refused to take the search of the raiding party.
RO/Insp. Ajay Kumar then recovered the tainted GC notes from
the right hand of the accused. The GC notes were seized and
sealed with the seal of ‘AK’ after keeping in an envelope vide
seizure memo Ex.PW6/B.
Thereafter, right hand wash of the accused was
taken by RO in a colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which
turned pink. The said pink colour solution was transferred by
RO in two glass bottles. PW6 and the complainant had signed on
the paper slips pasted on bottles of the said solution. Both the
bottles were sealed and seized by the RO vide seizure memo
Ex.PW6/C. The sealed bottles were marked as RHW-I and
RHW-II. The sealed bottles were kept in two separate envelopes
and the envelopes were sealed with the seal of ‘AK’. Seal after
use was handed over to him by the RO. RO also enquired from
him and the complainant Surender regarding the facts.
Thereafter, RO prepared a report and handed over the same to
one of the raiding team member and sent him to PS Barakhamba.
After that one police official came there at the spot and he also
made enquiries from him and the complainant. PW6 also made
enquiries from accused Amit and accused Shekhar. Two phones
which were in the possession of accused Amit and two phones
which were in the possession of accused Shekhar were seized by
IO vide seizure memos Ex.PW14/D and Ex. PW14/E
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 94
respectively. PW6 deposed that as there was no light and also
several public persons were there at the spot, they all returned
back to the PS Barakhamba alongwith the accused persons.
There at the PS, the IO prepared a report and obtained his
signatures as well as of the complainant on the said report. PW6
identified his signatures on arrest memo of accused Amit Kumar
Ex. PW14/F, arrest memo of Shekhar Ex. PW14/G and personal
search memo of accused Amit Kumar Ex. PW14/H and personal
search memo of Shekhar Ex. PW14/I.
PW6 also correctly identified 25 currency notes of
denomination of Rs.2,000/- each contained in an envelop
Ex.PW14/Article-1 (colly), serial number of which were
compared with the serial numbers mentioned in the pre-raid
report and also with the seizure memo. He also correctly
identified one sealed glass bottle RHW-I Ex.P-1, another sealed
glass bottle RHW-II Ex.P-11 and two mobile phones of make
‘Samsung’ seized from accused Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar
Singh Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13. PW6 further stated that he could
also identify the mobile phones which were recovered from
accused Amit Kumar. The said mobiles phones were already
released to the accused Amit Kumar and as such identity of the
mobile phones was not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel.
With the permission of the court, Ld. Addl. PP for
the State cross-examined PW6. PW6 affirmed that his statement
recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark-X1 was recorded by the police
after the raid. PW6 affirmed that after the demonstration and
instructions given by the RO, he was directed by the RO to give
signal to the raiding party by waving his right hand two times
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 94
over his head after the bribe has been accepted by the accused.
PW6 also affirmed that after the demonstration given by the RO,
the complainant had telephonically contacted accused Amit from
his mobile no. 8168961034 to the mobile number of accused
9911456545. PW6 also affirmed that they all left the PS
Vigilance for the raid in a government vehicle having registration
no. DL-1CJ-5549. PW6 affirmed that SI Amit Kumar had
demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and
accepted the same from the complainant and that SI Amit had
asked the complainant regarding the remaining bribe which was
to be given by the complainant and the complainant had replied
that the same would be given within 2-4 days. PW6 also
affirmed that after the accused Amit had accepted the bribe, he
had given pre-determined signal to the raiding party and that the
bottles in which the hand-wash of accused Amit was transferred
were marked as RHW-I and RHW-II. PW6 also affirmed that
the IO had prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant at
the spot and that both the accused were interrogated and arrested
in the present case and their disclosure statements were also
recorded. PW6 identified his signatures on the disclosure
statement of accused Amit Ex.PW6/D. PW6 deposed that he
could not recollect the complete facts due to lapse of time.
vii) PW7 Insp. C.L. Meena, deposed that on 24.05.2018,
he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as Inspector Investigation and
on that day, Insp. Dharamvir Gautam alongwith accused SI Amit
visited at PS Punjabi Bagh at about 09:15 PM and conducted the
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 94
search of room allotted to the accused SI Amit, who was posted
at PS Punjabi Bagh on that day. IO prepared memo Ex. PW7/A
in this regard. PW7 correctly identified accused Amit before the
court.
viii) PW8 Ct. Ankush deposed that on 25.05.18, he was
posted as constable in Vigilance Branch. On that day,
complainant Surender came at the office of Vigilance and handed
over his mobile, make of which he did not remember. PW8 also
did not remember how many SIMs were there in the said phone.
The phone was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. PW8
further deposed that the mobile phone was containing
conversation between complainant Surender and accused SI
Amit.
PW8 further deposed that apart from conversation
between SI Amit and complainant Surender, the mobile was also
having conversation of Shekhar, between the period from
21.05.2018 to 23.05.2018. IO prepared the CD and copied the
audio files regarding conversation in the CD and same was taken
into possession by the IO through memo Ex.PW8/A.
PW8 further deposed that on 14.06.2018, he
alongwith IO and ASI Kailash Chand went to FSL, Rohini,
where the voice sample of Surender Singh and Ashok Kumar
were recorded in cassette. The two cassettes containing the voice
sample were sealed and seized vide seizure memo. The original
voice sample of Surender Singh was given Mark-O and the copy
prepared was given Mark-C. The cassettes were kept in a CD
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 94
mailer envelope and same was seized through seizure memo
Ex.PW8/B. Original voice sample of Ashok Kumar was given
Mark-O and copy was given Mark-C. The original voice sample
was kept in a CD mailer and the same was given Mark-O-II and
copy of the same was given Mark-C-II. Voice sample of Ashok
Kumar was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C.
PW8 further deposed that on 15.06.2018, he
alongwith IO and ASI Kailash Chand went to FSL Rohini, Delhi,
where voice sample of accused SI Amit Kumar and Shekhar
were collected. The original voice sample was given Mark-O and
copy of sample was given Mark-C. All four cassettes were kept
in plastic cover and the same were kept in CD mailers and sealed
with the seal of DBG. CD mailer of Shekhar Kumar containing
original voice sample cassette was given the Mark-O-III and
copy of voice sample cassette was given Mark-C-III. Original
voice sample cassette of Amit Kumar, CD mailer was given the
Mark-O-IV and copy of voice sample was given the Mark-C-IV.
Voice sample of accused Amit Kumar and Shekhar were seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. PW8 correctly identified accused
Amit Kumar and Shekhar before the court. PW8 further deposed
that all the cassettes and CD mailers were signed by him and
Kailash Chand, IO.
PW8 correctly identified cassettes having having
marking as C Ex.P1, CD mailer having marking as C-I Ex.P2,
CD Mailer having marking as C-II Ex. P-4 and one audio
cassette having having marking of C Ex.P3, CD Mailer having
marking as C-III Ex. P-6 and one audio cassette having marking
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 94
of C Ex. P-5, CD Mailer having marking as C-IV Ex. P-8 and
one audio cassette having marking of C Ex. P-7, one mobile
phone make ‘Gionee’ with two SIM cards Ex. P-9.
ix) PW-9 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel
Ltd. deposed that he provided the attested copy of CAF of mobile
number 9911456545 Ex. PW9/A, which was allotted to Amit
Kumar, s/o Shyam Das and the CDR of aforesaid number from
16.05.18 to 24.05.18 Ex.PW9/B. PW9 further deposed that he
also provided the attested copy of CAF of mobile number
9910806520 Ex. PW9/C, which was allotted to Sh. Shekhar
Kumar s/o Sh. Kameshwar Prasad Singh; CDR of said number
from 16.05.18 to 24.05.18 Ex.PW9/D; location chart Ex.PW9/E
and the certificate under Sec. 65B Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PW9/F.
x) PW10 Shailendra Yadav, Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 04.06.2018, the
exhibit i.e. one sealed glass bottle bearing seal of AK was
received by him for examination. The parcel RHW-I stated to be
light pink coloured solution described as right hand wash in the
sealed bottle. On chemical and TLC examination, exhibits RHW-
I was found to contain Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein
and he gave his report Ex.PW10/A. PW10 correctly identified
the glass bottle Ex.P1.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 94
xi) PW11 Pawan Singh, Nodal officer, Vodafone Idea
Ltd., deposed that on 16.04.2019, he had provided EKYC of
mobile no. 9311006520, which was registered in the name of
Shekher Kumar, EX. PW11/A; its Call detail records (CDR) Ex.
PW11/B; EKYC of mobile no. 9813878402, which was
registered in the name of Surender, Ex. PW11/C; its Call detail
records (CDR) Ex. PW11/D and certificate under Section 65(B),
Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW11/E, to the Addl. DCP with his
forwarding letter dated 16.04.2019 Ex. PW11/F. PW11 further
deposed that the mobile no. 9311005650 was inadvertently
mentioned in letter Ex. PW11/F, which may be read as
9311006520. The mobile no. 9311005650 was inadvertently
mentioned in letter Ex. PW11/E which may be read as
9311006520. PW11 produced a fresh certificate under Section
65(B), Indian Evidence Act regarding mobile numbers
9813878402 and 9311006520 Ex. PW11/G.
xii) PW-12 Insp. Rajeev Bhardwaj deposed that on
16.05.2018, he was posted as SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh and on that
day, one Shekhar came to the PS stating that his goods were
pilfered from a truck, between Okhla to Chennai. PW2 further
deposed that since the jurisdiction of the offence was not related
to PS Punjabi Bagh, he directed Shekhar to approach the
concerned PS i.e. Okhla. Later on, after arrest of accused SI
Amit, who was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh at the relevant time,
he learnt that he alongwith accused Shekhar had acted
unofficially by going to Bahadurgarh to recover the goods. He
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 94
correctly identified accused Amit before the court.
xiii) PW-13 ASI Satpal Dagar, deposed that on
01.06.2018, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh as ASI and he was
performing the duty of Reader to SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh. He
received a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. and in pursuance thereof, he had
provided original copy of the Inner Case Diary of case FIR
No.125/18, U/s 392/34 IPC, PS Punjabi Bagh dated 12.03.2018
which was being investigated by SI Amit Kumar; photocopy of
order no. 3625-40 dated 15.02.2018 regarding transfer of SI Amit
Kumar from 1st Battalion to PS Punjabi Bagh and report
regarding no-complaint of Shekhar between the period
16.05.2018 to 23.05.2018 being lodged in the complaint register
at PS Punjabi Bagh which were seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW13/A. He also handed over the original case diary Ex.
PW13/B was in the handwriting of SI Amit Kumar. His report
was Ex.PW13/C and copy of the office order is Ex.PW13/D.
PW13 correctly identified accused Amit Kumar before the court.
xiv) PW14 Surender - the complainant. xv) PW15 Ct. Sandeep deposed that on 04.06.2018, on
the instructions of the IO, he collected sealed exhibit RHW-I i.e.
one sealed bottle bearing the seal of AK alongwith sample seal of
AK and forwarding letter from the MHC(M), PS Vigilance and
deposited the same at FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 11/18. After
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 94
depositing the same, he collected the acknowledgment of
acceptance, which he handed over to MHC(M).
xvi) PW16 Ashok Kumar – public witness, who was an
acquaintance of complainant Surender and accused Shekhar.
PW16 deposed that he was running transport business in the
name and style of Anshu Roadlines situated at Kakrola. On
07.05.2018, he received call from accused Shekhar and he had
asked to arrange a transport vehicle for Chennai. PW16 called
Surender, the owner of vehicle canter and asked him to provide
canter to transport goods to Chennai. Surender sent the Canter
alongwith the driver to the office of accused Shekhar. The goods
were loaded in the canter and it left for Chennai. After about one
week, PW16 received call from accused Shekhar, who stated that
only half of the goods had reached to the party at Chennai.
PW16 again called Surender and he stated that “gaadi mein
overload ho gaya tha, isliye kuch maal utaar diya “. PW16
conveyed the message to accused Shekhar and also stated that the
goods which were unloaded were at Bahadurgarh. Accused
Shekhar alongwith his staff went to the address given by
Surender at Bahadurgarh and collected the un-dispatched goods.
Accused Shekhar conveyed to PW16 that Rs.One Lakh was to be
given to the party at Chennai whose entire goods were not
transported on account of delay. Accused Shekhar talked to
Surender but Surender refused to give Rs. One Lakh. Accused
Shekhar told to PW16 that Surender should meet him at his
office. Surender visited the office of accused Shekhar at Punjabi
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 94
Bagh. Accused Shekhar had already lodged FIR against
Surender at PS Punjabi Bagh. Surender and accused Shekhar
visited PS Punjabi Bagh and a settlement was arrived at between
them for Rs.80,000/- to be paid by Surender to accused Shekhar.
Surender had asked for time of 4-5 days to pay the amount.
Later on after one week, PW16 came to know that Surender had
laid a raid against police official of PS Punjabi Bagh. PW16
stated that he was not aware who was the said police official.
PW16 further deposed that on 30.05.2018, he
received a call from office of Vigilance. His voice sample was
taken at the office of Vigilance. After that he had not received
any call from Vigilance or any other department. PW16
correctly identified accused Shekhar before the court.
PW16 identified the CD mailer having original
voice sample cassette of PW16 and the cassette alongwith the
cover and CD mailer are Ex.P-10.
PW16 also identified his signatures on the seizure
memo of two cassettes of the sample voice of PW16 Ex.PW8/C.
On being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, PW16 stated that police had never recorded his statement.
PW16 denied having made statement dated 30.05.2018 Mark-Z
to the police. PW16 denied that the driver of the canter of
Surender telephonically informed him that the canter had met
with an accident and some of the goods had been broken. PW16
further denied that Shekhar knew that Surender had
misappropriated the goods or that Shekhar had apprised the
aforesaid facts at PS Punjabi Bagh or that Shekhar had talked to
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 94
SI Amit Kumar at PS Punjabi Bagh. PW16 further denied that
he, driver Jasbir and Surender were interrogated at the PS by SI
Amit on 16.05.2018 and that Shekhar had not given any
complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh as the matter did not pertain to the
jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh. PW16 further denied that in the
evening of 16.05.2018, SI Amit alongwith Shekhar, Surender,
driver Jasbir alongwith other persons at the instance of Surender
reached at Bahadurgarh in two private vehicles or that one truck
which was parked in front of a hotel loaded with liquor was
recovered at the instance of Surender or that Ct. Bhagirath also
accompanied SI Amit Kumar to Bahadurgarh. PW16 further
denied that the truck no. HR-55Q-6228 alongwith loaded liquor
was brought at the office of Shekhar alongwith them or that SI
Amit Kumar had demanded Rs.Four Lakh from Surender for not
initiating legal proceedings against him or that SI Amit Kumar
demanded additional amount of Rs.One Lakh from Surender for
releasing the aforesaid truck. PW16 further denied that on
17.05.2018, he accompanied Surender to PS Punjabi Bagh where
SI Amit met them or that SI Amit closed his room or that
Surender handed over Rs.Two Lakh (100 GC notes in the
denomination of Rs.2,000/- each) to SI Amit after taking out
from his pocket or that at the time of giving of GC notes to SI
Amit, he (PW16) was sitting beside Surender. PW16 further
denied that he visited PS Punjabi Bagh again alongwith Shekhar
and Surender and had given Rs.50,000/- to SI Amit. PW16
further denied that on 23.05.2018, he was in Rajasthan and at
about 11:00 am, he received a call from Shekhar who was asking
regarding the whereabouts of Surender as Surender has to pay
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 94
Rs.2,20,000/- to SI Amit on that day or that Shekhar also stated
that SI Amit was asking the whereabouts of Surender as Surender
has to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to him. PW16
further denied that Surender reached PS Punjabi Bagh on that
day alongwith remaining amount of bribe but Shekhar called him
at his office or that Surender reached the office of Shekhar
alongwith the bribe amount or that there was a collusion between
Shekhar and SI Amit to take the money from Surender or that
Shekhar had not given any written complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh
or that SI Amit alongwith Ct. Bhagirath had recovered the truck
loaded with 360-380 cartons of expensive liquor from
Bahadurgarh or that Shekhar in connivance with SI Amit had got
paid Rs.2,80,000/- to SI Amit from Surender or that they were
demanding remaining amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from Surender.
PW16 further denied that Shekhar wanted to take revenge from
Surender or that Shekhar wanted to give reward to SI Amit for
the recovery of expensive liquor from or that due to the said
reason, he was working as mediator of SI Amit.
PW16 also denied having made statement dated
14.06.2018 Mark-Z1 to the police. PW16 denied that on
14.06.2016, he accompanied the IO of the present case to FSL,
Rohini where his sample voice was taken in audio cassette by the
FSL officials or that the original recording of his voice sample
was marked as “O” and the recording of the same was marked as
“C”. However, PW16 again stated that he had visited the FSL,
Rohini alongwith the IO where his sample voice was taken and
the original cassette was marked as “O” and the recording of the
same was marked as “C”. PW16 further stated that he had signed
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 94
the audio cassette when there was no audio tape (reel) in the
audio cassette, however, he again stated that there was audio tape
(reel) inside the audio cassette when he had signed on the audio
cassette after his voice sample was taken at FSL, Rohini. PW16
affirmed that the audio cassettes were kept in CD mailer and
were sealed with the seal of DBG and taken into police
possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/C on which he had
signed and that e had signed the CD mailer after it was sealed by
the IO.
During recording of testimony of PW16, his
attention was drawn towards accused Amit Kumar but he stated
that he was not aware who was SI Amit and he count not identify
the accused.
PW16 denied that he was introducing fresh facts in
order to save the accused persons from legal punishment or that
he was won over by the accused Amit and that is why he was
intentionally and deliberately not identifying accused Amit in the
court and deposing falsely on oath.
xvii) PW17 ASI Leela Arya deposed that on 02.07.2018
in her presence in the office of Vigilance, IO Insp. Dharambir
Gautam had taken specimen handwriting and signature of
Surender. She further deposed that on 10.07.2018, IO Insp.
Dharambir Gautam had taken specimen handwriting and
signature of Shekhar in her presence.
xviii) PW18 HC Bhagirath deposed that on 16.05.2018, he
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 24 of 94
was on beat patrolling in the area of PS Punjabi Bagh. In the
evening, he received call of accused SI Amit Kumar, who was
also posted at PS Punjabi Bagh, and apprised him that he was
having a complaint and he (PW18) had to accompany him. After
some time, accused SI Amit Kumar again telephonically
contacted him and told him to come immediately. PW18 reached
at PS Punjabi Bagh and met with accused SI Amit Kumar, who
was standing with 5-6 other persons and two vehicles were also
there, out of which one vehicle was Maruti Swift and the other
vehicle was a Taxi number car. PW18 alongwith accused SI
Amit Kumar and the other persons left PS Punjabi Bagh in both
the vehicles and reached at some place near Bahadurgarh. They
stopped outside a restaurant where one truck bearing no. HR-
55Q-6228 was stationed. The truck was covered with Tirpaal.
Talks were going on between the public persons and accused SI
Amit Kumar and PW18 came to conclusion that there was a
quarrel between two transporters and that boxes of liquor were
lying in the said truck. After that they all left the said place and
the truck proceeded for Delhi. PW18 was dropped at PS Punjabi
Bagh. PW18 was not told about the facts of the complaint by
accused SI Amit Kumar. Later on his statement was recorded on
01.06.2018 at PS Vigilance.
On being cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the
State, PW18 affirmed that it was revealed to him at Bahadurgarh
that the goods loaded in the truck were of Shekhar, who got it
sent to Chennai and it was detained by one Surender due to some
old dispute between them.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 25 of 94
xix) PW-19 SI Kailash deposed that on 14.06.2018, he
had accompanied the IO alongwith Ct. Ankush to FSL, Rohini,
where voice samples of Surender Singh and Ashok Kumar were
recorded in audio cassettes. The cassette containing the voice
sample of Surender Singh was marked as ‘O’ and the copy
prepared was marked as ‘C’. The cassettes were kept in CD
mailer envelope and were seized through seizure memo already
Ex.PW8/B. The original voice sample of Ashok Kumar was
given mark ‘O’ and the copy of the voice sample of Ashok
Kumar was marked as ‘C’. The cassette containing original
voice sample was kept in CD mailer envelope and marked as ‘O-
II’ and the copy of the same was marked as “C-II’. Voice sample
of Ashok Kumar was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C.
PW19 further deposed that on 15.06.2018, he
alongwith the IO and Ct. Ankush again went to FSL, Rohini,
where voice samples of accused SI Amit and accused Shekhar
were taken in audio cassettes. The original voice sample was
given mark ‘O’ and the copy of the sample voice was marked as
‘C’. All four cassettes were kept in CD mailer and were sealed
with the seal of DBG. CD mailer containing original voice
sample of Shekhar was marked as ‘O-III’ and the CD mailer
containing the copy of the voice sample of Shekhar was marked
as ‘C-IV’. All the sealed exhibits were seized vide memo
Ex.PW8/D.
PW19 correctly identified CD Mailer having
marking C-I Ex. P2, one audio cassette having marking C Ex.P1,
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 26 of 94
CD Mailer having marking C-II Ex. P4, one audio cassette
having marking C Ex.P3, CD Mailer having marking as C-III Ex.
P6, one audio cassette having marking of C Ex.P5, CD Mailer
having marking as C-IV Ex. P8 and one audio cassette having
marking of C Ex.P7.
PW19 also correctly identified accused Amit Kumar
and Shekhar before the court.
xx) PW20 Vijender Singh, Assistant Director
(Documents), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 20.12.2018,
vide memo no. 756/RC-26/21/2018/VIU/Vig, Delhi Police dated
20.12.2018 in FIR No. 5/2018 of PS Vigilance, Delhi, questioned
and standard writings were received for examination and opinion.
The exhibits were consisting of questioned writings/signature
marked Q-1 to Q-4 and standard writing/figures/ signatures
marked S-1 to S7, A1 & A2 of Sh. Amit Kumar, S8 & S9 of Sh.
Surender Singh and S10 & S11 of Sh. Shekhar Singh.
All the documents were carefully and thoroughly
examined with available scientific instruments using various
lighting conditions and magnifications and he gave his report Ex.
PW20/A wherein he opined that :-
(i) the person who wrote the red enclosed
writing/signature stamped and marked S1 to S7, A1 & A2 also
wrote the red enclosed writing/signature similarly stamped and
marked Q1 & Q2.
(ii) the person who wrote the red enclosed
writing/signature stamped and marked S8 and S9 also wrote the
red enclosed writing/signature similarly stamped and marked Q3.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 27 of 94
(iii) the person who wrote the red enclosed
writing/signature stamped and marked S10 and S11 also wrote
the red enclosed writing/signature similarly stamped and marked
Q4.
PW20 further deposed that the documents which
were examined by him were Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW14/B (colly),
Ex.PW14/K and Ex.PW14/L. All the documents bear the stamp
impression of Documents Division, FSL, GNCT of Delhi and
also bear the FSL No. 2018/D-11787 at point Y.
xxi) PW21 ASI Tara Chand deposed that on 20.12.18, on
the instructions of IO, he had collected the documents vide RC
no. 26/21/18 from him and deposited the same in FSL Rohini and
handed over the acknowledgement of acceptance to the IO.
xxii) PW22 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, Senior Scientific
Officer (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on
13.03.2019, five sealed parcels alongwith forwarding letter
through Computer Forensic Unit were marked to her for
examination. After detailed examination, she prepared her report
Ex.PW22/A. The case exhibits were resealed with the seal of Dr.
B.B. FSL DELHI and sent back to the forwarding authority.
PW22 correctly identified the CD marked as “CD1″alongwith it
cover Ex.PW22/Article-1; a CD mailer having one audio cassette
Maxell alongwith its cover Ex.PW22/Article-2; an envelop
marked as O-II on which original voice sample cassette of Ashok
Kumar was written containing one CD mailer having one audio
cassette Maxell alongwith its cover Ex.P-10; an envelop marked
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 28 of 94
as O-III on which original voice sample cassette of accused
Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Singh was written containing one CD
mailer having one audio cassette Maxell alongwith its cover
Ex.PW22/Article-3 and an envelop marked as O-IV on which
original voice sample cassette of accused Amit Kumar was
written containing one CD mailer having one audio cassette
Maxell alongwith its cover Ex.PW22/Article-4.
xxiii) PW23 Dr. Virender Singh, Assistant Director, FSL,
Rohini, Delhi, deposed on 26.06.2018, three sealed parcels were
received at FSL, Rohini, which were assigned to him alongwith
forwarding letter for extraction of data. First sealed parcel was
found containing one Gionee mobile phone alongwith two SIM
cards; second second sealed parcel was found containing two
Samsung mobile phones i.e. Model no. SM-B313E/D alongwith
two SIM cards and the other Model No. SM-G610F/DD
containing two SIM cards; third sealed parcel was found
containing one Apple mobile phone having one SIM phone and
one VIVO mobile phone having one memory card make Toshiba
8 GB capacity. The data was extracted from exhibit MP3 i.e.
Samsung mobile phone having 2 SIM cards (Jio and Airtel) and
was provided in a CD marked as CD-1 (Ex. PW22/Article-1) by
him and he prepared report Ex.PW23/A. He had also issued
certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW23/B
regarding the genuineness of the data retrieved by him. The CD-
1 containing the retrieved data was sealed with the seal of DOC
FSL DELHI and was sent to Physics Division, FSL, Rohini for
further examination. Other exhibits were also sealed and handed
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 29 of 94
over to the forwarding authority. PW23 identified his initials on
the aforesaid which alongwith its cover was Ex.PW22/Article-1.
PW23 also correctly identified two mobile phones of make
Samsung Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 as the ones which were examined
by him and one smart phone make GIONEE Ex.P-9.
xxiv) PW-24 ACP Ajay Kumar deposed that on
23.05.2018, he was posted as Inspector, Vigilance and at about
11:00 am, he was called by ACP, Vigilance, who introduced to
him complainant namely Surender Singh, who was present in his
office. He was directed by the ACP to look into the grievances
of the complainant. Accordingly, he took complainant Surender
Singh to his office. PW24 also called panch witness namely
Ramesh Kesharwani in his office. The complainant wrote a
complaint Ex. PW6/A in Hindi and signed the same. The panch
witness Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani also went through the
complaint and signed the same and he also attested the same.
PW24 further deposed that the complainant had brought with him
Rs.50,000/- which were to be given as bribe to the bribe seeker.
The GC notes were 25 notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination each.
PW24 procured bottle of Phenolphthalein powder from DO of PS
Vigilance and applied the same on the aforesaid GC notes which
were handed over to him by the complainant. The panch witness
was asked by PW24 to touch the powder smeared notes with his
right hand and his right handwash was taken in colourless
solution of Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. PW24
explained the specialty of Phenolphthalein powder to
complainant and panch witness. The pink solution was thrown
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 30 of 94
away and the vessels were cleaned with the help of soap and
water. The complainant was briefed that he would keep only the
powder smeared notes with him and nothing else. The powder
smeared notes were handed over to the complainant, who put the
same in right pocket of his wearing pant. PW24 directed the
complainant to stay with the panch witness and he also directed
the panch witness to remain present with the complainant. The
panch witness was further directed that he should listen and see
the transaction which would happen between the complainant
and the bribe seeker. A raiding team was constituted comprising
of HC Rakesh, HC Tarachand, HC Kanwar Singh. PW24
collected his laptop and his official printer. PW24 also collected
the investigation kit from PS Vigilance. They left the office of
Vigilance at around 12:45 pm in a government vehicle alongwith
the raiding team, complainant, panch witness and the driver for
PS Punjabi Bagh. Before leaving PS Vigilance, the complainant
called SI Amit of PS Punjabi Bagh from his mobile phone and SI
Amit asked the complainant to reach at the office of Shekhar.
They reached at PS Punjabi Bagh. The raiding team took
position in a scattered manner outside the PS Punjabi Bagh. The
complainant and the panch witness proceeded towards PS
Punjabi Bagh. After some time, complainant came back and told
him that one Ashok of Anshu Roadlines has called him and had
asked him about the whereabouts of the complainant. The
complainant further apprised him that Ashok had directed the
complainant to talk to Shekhar and accordingly, the complainant
talked to Shekhar, who asked the complainant to visit his office
which was situated at Phool Bagh, Rampura. The raiding team
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 31 of 94
alongwith panch witness and complainant left for Rampura.
PW24 further deposed that after reaching Rampura,
the complainant pointed out towards the transport office of
Shekhar at the ground floor and also pointed out towards the
office of Shekhar which was situated at the first floor of one
building there, from inside the official vehicle. The official
vehicle was parked at some distance ahead of the said office.
They alighted the official vehicle. The raiding team was directed
by PW24 to take position in a scattered manner. PW24 again
briefed the complainant and the panch witness and directed the
complainant to hand over the bribe to the bribe seeker on
demand. After that the complainant and panch witness proceeded
towards the first floor of the building where the office of accused
Shekhar was situated. At about 04:20 pm, the panch witness
came down some stairs and gave pre-determined signal to the
raiding party. PW24 called the team and they all proceeded
towards the first floor of the building. PW24 further deposed
that inside the office, two persons were present one of the them
was SI Amit and the other was Shekhar. PW24 blocked the way
of the office with the help of raiding team members. PW24
introduced himself to SI Amit and also offered his search and the
search of the raiding team members prior to his search. The
panch witness apprised PW24 that SI Amit had accepted bribe
from the complainant after demanding the same from the
complainant. PW24 directed the panch witness to take the
search of SI Amit. The bribe amount was recovered from the
right hand of SI Amit. The serial numbers of the GC notes were
tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in the pre-raid report
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 32 of 94
Ex. PW14/C which were found to be correct. The recovered
notes were kept in a brown colour envelope and were sealed by
the seal of AK and seizure memo Ex.PW6/B. PW24 took the
right hand wash of the accused SI Amit Kumar in the colourless
solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. The pink
solution was transferred in two separate clean glass bottles and
their mouths were sealed with the seal of AK with the help of
cloth and thread. Two paper labels were affixed on both the
bottles which were marked as RHW-I and RHW-II. PW24
obtained signatures of panch witness and the complainant on the
labels affixed on the bottles and also signed the same. The sealed
bottles were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/C. PW24 prepared a
tehrir Ex.PW24/A and also informed PS Vigilance regarding the
success of the raid and also requested to send an IO at the spot.
PW24 handed over the tehrir to HC Kanwar Singh with
directions to get the case registered at PS Vigilance. After some
time, Insp. Dharamvir Gautam reached there at the spot. PW24
handed over the case property with the documents prepared by
him to Insp. Dharamvir Gautam alongwith both the accused
persons. PW24 correctly identified accused SI Amit and Shekhar
before the court. PW24 remained at the spot and after that they
all alongwith the accused persons returned to PS Vigilance.
With the permission of Court Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, put leading question to PW24 and he affirmed that he had
mentioned the serial numbers of the GC notes in his pre-raid
report prepared prior to the raid. PW24 also affirmed that he had
directed the panch witness to give the signal to the raiding team
by putting his hand over his head two times. PW24 also affirmed
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 33 of 94
that the panch witness had apprised him that the accused SI Amit
was holding the bribe amount in his right hand. He also affirmed
that he had prepared sample seal after sealing the exhibits and his
seal after use was handed over to panch witness. PW24 stated
that he could not recollect these facts due to lapse of time.
PW24 correctly identified envelop
Ex.PW14/Article-1 containing 25 GC notes of denomination of
Rs.2,000/- each, serial numbers of which were compared with the
serial numbers mentioned in the pre-raid report
Ex.PW14/Article-2, glass bottle containing pink solution marked
as RHW-I Ex.P-1 and glass bottle containing pink solution
marked as RHW-II Ex.P-II.
xxv) PW25 ASI Rakesh Kumar deposed that on
24.04.2019 and on 26.04.2019, as per directions of IO Insp.
Virender Mor, he went to FSL, Rohini and brought the FSL
resultS, which he handed over to IO and deposited the sealed
exhibits with MHC(M), PS Vigilance.
xxvi) PW-26 Parveen Kumar, Alternate Nodal Officer,
Reliance Jio, deposed that during investigation, his colleague Sh.
Pankaj Sharma, Alternate Nodal Officer provided the certified
copies of call details records (CDR) of mobile no. 8368464557
and 8178569258 for the period 16.05.2018 to 24.05.2018
Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B respectively and he identified
signatures of Pankaj Sharma on the same. The letter of the
investigating agency Ex.PW26/C was acknowledged by him.
He further deposed that as per the certified copy of CAF of the
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 34 of 94
mobile number 8368464557 Ex. PW26/D the same was
subscribed to Shekhar Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Singh
and as per CAF of mobile no. 8178569258 Ex. PW26/E, it was
subscribed to Ranjit Chaudhary S/o Sh. Ravinder Prasad
Chaudhary. He further deposed that the said CAFs were KYC
based CAFs which were directly connected with the Aadhar card
of the respective subscriber and bearing signature of Sh. Pankaj
Sharma. He further deposed that Sh. Pankaj Sharma also
provided certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW26/F
in support of CDR and CAF of aforesaid two mobile numbers.
xxvii) PW27 Monika Bhardwaj deposed that in the year
2019, she was posted as DCP, West District, Delhi and passed
sanction orders u/s 19 PC Act against accused Ex. SI Amit
Kumar Ex.PW27/A and said order was sent to the Addl.
Commissioner of Police, Vigilance vide letter dated 03.07.2019
Ex.PW27/B.
xxviii) PW28 ACP Virender Mor deposed that on
30.10.2018 further investigation of this case was assigned to
him. On 04.12.2018, he alongwith the complainant and both
accused persons appeared before the court of Ms. Kiran Bansal,
Ld. Special Judge and he filed an application Ex. PW28/A for
obtaining specimen handwriting of both accused as well as of the
complainant. Accused Shekhar gave statement that he is not
disputing his sample signature given to the IO when he was in
custody. Accused Amit Kumar and complainant Surender Singh
gave their specimen handwriting before the court of Ld. Special
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 35 of 94
Judge. The specimen handwriting and signatures of accused
Amit Kumar was Ex.PW28/B (colly) while specimen
handwriting and signatures of complainant Surender Singh
running into 2 pages were Ex.PW14/K and Ex.PW14/L and
specimen handwriting and signature of accused Shekhar Kumar
@ Shekhar Singh were Ex.PW28/C (colly). He further deposed
that on 04.12.2018, complainant also produced photocopy of RC
of vehicle no. HR-46D-5396, authorization certificate of
NP(Goods) valid upto 13.03.2020 and National Permit for public
carrier part A and B valid upto 13.03.2020 marked as Mark-Z4
(colly), which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M.
PW28 further deposed that on 20.12.2018, he sent
the specimen handwriting of complainant as well as of accused
persons alongwith questioned documents to FSL through HC
Tara Chand for opinion. He further deposed that on 25.02.2019
he got collected the FSL result through Ct. Rakesh and on
24.04.2019, he also got collected FSL result regarding voice
sample and mobile phone through HC Rakesh. He kept the FSL
result on police file and deposited the exhibits in Malkhana.
PW28 further deposed that on 26.04.2019, he also got collected
another FSL result regarding handwash of accused Amit Kumar
through HC Rakesh. He kept the FSL result on file and
deposited the sealed exhibits with MSI(M).
PW28 further deposed that on 23.05.2019, he got
issued one request letter to DCP for grant of sanction against
accused SI Amit Kumar through Addl. C.P., Vigilance Branch.
Later on sanction to prosecute U/s 19 PC Act against accused SI
Amit Kumar was received which was placed on record. He
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 36 of 94
prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same before the court on
29.08.2019.
xxix) PW29 Insp. Dharamvir Gautam deposed that on
23.05.2018, he was posted as Inspector at PS Vigilance. At about
05:30 pm, Sh. L.C. Yadav, ACP, VIU called him in his office
and told that Insp. Ajay Tyagi conducted a raid within the
jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh and one SI Amit Kumar and one
public person had been apprehended regarding taking of bribe
money. He was told that Insp. Ajay Tyagi was conducting the
raid proceedings at Phool Bagh, Rampura within the jurisdiction
of PS Punjabi Bagh and further investigation was to be
conducted by him. Thereafter at about 05:45 pm, he proceeded
for spot i.e. near Rampura Railway Phatak, Pubjabi Bagh while
recording departure entry i.e. DD no. 27B Ex.PW1/D. At about
06:30 pm, he reached at the spot i.e. WZ-I, 1 st Floor, Phool Bagh,
Rampura where Insp. Ajay Tyagi handed over him the case
property, memos alongwith raid report, tehrir, complaint and
custody of both the accused persons. He formally made enquiries
from complainant Surender @ Sundar, panch witness Ramesh
Chand Kesharwani and also formally interrogated accused
Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Singh and SI Amit Kumar. PW29
prepared two site plans i.e. one of the locality Ex.PW29/A and
another of the spot i.e. room at first floor of the said property
Ex.PW29/B, at the instance of complainant. As public persons
gathered there, he alongwith complainant, panch witness and
accused persons came to PS Vigilance. PW29 interrogated the
accused persons and thereafter, he arrested accused SI Amit
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 37 of 94
Kumar vide memo Ex.PW14/F and conducted his personal
search vide memo Ex.PW14/H. He also arrested accused
Shekhar vide memo Ex.PW14/G and his personal search was
taken vide memo Ex.PW14/I. The articles recovered from the
personal search of accused SI Amit Kumar and Shekhar Singh @
Shekhar Kumar were also kept in separate envelopes and sealed
with the seal of DBG. He also seized two mobile phones which
were with accused SI Amit Kumar vide seizure memo
Ex.PW14/D. Two mobile phones with accused Shekhar Kumar
@ Shekhar Singh were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E.
PW29 further deposed that the settlement/statement
Ex. PW14/B which was prepared by accused SI Amit Kumar in
the shape of statement of Shekhar Singh regarding some
settlement between complainant and accused Shekhar Singh was
also seized vide memo Ex.PW14/J. PW29 recorded disclosure
statement of accused SI Amit Kumar Ex.PW6/D. In pursuance
to disclosure statement of accused SI Amit Kumar, accused led
the police party to his house for recovery of earlier paid bribe
amount but the same could not be recovered and a non-recovery
memo Ex.PW29/C was prepared. Thereafter, they returned to
the PS Vigilance and he deposited the case property with
MHC(M).
PW29 further deposed that on 24.05.2018, both the
accused persons were produced before the concerned court and
he obtained one day PC remand of accused SI Amit Kumar.
PW29 got recorded the statement of complainant U/s 164 Cr.P.C.
Ex.PW14/A. Vide application Ex.PW29/E IO obtained statement
of complainant u/s 164 Cr.P.C.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 38 of 94
PW29 also moved an application Ex. PW29/F
before Ld. Special Judge for recording consent/willingness of
accused persons to give their voice samples. PW29 had also
prepared their separate memo regarding consent for voice sample
Ex.PW29/G and Ex.PW29/H. PW29 also moved an application
Ex. PW29/I for recording consent/willingness of complainant
Surender Singh for voice sample. Ld. Special Judge after
recording the statements of both the accused persons regarding
their consents for giving their voice samples, disposed of his
application dated 24.05.2018. Thereafter, accused SI Amit
Kumar was got medically examined and he was taken to his
room situated at first floor at PS Punjabi Bagh but nothing was
recovered and he prepared a non-recovery memo Ex.PW7/A.
PW29 further deposed that on 25.05.2018, accused
SI Amit Kumar was produced before the court and remanded to
J/C. Complainant Surender Kumar came at PS Vigilance and he
handed over his mobile phone containing call recordings of
conversation between complainant and accused SI Amit Kumar,
Shekhar Singh and one another person namely Ashok, owner of
Anshu Roadlines. PW29 went to the I.T. Centre of PS Vigilance
which was situated in the premises of PS Vigilance and after
hearing relevant conversations same were transferred in the
office computer and thereafter, CD was prepared by him. The
CD was containing three audio files regarding conversation with
accused SI Amit Kumar and complainant. One file was of the
conversation of 23.05.2018. Seven audio files were of accused
Shekhar and 17 audio files were of Ashok with the complainant.
The mobile phone of the complainant was seized vide memo
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 39 of 94
Ex.PW8/A and the CD was kept on file for day to day
investigation. On 31.05.2018, PW29 sent a request letter Ex.
PW29/J to Director, FSL for fixing date and time for taking voice
samples of complainant, accused persons and one Ashok. FSL
gave the dates for recording the voice samples on 14.06.2018 and
15.06.2018 vide their endorsement on the back of Ex.PW29/J.
PW29 further deposed that on 01.06.2018, PW29
sent exhibits to FSL, Rohini through ASI Joseph but same could
not be deposited due to some objections regarding stamp etc. He
recorded statement of Ashok, owner of Anshu Roadlines. On
04.06.2018, he again sent the exhibits to FSL after removing the
objections through Ct. Sandeep who deposited the same with
FSL.
PW29 further deposed thereon 14.06.2018, ASI
Kailash and Ct. Ankush accompanied PW29 to FSL, Rohini.
Complainant Surender Singh @ Sundar and Ashok Kumar also
reached at FSL, Rohini for getting their voice samples recorded.
PW29 also deposed regarding recording of voice samples of the
complainant, PW Ashok Kumar on 14.06.2018 and the seizure
memo of cassettes kept in CD mailers containing original voice
samples of complainant and PW Ashok Kumar and their copies
Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C respectively. PW29 deposited the
case property with MHC(M).
PW29 further deposed about recording of the voice
samples of accused persons SI Amit Kumar and Shekhar Singh at
FSL in audio cassettes which were kept in CD mailers. All four
CD mailers were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. PW29
deposited the case property with MHC(M).
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 40 of 94
PW29 further deposed that on 25.06.2018, ASI
Satpal Dagar, Reader to SHO, PS Punjabi Bagh, handed over one
inner case diary in the handwriting of accused SI Amit Kumar
Ex. PW13/B for the purpose of investigation and a report Ex.
PW13/C to the effect that no complaint of Shekhar was
registered in the complaint register of PS Punjabi Bagh during
the period 16.05.2018 to 23.05.2018 and one copy of transfer
order of accused SI Amit Kumar Ex. PW13/D, which were
seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A. PW29 deposed that he had
shown the document i.e. settlement recorded by SI Amit Kumar
Ex.PW14/B which was taken into possession at PS Vigilance
from his possession to ASI Satpal Dagar, who identified the
handwriting and signatures of accused SI Amit Kumar on
Ex.PW14/B.
PW29 further deposed that on 26.06.2018, he took
the mobile phones of complainant and accused persons as well as
CD mailers containing original sample voices of complainant,
Ashok Kumar as well as of accused persons to FSL, Rohini and
deposited the same there. He deposited the copy of
acknowledgment regarding deposit of case property as well as
road certificate with MHC(M). PW29 submitted a request letter
to DCP office for obtaining CDRs of relevant mobile phone
numbers involved in the present case. Thereafter, PW29 was
transferred and he deposited the file with MHC(R).
PW29 correctly identified accused SI Amit Kumar
and Shekhar before the court. PW29 also correctly identified the
case property before the court case property i.e. Ex.P2, Ex.P3,
Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P-10, Ex.P12
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 41 of 94
and Ex.P13 Ex.PW14/N, Ex.PW22/Article-2, Ex.PW22/Article-
3, Ex.PW22/Article-4 and Ex.PW29/Article-1.
Statement of accused persons :
7) After conclusion of prosecution evidence,
statements of 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 are innocent and falsely implicated in this
case.
8) Accused SI Amit Kumar further stated that he did
not know about the entire dispute regarding transport of goods
between complainant PW14 and co-accused Shekhar, however,
co-accused Shekhar had filed a complaint at PS in this regard.
He further stated that he had never threatened complainant and
advised Shekhar and complainant to settle their dispute amicably.
He had never demanded any money from the complainant at any
point of time for any purpose. Complainant never met him on
17.05.2018 alongwith any Ashok nor any amount of Rs. 2.5
Lakhs was ever received or taken by him from complainant
PW14. He had never asked the complainant to pay any amount
next day. He stated that the complainant had disowned his
complaint. He further stated that no amount of Rs. 30,000/- was
taken or received by him from PW14 on 18.05.2018 and he had
never asked the complainant to pay any amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-
on 21.05.2018 and no threat was ever extended by him to the
complainant. He further stated that he did not know about any
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 42 of 94
telephonic conversation between PW14 and Shekhar. He had
never called co-accused Shekhar at any point of time for any
purpose regarding dispute between them. He further stated that
an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was never brought by complainant for
giving it to him for any purpose. No pre-raid proceedings ever
took place. No telephonic conversation took place between him
and the complainant. He further stated that he did not demand or
accept an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant in the
office of Shekhar. No recovery was effected from his right hand
palm. The currency notes and hand washes had been planted
upon him. He had never demanded or accepted any money from
complainant, at any point of time, for any purpose. The matter
was compromised between the complainant and accused Shekhar
and a compromise note type statement of Shekhar was written by
him on 16.05.2018 but it was signed only after payment of
settlement amount by the complainant to Shekhar. He did not go
to Bahadurgarh with complainant or Shekhar or with any other
police official at any point of time on 16.05.2018. He further
stated that Shekhar had given a complaint and dispute between
him and the complainant were within the jurisdiction of PS
Punjabi Bagh and he never visited Bahadurgarh officially or
unofficially at any point of time or on 16.05.2018 and there was
no collusion between him and accused Shekhar for any purpose.
Accused Amit preferred to lead evidence in his defence.
9) Accused Shekhar Kumar further stated that since the
complainant Surender had failed to deliver the entire
consignment, therefore, the consignee deducted the amount, as a
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 43 of 94
result of which he suffered losses, which he asked the
complainant to reimburse. Initially complainant refused and
therefore he lodged a complaint against him in PS Punjai Bagh,
where a settlement was arrived for Rs. 80,000/-. He further
stated that the canter was never retained by him and freight of the
canter was paid to Surender in advance. He further stated that in
the police station Punjabi Bagh some verbal altercation took
place between him and Surender. Accused SI Amit Kumar, who
was posted in the said police station, at the instance of Duty
Officer, intervened and thereafter a compromise was arrived at
between him and Surender and Surender agreed to pay Rs.
80,000/- towards full and final settlement. Accused SI Amit
Kumar was not known to him prior to that day. The compromise
was reduced into writing but he refused to sign stating that till
Surender pay him the agreed amount, he would not sign the
same. He further stated that since he matter was compromised
there, no FIR was got registered in PS Punjabi Bagh against
Surender by him. He further stated that he did not have any
office at the first floor. His office was situated on the ground
floor near Daikin Showroom, at WZ-1, Phool Bagh, Rampura,
Delhi. It is further stated that he had only demanded Rs. 1 Lakh
as damages from PW14 Surender because he had suffered
financial loss on account of lapse on his part. Initially PW14
refused but in the police station Punjabi Bagh, Surender agreed to
pay Rs. 80,000/- to him towards full and final settlement for said
damages. In this regard a written compromise was also arrived
between him and Surender. No payment was made to him in the
police station by Surender as he sought time. However, it
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 44 of 94
appeared later that Surender wanted to wriggle out and therefore
he made a false complaint. Accused Shekhar Kumar also
preferred to lead evidence in his defence.
10) Accused persons examined six defence witnesses in
their defence. The brief summary of deposition of defence
witnesses is as under:-
i) DW1 SI Umesh Tiwari produced the
summoned record i.e. original order no.
3708-4068/HAR/PHQ daed 10.05.2013 issued by Sh.
Neeraj Kumar, Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Ex.
DW1/A regarding entries made in Daily Diaries
(Roznamcha) upon departure and arrival.
ii) DW2 HC Anil Kumar produced the
summoned record i.e. original DD registers containing DD
No. 4B dated 23.05.2018 Ex. DW2/A, DD No. 7A dated
22.05.2018 Ex. DW2/B, DD No. 26B dated 22.05.2018
Ex. DW2/C, DD No. 8B dated 23.05.2018 Ex. DW2/E and
DD No. 31B dated 23.05.2018 Ex. DW2/F. He also
produced order dated 18.05.2018 issued by Assistant
Commissioner of Police/HQ/Vigilance Delhi regarding
assignment of flying Squad Duty from 21.05.2018 to
27.07.2018 Ex. DW2/D. He deposed that he had not
brought any record pertaining to issuance of
Phenolphthalein powder and IO kit to the RO for
23.05.2018 as no such record was maintained in their
office.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 45 of 94
iii) DW3 HC Prashant has produced the
summoned record i.e. RTI reply no.
(ID-664/23)/1883/RTI/Vigilance dated 13.06.2023 in
respect of the RTI application filed by Amit Kumar, s/o
Sh. Shyam Dass, Ex. DW3/A. He also produced the
summoned record i.e. RTI reply no.
(ID-1658/19)/37/RTI/Vigilance dated 14.01.2020 in
respect of the RTI application filed by Manoj Singh,
advocate, Ex. DW3/B.
iv) DW4 Ajit Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Idea Ltd., produced CAF of mobile no.
9811133856 alongwith ID proof i.e. driving licence of
customer Ajay Kumar, s/o Mahendra Singh, Ex. DW4/A;
its CDR w.e.f. 01.05.2018 to 31.05.2018 Ex. DW4/B; Cell
ID Chart Ex. DW4/F; D-KYC of mobile no. 8053815911
of customer Sukhchain s/o Sundar Singh Ex. DW4/C, its
CDR Ex. DW4/E and certificates u/s 65B of I.E.Act Ex.
DW4/D and Ex. DW4/G.
v) DW5 HC Sandeep Kumar produced DD
registers A and B of PS Punjabi Bagh as per which there
was no entry dated 01.06.2018 related to Ct. Bhagirath,
No. 866/W regarding his visit to PS Vigilance Branch,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.
vi) DW6 ASI Sanjeev produced diary and
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 46 of 94
dispatch register of the year 2018 as per which vide entry
no. 299 dated 22.05.2018 one letter was dispatched to
Director, Vigilance, NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi,
for providing independent witness, which was sent through
HC Rakesh. He deposed that the copy of said letter must
be with the concerned IO. He further deposed that the
record pertaining to issuance of Phenolphthalein powder to
the Raid Officer for 23.05.2018 must be available with
Malkhana as government properties were issued to the
Vigilance officials by the Malkhana Incharge only. The
IO kits were retained by the IOs with them.
Arguments :
11) It is argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that the
raid proceedings stand vitiated as no verification was conducted
on the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant. It is
stated that the complainant PW14 has not supported the case of
the prosecution and has turned hostile on the aspect of initial
demand as well as demand at the spot and has also disowned his
own complaint Ex. PW6/A. It is urged that even the panch
witness has not deposed regarding any demand of bribe having
been made by accused SI Amit in conspiracy with accused
Shekhar. It is urged that mere acceptance without any proof of
demand is not enough to sustain conviction under the charged
provisions of P.C.Act. It is also urged that the prosecution has
also not been able to establish the trap proceedings beyond doubt
and the handwash has been planted upon the accused SI Amit. It
is urged that the complainant failed to deliver entire goods ofCC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 47 of 94
accused Shekhar, who suffered losses on that account and hence
he asked the complainant to reimburse. Initially the complainant
refused and therefore a complaint was lodged against him at PS
Punjabi Bagh and thereafter a settlement Ex. PW14/B was
arrived at between accused Shekhar and the complainant on
16.05.2018 and the same was signed on 23.05.2018 after the
amount of Rs. 50,000/- was handed over to accused Shekhar by
the complainant in pursuance of the said settlement. It is also
argued that the spot of incident has been indicated to be the
office of accused Shekhar at first floor portion of the property no.
WZ1, Phool Bagh, Rampura, Delhi, however, the prosecution
has failed to prove that any such office on the first floor belonged
to accused Shekhar. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove
the spot of raid proceedings. It is also urged that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove that accused SI Amit visited
Bahadurgarh with accused Shekhar to recover his goods. It is
urged that neither the complainant nor PW16 Ashok have
deposed regarding the same and the testimony of the police
official PW18 Const. Bhagirath is not reliable. It is also urged
that the audio recording relied upon by the prosecution are not
proved as per law and even the transcript on record with which
the IO was confronted with by the accused, does not contain any
incriminating material.
12) On the other hand, it is contended by ld. Chief P.P.
for the State that no doubt the complainant turned hostile and did
not support the prosecution case, however, the culpability of the
accused persons is proved through the testimony of panch
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 48 of 94
witness PW6 who supported the case of the prosecution. It is
urged that the FSL report Ex. PW10/A indicates the presence of
Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate in the right hand-wash of
accused Amit, who was caught red-handed during raid
proceedings. It is urged that the testimony of PW18 Ct.
Bhagirath proved that accused SI Amit had gone to Bahadurgarh
alongwith accused Shekhar for recovery of his goods and
accused SI Amit acted without any authority and affected
recovery of the goods of accused Shekhar. It is argued that the
voice recording contained in CD Ex. PW22/Article-I was
examined and the FSL result Ex. PW22/A reveals that there was
no indication of any alteration in the voice recording and the
voice recordings contained the voice of accused Shekhar and the
complainant Surender. It is accordingly urged that the accused
persons are liable to be held guilty of the offences they are
charged with.
13) I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
14) 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
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 49 of 94
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 would
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)
15) 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 establishedCC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 50 of 94
otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved
to record a conviction.
16) 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 the
demand of illegal gratification and the
subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This
fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral
evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof
of demand 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.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 51 of 94
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts
the demand and tenders the demanded
gratification which in turn is received by
the public servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the
prior demand for illegal gratification
emanates from the public servant. This is an
offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii)
of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the
offer by the bribe giver and the demand by
the public servant respectively have to be
proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue.
In other words, mere acceptance or receipt
of an illegal gratification without anything
more would not make it an offence under
Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii)
respectively of the Act. Therefore, under
Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home
the offence, there must be an offer which
emanates from the bribe giver which is
accepted by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior
demand by the public servant when
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
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 52 of 94
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
while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
(emphasis supplied)
17) 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. It is the case of the
prosecution that the accused SI Amit Kumar demanded illegal
gratification of Rs. 5,00,000/- as bribe in lieu of not taking any
action against the complainant owing to the dispute between the
complainant and accused Shekhar in respect of the goods
consignment of accused Shekhar being taken to Chennai in the
truck of the complainant. It is stated that accused SI Amit Kumar
obtained the bribe amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant
on 17.05.2018 and thereafter obtained Rs. 30,000/- as bribe
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 53 of 94
amount on 18.05.2018. Accused SI Amit further demanded
remaining amount of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,20,000/- and
was caught red handed during raid proceedings and bribe amount
of Rs. 50,000/- was recovered from accused SI Amit Kumar and
accordingly the accused persons committed offence under section
120B IPC and under section 7/13(1)(d) of PC Act read with
section 120B IPC.
Testimony of complainant:
18) The complainant Surender was examined as PW14.
He deposed that earlier he was in the transport business. He was
introduced to New Green Transport, Rampura, Delhi by one
Ashok of Anshu Roadlines. On 07.05.2018, he received a call
from Shekhar, who stated that some goods were to be transported
to Chennai. He visited office of Shekhar situated at Rampura
Road alongwith his vehicle i.e. canter bearing no. HR-46D-5396.
His canter was loaded with goods and the canter left for Chennai
and he returned back to his office at Bahadurgarh. After about 2
hours, he again received call from Shekhar, who said that some
more goods were to be transported to Chennai, hence,
complainant again visited the office of Shekhar situated at
Rampura Road. PW14 saw that the goods were in huge quantity
and he stated to Shekhar that it was not possible to send the
goods in his canter. The goods were loaded in another vehicle
i.e. another canter of friend of PW14. PW14 alongwith the
canter loaded with goods reached at his office at Bahadurgarh.
As goods of his another client were to be loaded in the same
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 54 of 94
canter for Chennai but the goods of his another client got delayed
and as such canter could not leave for Chennai in time. After 3-4
days, his canter bearing no. HR-46D-5396 reached Chennai. The
client of Shekhar from Chennai telephonically informed Shekhar
that the entire goods were not received in Chennai. Shekhar
called PW14 and apprised him about the aforesaid facts. PW14
informed Shekhar that complete goods could not be sent to
Chennai and they were lying in the canter at his office at
Bahadurgarh. PW14 also apprised Shekhar that his goods would
be sent after one day but he refused and insisted upon return of
his goods. Shekhar alongwith his staff visited the office of
PW14 at Bahadurgarh and PW14 returned the remaining goods
to Shekhar. Shekhar blamed PW14 for the delay in delivery of
goods and asked him to give Rs.One Lakh as penalty for the
delay. PW14 insisted that he did not have the aforesaid amount.
Shekhar again called PW14 at his office at Rampura Road and
told him “paisa to tumhe dena hi padega, nahi to tere khilaf
complaint-kanooni karwaahi karunga”. Thereafter, PW14 and
Shekhar visited PS Punjabi Bagh. Shekhar gave a written
complaint to the Duty Officer of PS Punjabi Bagh. The Duty
Officer asked them to sit for some time. There was some verbal
altercation between PW14 and Shekhar at the PS over
undelivered goods as well as non-payment of cartage of earlier
vehicle which had already reached Chennai. In the meantime,
accused SI Amit Kumar came there and asked them why they
were shouting. The Duty Officer requested accused SI Amit
Kumar to look into the complaint given by Shekhar. Accused SI
Amit firstly talked to Shekhar and then to PW14. Accused SI
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 55 of 94
Amit also told them that “agar tum aapas mein samjhota kar lete
ho to thik hai, nahi to kanooni karkwaahi karni padegi “. PW14
and Shekhar compromised the matter for an amount of
Rs.80,000/-. Shekhar told PW14 to bring the amount of
Rs.80,000/-. PW14 called his friend telephonically and asked
him for Rs.80,000/-, who replied “ek ghante me pata karke batata
hoon”. PW14 assured Shekhar that the money would come and
asked him to get prepared the Raajinama/compromise. Accused
SI Amit wrote their Raajinama/ compromise. Again Shekhar
asked for the money and PW14 again called his friend
telephonically, who told that it would take 4-5 days to arrange
the aforesaid amount. After that Shekhar refused to sign the
Raajinama and insisted that he would sign the
settlement/compromise only after receiving the aforesaid amount.
Thereafter, PW14 and Shekhar came outside the PS. The
Raajinama/compromise was left with accused SI Amit. PW14
correctly identified accused Shekhar before the court and then
after pointing out towards accused Amit, PW14 stated that he
might be SI Amit.
19) PW14 further deposed that he was not able to
arrange the amount of Rs.80,000/- and could arrange only
Rs.50,000/-. He again spoke to Shekhar telephonically, who
insisted that PW14 should pay him Rs.80,000/-. Thereafter,
PW14 approached one of his acquaintance namely Raju for
arranging the entire amount, who asked him about the purpose
for demanding the money. PW14 narrated the entire story and
Raju advised PW14 to make a complaint against accused SI Amit
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 56 of 94
and Shekhar in the Vigilance. Raju got typed a complaint from a
typist. PW14 visited Vigilance office on 23.05.2018 and met one
person, who advised him to go to the 3rd Floor of the Vigilance
Office. PW14 met with Vigilance officials and gave his typed
complaint to a person, who was sitting in a civil dress. The
person to whom PW14 had given the complaint stated that they
do not take action against civilians. The said person informed
PW14 that he should name SI Amit that he was demanding
money and then action could be taken. PW14 apprised them that
SI Amit was not demanding money from him and that Shekhar
was demanding money. After that the said person handed over a
paper to PW14 and asked him to write a complaint on his
dictation. PW14 was also directed to meet them outside PS
Punjabi Bagh after 02:00 pm.
20) PW14 further deposed that he reached at PS Punjabi
Bagh by Metro Train. At about 02:00 pm, the officials of
Vigilance reached outside PS Punjabi Bagh in a Van. PW14 was
asked by Vigilance officials to make a call on the mobile phone
of accused SI Amit. PW14 made a call to accused SI Amit and
apprised him that he had reached the PS Punjabi Bagh. Accused
SI Amit told PW14 not to talk to him and rather talk to Shekhar.
Thereafter, PW14 called Shekhar who told him to come to his
office. PW14 visited his office at Rampura Road by an e-
rickshaw and the Vigilance officials reached there in a Van.
PW14 sat in the office of accused Shekhar. After some time,
accused Shekhar came and PW14 told him that he could arrange
only Rs.50,000/- and accused Shekhar agreed to accept the
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 57 of 94
amount of Rs.50,000/-. PW14 told accused Shekhar to give the
Raajinama/ compromise after putting his signature on the same.
Accused Shekhar called accused SI Amit telephonically to his
office. After some time, accused SI Amit came at the office of
accused Shekhar. PW14 gave cash amount of Rs.50,000/- to
accused Shekhar. Accused SI Amit told them to sign the
Raajinama/compromise which was prepared on 16.05.2018 and
they signed the same. After some time, the Vigilance team
entered the office of accused Shekhar. Vigilance official told
PW14 to go outside the office of Shekhar and he bolted the office
from inside. After some time, Vigilance team came outside
downstairs alongwith accused SI Amit and Shekhar. PW14 was
standing outside. PW14 was directed by Vigilance officials to
reach the Vigilance office. PW14 went to Vigilance office by
Metro train. After some time, the Vigilance team alongwith
accused SI Amit and Shekhar reached in their office. At the
office of Vigilance, PW14 was asked to sign on paper slips
affixed on two bottles containing some liquid. One more person
namely Ramesh Chand also signed the paper slip whose name
PW14 came to know later on. After that, PW14 and Ramesh
Chand were asked to sign some blank papers. Mobile phone of
PW14 was taken by Vigilance officials. Later on at about 01:00
am in the intervening night of 23/24.05.2018, PW14 was asked to
leave the office of Vigilance and was instructed to reach Tis
Hazari Court on that day in the afternoon. PW14 reached Tis
Hazari Court in the afternoon where he met Insp. Dharambir
Gautam. PW14 was taken to chamber of Ld. Judge. PW14 was
directed by Insp. Dharambir Gautam to state whatever was
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 58 of 94
written in his complaint to the Ld. Judge. His statement was
recorded by the Ld. Judge vide Ex. PW14/A(colly).
21) PW14 identified his signatures on the complaint
dated 23.05.2018 Ex.PW6/A and stated that the said complaint
was written by him at Vigilance office at the dictation of
Vigilance official.
22) 25 currency notes of denomination of Rs.2,000/-
each were shown to PW14 and their serial numbers were
compared with the serial numbers mentioned in the pre-raid
report and the seizure memo and found to be correct. The GC
notes and the envelop are Ex. PW14/Article-1. PW14 identified
his signatures on paper slip pasted on one sealed glass bottle
containing pink colour liquid Ex.P1. He also identified his
signatures on one compromise in Hindi language Ex. PW14/B.
23) PW14 was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the
police. In his cross-examination PW14 affirmed that on
07.05.2018 due to some reason half the goods loaded in his
canter was unloaded and the remaining goods were transported to
Madras where his canter was stopped at the instance of accused
Shekhar, owner of the New Green Transport. PW14 further
affirmed that he had also returned the goods which were
unloaded to accused Shekhar. PW14 affirmed that Shekhar had
made complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh against him and accused
Shekhar had retained his canter and had also not paid the freight
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 59 of 94
of the Canter. PW14 denied that accused SI Amit Kumar
threatened to implicate him and also put him behind bars for
disappearance of goods of accused Shekhar and had also
demanded Rs. 5 Lakhs from him (PW14) for the above purpose.
PW14 further denied that on 17.05.2018 i.e. next day he was
sent to police station alongwith Ashok by accused Shekhar where
IO/SI Amit Kumar had taken Rs.2.5 lakh from him and that
IO/SI Amit had further told him to give the remaining amount the
next day and that on 18.05.2018 again PW14 had paid
Rs.30,000/- to accused SI Amit Kumar, who again asked for the
remaining amount of Rs.2,20,000/- to be paid by 21.05.2018 or
that he had threatened to put him behind bars if he did not pay
the aforesaid amount or that PW14 will be deprived of his
vehicle. PW14 also denied that he telephonically contacted
accused Shekhar and requested him to get his vehicle released or
that accused Shekhar replied and asked to pay the remaining
amount to accused SI Amit Kumar or that PW14 was asked to
come to PS Punjabi Bagh, the next day, or that accused SI Amit
Kumar had called accused Shekhar several times for the said
purpose. PW14 also denied that he had made statement Mark-Z,
to the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
24) PW14 deposed that he was asked to write the
complaint by the Vigilance officials. PW14 had also taken one
typed complaint against accused Shekhar with him and had
handed over the same to the Vigilance officials. PW14 denied
that he stated to the police that he had given complaint against SI
Amit Kumar for demanding of bribe from him. PW14 denied
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 60 of 94
that he went to Vigilance office alongwith Rs.50,000/- i.e. 25 GC
notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination, which was to be given to
accused SI Amit Kumar. PW14 denied that he in his presence
the panch witness namely Ramesh Chand Kesarwani also read
the complaint and enquired from him and after satisfying
himself, he had also signed the complaint. PW14 further denied
that the RO Insp. Ajay wrote the serial numbers of the GC notes
in the raid report or that Insp. Ajay applied phenolphthalein
powder on the aforesaid notes or that RO asked the panch
witness to touch the GC notes with his right hand or that the right
hand wash of the panch witness was taken in sodium carbonate
solution which turned pink or that specialty of phenolphthalein
powder was explained to them by the RO or that the powder
smeared notes were handed over to him or that he kept the
aforesaid notes in the right pocket of his pant or that he and
panch witness were directed by the RO to pay the bribe amount
when demanded by the accused or that the panch witness was
directed to see and hear the entire process or that after satisfying
that the accused had accepted the bribe amount the panch witness
should give signal to the raiding party by waving his right hand
over his head two times or that RO threw the pink colour solution
and the bottle and glass were cleaned with the help of soap or
that the panch witness also cleaned his hands or that the
remaining phenolphthalein powder was handed over to DO of PS
Vigilance or that he telephonically contacted accused SI Amit
from his mobile no. 8168961034 on his mobile no. 9911456545
or that accused SI Amit asked him to meet accused Shekhar.
PW14 further denied that he alongwith panch witness and raiding
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 61 of 94
party left in a government vehicle no. DL1CJ5549 for PS Punjabi
Bagh or that RO again briefed them at outside PS Punjabi Bagh
or that he along with panch witness was directed to proceed or
that he received call from Ashok on his mobile phone or that
Ashok directed him to talk to Shekhar or that PW14
telephonically contacted Shekhar or that Shekhar directed PW14
to come to his office or that the panch witness also heard the
conversation between him and accused Shekhar on the speaker of
his mobile phone. PW14 further denied that they all left in
government vehicle and reached at the office of accused Shekhar
situated at 2/10, Office New Green Transport Service near Ashok
Park Metro Station, Phool Bagh, Rampura, Delhi or that he
alongwith panch witness went to the first floor where the office
of accused Shekhar was situated or that after 35-40 minutes,
accused SI Amit also came there and demanded Rs.50,000/- from
him and accepted the amount or that earlier accused Shekhar had
informed him that accused SI Amit Kumar was coming to his
office within 10-15 minutes or that accused Shekhar asked about
the identity of panch witness and PW14 introduced him as his
nephew or that accused SI Amit Kumar wrote a statement on a
plain paper and obtained signature of accused Shekhar and
PW14. PW14 further denied that after that accused SI Amit
asked for the remaining bribe amount and PW14 told him to pay
the balance amount in 2-4 days or that the panch witness gave the
pre-determined signal to the raiding party after accused SI Amit
accepted the bribe money or that the RO alongwith his team
came in the office of accused Shekhar and apprehended accused
SI Amit or that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 62 of 94
the right hand palm of accused SI Amit or that accused SI Amit
disclosed his name and address and place of posting to the RO or
that the RO gave the introduction of the raiding party to accused
SI Amit or that accused SI Amit was offered to take the search of
the raiding party members, which he refused or that the serial
numbers of the GC notes were tallied with the serial numbers
mentioned in the pre-raid report and found to be correct or that
the recovered currency notes were taken into police possession
after keeping them in a brown colour envelope and sealed with
the seal of AK. PW14 further denied that the right hand wash of
accused Amit was taken in solution of sodium carbonate which
turned pink and pink liquid was transferred in two separate clean
glass bottles and were marked as RHW-I and RHW-II after
sealing them with the seal of AK with the help of cap and cloth
or that paper slip was pasted on both the sealed bottles and he
alongwith the panch witness and RO signed the said paper slips
or that the exhibits were taken into police possession through
seizure memo. PW14 further denied that the panch witness was
interrogated or that RO prepared a tehrir and sent to PS Vigilance
through HC Kanwar Singh for the registration of the case or that
the IO/Insp. D.V. Gautam came at the spot and took over the
investigation or that IO interrogated the panch witness, RO/Insp.
Ajay and also made enquiries from PW14 or that thereafter,
accused was arrested and his search papers were prepared or that
site plan was prepared at the instance of PW14 or that they all
returned alongwith the case property to PS Vigilance or that in
the office of PS Vigilance two mobile phones of accused SI Amit
and two mobile phones of accused Shekhar were seized and
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 63 of 94
sealed with the seal of DBG separately in two envelopes and
seizure memo was prepared in this regard or that accused
Shekhar was arrested and his search papers were prepared which
were signed by PW14, panch witness and IO or that the
agreement prepared in the office of Shekhar was also seized by
the IO through seizure memo which was also signed by PW14.
25) PW14 identified his signatures on the raid report
Ex.PW14/C (colly), seizure memo of GC notes Ex. PW6/B and
seizure memo of hand wash and sample seal Ex.PW6/C, seizure
memo of mobile phones of accused Amit Kumar Ex. PW14/D
and Shekhar Ex. PW14/E. PW14 also identified his signatures
on arrest memo of Amit Kumar Ex. PW14/F, arrest memo of
accused Shekhar Ex. PW14/G and personal search memo of
accused Amit Kumar Ex. PW14/H and personal search memo of
Shekhar Ex. PW14/I. PW14 also identified his signatures on the
seizure memo of agreement Ex.PW14/J and seizure memo of his
mobile phone Ex.PW8/A. PW14 affirmed that his statement was
recorded by Ld. MM on 24.05.2018 at Tis Hazari Court,
however, he voluntarily stated that he had given his statement as
per the dictation of Insp. D.V. Gautam. PW14 denied having
made statement dated 25.05.2018 Mark-Z1 to the police.
26) PW14 denied that on 25.05.2018, he visited the
office of Vigilance and handed over his mobile phone make
‘Gionee’ Company light golden colour having SIM of JIO no.
8168961034 and Vodafone no. 9813878402 through which he
had contacted accused SI Amit Kumar and accused Shekhar
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 64 of 94
between 21.05.2018 to 23.05.2018 and recorded the
conversation. PW14 voluntarily stated that his phone was taken
by officials of Vigilance on 23.05.2018. PW14 further denied
that the phone was connected to the computer and the CD of the
recordings was prepared after hearing the recordings. PW14
denied that there were 17 audio files in the said recording
between 21.05.2018 to 23.05.2018 or that his mobile phone
alongwith the recordings contained in the CD was taken into
police possession after putting his mobile phone in a sealed
envelope sealed with the seal of DBG, vide seizure memo
Ex.PW8/A.
27) PW14 denied having made statement dated
14.06.2018 Mark-Z2 to the police. PW14 denied that on
14.06.2018, he reached FSL, Rohini as instructed by the IO
where his voice sample was recorded in an audio cassette and a
copy thereof was prepared or that the original cassette was
marked ‘O’ and the copy was marked as ‘C’ or that both the
cassettes were kept in separate CD mailer and were sealed with
the seal of DBG and taken into police possession through seizure
memo. PW14 deposed that he had signed the cassettes and the
CD mailer in the office of Vigilance. PW14 identified his
signatures on the seizure memo Ex.PW8/B of his voice sample.
PW14 admitted that on 02.07.18, he joined the investigation of
present case and visited the office of vigilance where his
specimen handwriting/signatures were taken on some pages for
comparison purpose and he identified his specimen
handwriting/signatures Ex. PW-14/K and Ex. PW-14/L.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 65 of 94
28) PW14 affirmed that on 07.05.18, his driver Jasbir
had loaded goods in vehicle no. HR46D5396 make canter from
New Green Transport, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi and departed for
Madras. PW14 affirmed that there was some disputes regarding
freight and he deloaded some goods. PW14 affirmed that the
owner of New Green Transport Punjabi, Bagh had sent one of his
person alongwtih bilty. PW14 affirmed that the bilty was not
given to his driver and when the canter reached Madras and some
shortage of goods were detected, his canter was halted there and
after 30 days, he received his canter. PW14 affirmed that on
17.05.18, he returned all the goods. PW14 affirmed that he had
taken the amount of Rs.2,80,000/- from his friend Dharambir on
credit, who had withdrawn the amount from the bank and handed
to him. PW14 denied that the aforesaid amount was to be given
as bribe. PW14 voluntarily stated that he had handed over the
amount to Ashok of Anshu Roadways to get release his canter.
P14 affirmed that canter number HR46D5396 was registered in
the name of Dharambir, one of his co-villager. PW14 affirmed
that he had also handed over the copy of papers of vehicle i.e.
aforesaid canter to the IO and promised to give the documents
related to withdrawal of the aforesaid amount from the bank to
the IO. PW14 identified his signatures on the seizure memo of
document vehicle no. HR46D5396 Ex. PW-14/M and
photocopies of documents of vehicle Mark Z-4 (colly).
29) PW14 correctly identified his smart phone make
‘GIONEE’ Ex.P-9. PW14 also correctly identified his signatures
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 66 of 94
on the CD mailer on which original voice sample cassette of
complainant Surender Singh was written Ex.PW14/N. From
inside the CD mailer Ex. PW14/N, one audio cassette of make
‘Maxell’ was taken out alongwith its cover Ex.PW22/Article-2
on which PW14 identified his signatures and when the said audio
cassette was played in the cassette player and after listening the
contents of the audio cassette, PW14 stated that this was his
voice which was recorded at FSL by the FSL authorities.
30) PW14 identified the CD i.e. CD-1 which was played
on the court computer and after listening to the contents thereof,
PW14 stated that the same was the conversation between him
and accused Shekhar on the mobile phone. The said CD-1 is
Ex.PW22/Article-1.
31) PW14 also identified another CD i.e. CD-R which
was played on the court computer and after listening to the
contents thereof, PW14 stated that the same were the auto
recordings of his mobile phone Ex.P9. The CD-R is
Ex.PW14/Article-X.
32) PW14 denied that he was won over by the accused
persons and that is why he was intentionally and deliberately not
disclosing the true facts of the case and deposing falsely on oath.
33) Accordingly, perusal of the testimony of
complainant PW14 reveals that he has supported the prosecution
version as regards dispute between him and accused Shekhar
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 67 of 94
regarding delivery of goods of accused Shekhar at Chennai in the
vehicle/canter of PW14. In his cross-examination by ld.
Addl.P.P. for the State, PW14 affirmed that on 07.05.2018 his
driver Jasbir had loaded the goods in the vehicle no. HR-46D-
5396, canter from New Green Transport, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi,
and it departed for Chennai. The dispute arose as the complete
goods of Shekhar were not sent to Chennai and shortage of goods
was detected which were found lying at the office of the
complainant. The canter of the complainant was stopped there
and it was returned after 30 days. In his cross-examination by ld.
Addl.P.P. for the State, the complainant further affirmed that on
17.05.2018 he had returned all the goods. PW14 also deposed
that accused Shekhar blamed the complainant for delay in
delivery of goods and also asked the complainant to give Rs.1
Lakh as penalty for the delay and that Shekhar also filed a
complaint at PS Punjabi Bagh against the complainant. He also
deposed that when he and accused Shekhar visited PS Punjabi
Bagh, there was altercation between him and accused Shekhar
over undelivered goods and payment of cartage in respect of the
goods which had reached Chennai. PW14 deposed that at that
time accused SI Amit came there and asked them as to why they
were shouting. PW14 further affirmed in his cross-examination
by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that the canter bearing registration
no. HR-46D-5396 was registered in the name of one Dharamvir,
who used to reside in his village and further that he had taken an
amount of Rs. 2.8 Lakhs from his friend Dharamvir on credit,
who withdrew the said amount from the bank and gave it to him.
PW14 denied that the said amount was to be given as bribe and
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 68 of 94
volunteered that he had handed over the said amount to Ashok of
Anshu Roadways to get his canter released.
34) As regard the allegations of demand of bribe, PW14
stated that accused SI Amit told them to compromise the matter
otherwise legal action would be taken. At this PW14 and
accused Shekhar compromised the matter for an amount of Rs.
80,000/- and accused Shekhar asked the complainant to bring the
said amount. PW14 deposed that accused SI Amit prepared the
Compromise Deed/Razinama and wrote the same. PW14
requested for 4-5 days to arrange the amount of Rs. 80,000/- at
which accused Shekhar refused to sign the compromise deed and
insisted that he would sign it only after receiving the said
amount. The said compromise deed was left with accused SI
Amit and the complainant and accused Shekhar left the PS.
35) Hence, the testimony of PW14/complainant reveals
that he has not supported any allegation of initial demand of Rs.
5 Lakhs from him by accused SI Amit. The complainant has also
turned hostile regarding the obtainment of Rs. 2,50,000/- on
17.05.2018 and Rs. 30,000/- on 18.05.2018 and further demand
of Rs. 2,20,000/- to be paid by 21.05.2018. Though the
complainant stated that he had taken Rs. 2.8 Lakhs on credit from
his friend Dharamvir and handed over the same to Ashok of
Anshu Roadways to get his canter released, however, he denied
that the said amount was to be given as bribe.
36) The complainant was cross-examined at length by
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 69 of 94
ld. Addl.P.P. for the State regarding the same and he was also
confronted with his initial complaint Ex. PW6/A wherein the said
facts were mentioned, however, the complainant denied the
suggestions regarding the same. Though the complainant
admitted his signatures on the complaint Ex. PW6/A, however,
he stated that after compromise with accused Shekhar, the
complainant was unable to arrange the compromise amount of
Rs. 80,000/- and could arrange only Rs.50,000/-. He spoke to
Shekhar in that regard but he insisted on the amount of Rs.
80,000/-. The complainant PW14 deposed that he was advised
by one of his acquaintance namely Raju to make a complaint
against accused SI Amit and Shekhar in the vigilance department
and he got a complaint typed from a typist. The complainant
went to the Vigilance Office on 23.05.2018 and he met the
Vigilance officials and gave his typed complaint and he was told
that they do not take action against civilians and therefore he
should mention the name of SI Amit that he was demanding
money and then action could be taken. PW14 deposed that he
told them that SI Amit was not demanding money and Shekhar
was demanding money. Thereafter he was handed over a paper
and asked to write the complaint on the dictation of that vigilance
official. Accordingly, even though the complaint Ex. PW6/A is
in the handwriting of the complainant and bears his signatures,
however the complainant stated that the same was written by him
at the instance of a vigilance official. The complainant therefore
disowned the allegations of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.
5 Lakhs by accused Amit or subsequent obtainment of the
amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- or Rs. 30,000/- or further demand of
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 70 of 94
remaining amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- by accused SI Amit.
37) The complainant has also turned hostile regarding
the pre-raid proceedings and has not deposed regarding the same
and during his cross-examination by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State,
he denied all the suggestions regarding the pre-raid proceedings
including meeting the panch witness or handing over of Rs.
50,000/- to the Raiding Officer Insp. Ajay by the complainant or
noting down of the serial numbers of the said GC notes or
smearing of Phenolphthalein powder on GC notes of Rs. 50,000/-
or that he proceeded with the raiding party to PS Punjabi Bagh.
The complainant was also confronted with his statement Mark-Z
and he denied the suggestion to the contrary regarding the facts
mentioned therein.
38) As regards the raid proceedings, the complainant
PW14 deposed that the Vigilance Official directed him to meet
them outside PS Punjabi Bagh after 02.00 pm on 23.05.2018 and
the complainant reached there by Metro train. When he reached
there he was asked by the Vigilance Officials to make a call on
the mobile phone of accused SI Amit, who told him not to talk to
him but to talk to Shekhar. At this PW14 called Shekhar, who
asked him to come to his office. Hence, the complainant turned
hostile as regards the fact that he had gone to PS Punjabi Bagh
alongwith the raiding party or the fact that the RO briefed them
on reaching there or that panch witness heard any conversation
between him and Ashok, who directed him to talk to Shekhar or
that they all left for the office of Shekhar in Govt. vehicle.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 71 of 94
39) PW14 further deposed that he visited the office of
Shekhar at Rampura Road by e-rickshaw and the vigilance
officials reached there in a van. He sat at the office of accused
Shekhar, who came there after some time and PW14 told him
that he could arrange only Rs. 50,000/- which accused Shekhar
agreed to accept. PW14 asked Shekhar to hand over the
Razinama/Compromise Deed after signing the same. Accused
Shekhar telephonically called accused SI Amit to his office.
After some time accused SI Amit came to the office of accused
Shekhar and PW14 handed over Rs. 50,000/- to accused Shekhar.
Accused SI Amit asked them to sign the compromise deed which
was prepared on 16.05.2018 and they signed the same.
Subsequently, the Vigilance Team entered office of accused
Shekhar and asked the complainant to go outside and the door
was bolted from inside. After some time Vigilance Team came
downstairs alongwith accused SI Amit and Shekhar. Hence, as
per the version of the complainant, he went separately to the
office of accused Shekhar and denied suggestions to the contrary.
He also denied suggestion regarding being accompanied by the
panch witness when he went to the first floor office of accused
Shekhar. He also denied that accused SI Amit reached the office
and demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him.
PW14 also denied that accused SI Amit asked for the remaining
bribe amount to be paid in 2-4 days. He also denied that an
amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also recovered from the right hand of
accused SI Amit. Hence, the complainant PW14 was hostile
regarding the allegation of demand and acceptance at the spot.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 72 of 94
40) PW14 identified his signatures on the pre-raid report
Ex. PW14/C, seizure memos of mobile phone of accused Amit
Kumar Ex PW14/D, seizure memos of mobile phone of accused
Shekhar Ex PW14/E, arrest memo and personal search memo of
accused Amit Kumar Ex. PW14/F and PW14/H respectively,
arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Shekhar
Singh Ex. PW14/G and PW14/I respectively, seizure memo of
agreement Ex. PW14/J, seizure memo of his mobile phone Ex.
PW8/A, seizure memo of his voice sample Ex. PW8/B, his
specimen handwriting/signatures Ex. PW14/K and Ex. PW14/L,
seizure memo of documents of vehicle no. HR46D5396 Ex.
PW14/M, photocopy of documents of vehicle no. HR46D5396
Mark Z-4 (colly). However, in this respect he stated that he went
to Vigilance Office by metro. After some time the Vigilance
Team alongwith SI Amit and Shekhar reached there. At PS
Vigilance, he was asked to sign on paper slips affixed on two
bottles containing some liquid. One Ramesh Chand also signed
the paper slips. Thereafter, PW14 and Ramesh Chand were
asked to sign some blank papers. He was asked to leave the
Vigilance Office at about 01.00 am in the intervening night of
23/24.05.2018 and was instructed to reach Tis Hazari Court on
the next afternoon where he met Insp. Dharamvir Gautam, who
directed him to tell the Ld. Judge whatever was written in his
complaint. The complainant also identified his signatures on his
statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW14/A. Accordingly,
though the complainant has admitted his signatures on the
aforesaid documents including the pre-raid report Ex. PW14/C,
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 73 of 94
however, he stated that his signatures were obtained on certain
blank papers at PS Vigilance.
41) Perusal of testimony of PW16 Ashok of Anshu
Roadlines also reveals that he denied any allegations of demand
of bribe by accused SI Amit and stated that a settlement was
arrived at between complainant and accused Shekhar for Rs.
80,000/- to be paid by Surender to accused Shekhar. It is not
stated by him that he was present at the time when the settlement
was entered into, hence his testimony in that regard is hearsay.
PW16 was also cross-examined in detail by the Ld. Addl.P.P. for
the State but he denied all the allegations against accused persons
including allegations regarding demand of bribe. PW16 also
failed to identify accused SI Amit before the court.
42) It is also the case of prosecution that on 16.05.2018
accused SI Amit visited Bahadurgarh alongwith complainant and
PW18 HC Bhagirath. It is alleged that accused SI Amit got the
goods of accused Shekhar, which were loaded in the truck of
complainant, recovered from Bahadurgarh. It is noticeable from
a perusal of complaint Ex. PW6/A that there is no allegation
regarding the incident dated 16.05.2018 in the complaint Ex.
PW6/A made by the complainant. Additionally the complainant
PW14 has not deposed regarding the said incident dated
16.05.2018 before the court. The allegations regarding the said
incident as contained in the statement of the complainant u/s 164
Cr.P.C. were not put to the complainant during his cross-
examination by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and he was not
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 74 of 94
confronted with those allegations. Hence, the incident of
16.05.2018 remained unsubstantiated through the testimony of
PW14 i.e. the complainant.
43) The prosecution also examined PW16 Ashok Kumar
of Anshu Roadlines as regards the incident of 16.05.2018 when
SI Amit alongwith accused Shekhar, Surender, driver Jasbir,
Const. Bhagirath and other persons reached Bahadurgarh and the
truck containing the goods i.e. liquor was recovered at the
instance of the complainant and was brought at the office of
accused Shekhar.
44) In his examination-in-chief PW16 deposed that after
about one week of the goods leaving for Chennai, he received the
call from Shekhar who told him that only half of the goods had
reached Chennai. At this PW16 called Surender i.e. the
complainant who told him that the vehicle got overloaded and
therefore some goods were unloaded. PW16 conveyed that
message to Shekhar and also told him that the unloaded goods
were at Bahadurgarh. PW16 deposed that thereafter Shekhar
alongwith his staff went to the address given by Surender at
Bahadurgarh and collected the un-dispatched goods. Shekhar
told PW16 that Rs. One Lakh had to be given to the party at
Chennai, whose entire goods were not transported. Shekhar
talked to Surender but Surender refused to give Rs. One Lakh.
45) However, PW16 denied the prosecution version in
respect of incident of 16.05.2018 which was put to him during
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 75 of 94
his cross-examination by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State. PW16
denied that in the evening of 16.05.2018, SI Amit alongwith
Shekhar, Surender, driver Jasbir alongwith other persons at the
instance of Surender reached at Bahadurgarh in two private
vehicles or that one truck which was parked in front of a hotel
loaded with liquor was recovered at the instance of Surender or
that Ct. Bhagirath also accompanied SI Amit Kumar to
Bahadurgarh. PW16 further denied that the truck no. HR-55Q-
6228 alongwith loaded liquor was brought at the office of
Shekhar alongwith them. Hence, PW16 denied the factum of
recovery of the goods contained in truck bearing no. HR-55Q-
6228 from Bahadurgarh by accused Shekhar with the assistance
of accused SI Amit Kumar, even though he stated that the said
goods were taken by accused Shekhar alongwith his staff at the
address given by Surender at Bahadurgarh and Shekhar had
collected the un-dispatched goods. Hence, no incriminating role
is attributed to accused Shekhar or SI Amit Kumar in collecting
the goods of accused Shekhar from Bahadurgarh.
46) The prosecution has also examined HC Bhagirath
PW18 regarding the said incident dated 16.05.2018. From the
testimony of PW18 it emerges that on 16.05.2018 he had
accompanied SI Amit to Bahadurgarh where one truck bearing
no. HR-55Q-6228 was parked outside a restaurant. PW18 stated
that talks were going on between public persons and SI Amit
Kumar from which he concluded that there was a quarrel
between two transporters and that the truck contained boxes of
liquor. Subsequently, they left and the truck proceeded for Delhi.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 76 of 94
Hence, PW18 did not reveal the identity of the public persons he
met at Bahadurgarh. He did not even state in his examination-in-
chief that he enquired about the identities of those persons or that
he was aware of their identities. PW18, HC Bhagirath, who is a
police official, merely affirmed the suggestion of Ld. Addl.P.P.
for the State that it was revealed to him at Bahadurgarh that the
goods were of Shekhar who got it sent to Chennai and they were
detained by one Surender due to some dispute between them,
however, the manner in which he came to know about the said
fact is not deposed by him as to whether he heard the persons
present there talking about it or through accused SI Amit or
someone else would be thus in the nature of hearsay.
Additionally accused Shekhar was not got identified by PW18
while recording of his testimony.
47) From the examination-in-chief of PW18 it is not
manifest as to whether the incident of 16.05.2018 as mentioned
therein is the same incident whereby the goods of accused
Shekhar were recovered by him or if it was another incident and
PW18 has deposed that it appeared to be a quarrel between two
transporters, however, in the present case, only the complainant
was the transporter. Even the truck bearing no. HR-55Q-6228
has not been indicated to be connected with the complainant in
any manner. Moreover, PW18 in his cross-examination also
deposed that he was on patrolling duty from 07.00 pm to 12 mid-
night on 16.05.2018 and vide DD No. 54B Ex. PW18/DB he left
PS Punjabi Bagh at 05.45 pm. He also stated that arms were
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 77 of 94
issued to him as he was on patrolling duty. He had not taken any
permission for outstation from area ACP as it was the duty of IO
and he did not enquire the accused about the same. PW18 had
not informed the Duty Officer regarding his visit to Bahadurgarh
with accused SI Amit. PW18 came to know for the first time that
accused SI Amit had gone to Bahadurgarh unofficially. As such
there is no documentary evidence to corroborate the testimony of
PW18 HC Bhagirath that he had visited Bahadurgarh on
16.05.2018. Moreover, from his testimony it is not discernible
that on 16.05.2018, it was the truck containing goods of accused
Shekhar, that was got recovered at the instance of complainant
Surender by accused SI Amit from Bahadurgarh. Hence, the
incident of 16.05.2018 is not proved through the testimony of
PW18/HC Bhagirath, who was a police official and had merely
affirmed the suggestion regarding dispute between accused
Shekhar and complainant and even otherwise his testimony
remains uncorroborated.
48) Now coming to the testimony of PW 24 Insp. Ajay,
the Raid Officer, who deposed regarding the fact that the
complainant wrote the complaint in Hindi and signed the same
on 23.05.2018 in the presence of panch witness, who went
through the complaint and also signed it. PW24 also deposed
regarding the pre-raid proceedings, handing over of Rs. 50,000/-
to him by the complainant, application of Phenolphthalein
Powder on the GC notes, demonstration of the specialty of
Phenolphthalein powder to the panch witness and complainant,
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 78 of 94
and the directions to the complainant and panch witness as to
how to proceed during raid. Pertinently, PW24 deposed that a
raiding team was constituted comprising HC Rakesh, HC
Tarachand, HC Kanwar Singh and they left PS Vigilance at
around 12.45 pm in a government vehicle alongwith the raiding
team, complainant, panch witness and the driver for PS Punjabi
Bagh.
49) Perusal of testimony of HC Rakesh who was
examined as PW25, who is stated to be a member of raiding team
by PW24-Raid Officer, reveals that PW25 has not made any
statement that he had joined the raid proceedings on 23.05.2018
and he has deposed regarding the fact that on 24.04.2019 and
26.04.2019 he went to FSL Rohini and brought the FSL result
and deposited the sealed exhibits with the MHC(M).
Additionally, perusal of testimony of PW21 ASI Tara Chand,
who is also a raiding team member according to PW24-Raid
Officer, reveals that PW21 had joined the investigation on
20.12.2018, when he had collected the documents vide RC no.
26/21/18 and deposited them at FSL Rohini. Hence, neither
PW25 HC Rakesh nor PW21 HC Tara Chand have deposed
regarding joining of the raid proceedings on 23.05.2018.
Moreover, there is no statement on record of PW25 or PW21
recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.05.2018 or immediately
thereafter or otherwise in context of the raid proceedings.
Accordingly, the assertion of RO/PW24 Insp. Ajay Kumar that
HC Tara Chand and HC Rakesh Kumar were part of raiding team
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 79 of 94
is not established on record.
50) Pertinently, it is also deposed by PW24 Raid Officer
that HC Kanwar Singh was a member of raiding team and PW24
handed over the Tehrir to HC Kanwar Singh with directions to
get the case registered at PS Vigilance. However, HC Kanwar
Singh has not been arrayed as a witness to show that he had
joined the investigation and had infact taken the rukka to Police
Station Vigilance from the spot. HC Kanwar Singh was a
material witness, to prove the raid proceedings and registration of
FIR on the basis of rukka prepared by PW24.
51) It is also noteworthy that none of the documents
including pre-raid report Ex. PW14/C, seizure memo of GC
notes Ex. PW6/B and seizure memo of hand wash and sample
seal Ex. PW6/C bear the signatures of HC Rakesh or HC
Tarachand or HC Kanwar Singh to indicate that they had joined
the raid proceedings. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, serious
doubts are raised over the veracity of the raid proceedings. In
fact it has been deposed by the complainant PW14 that on
23.05.2018 he had written the complaint at Vigilance office on
the dictation of the Vigilance official and thereafter he was asked
to meet them outside PS Punjabi Bagh after 2.00 pm and he
reached there by Metro Train. He also deposed that at about
02.00 pm the Vigilance Officials reached PS Punjabi Bagh in a
van. Hence, the facts regarding raid proceedings as revealed in
the testimony of the purported members of the raiding team
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 80 of 94
appear to be in line with the testimony of PW14 that no pre-raid
proceedings were carried out at PS Vigilance.
52) PW6 is the panch witness Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani. Perusal of the testimony of PW6 recorded on
30.11.2021 reveals that he reached the Vigilance office at 10.00
am around two years back from the date of recording of his
testimony where he met the complainant through one SI, who
briefed PW6 about the grievance and his complaint. He stated
that the complainant had brought an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as
bribe money and the SI applied some chemical on the currency
notes, which were handed over to the complainant for giving the
same to the accused and nothing else was done prior to that and
thus PW6 did not initially depose regarding pre-raid proceedings
on 30.11.2021. Further examination-in-chief of PW6 was
deferred on that day and thereafter he was examined on
09.05.2022 where he described the pre-raid proceedings in detail
about noting down the serial number of the GC notes amounting
to Rs. 50,000/-, explaining the specialty of Phenolphthalein
powder, washing of hands, money to be handed over to the
accused only on demand, the manner in which the signal was to
be given to the raiding party etc. In his cross-examination by the
accused, PW6 deposed that his statement was firstly recorded in
court on 30.11.2021, when he had stated true facts which were in
his knowledge. On 30.11.2021 after part recording of his
testimony, he obtained copy of his statement given to the police
and took it with him. He affirmed that on 09.05.2022 and
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 81 of 94
23.11.2022 his previous statements recorded by the police were
read over to him before coming to the witness box. He denied
that he was a tutored witness or that he had given a parrot like
statement on 09.05.2022 and 23.11.2022 during his examination-
in-chief. He denied that he admitted various facts during his
cross-examination on behalf of the State, in a mechanical
manner. He denied that no such proceedings like applying of
powder on notes, noting down the serial number of the currency
notes and demonstration etc. had taken place in his presence or
that for this reason only he had stated in his examination-in-chief
that nothing else was done prior to handing over of notes to the
complainant. He denied that he had deposed falsely about pre-
trap proceedings as he was tutored to say so.
53) Accordingly, from the reading of the testimony of
PW6 it is revealed that on 30.11.2021 when he was examined-in-
chief, initially he categorically stated that nothing else was done
before powder smeared notes were handed over to the
complainant. Further examination-in-chief of PW6 was deferred
and thereafter he was examined on 09.05.2022 where he
described in detail the pre-raid proceedings, which were again
deferred as the witness was not feeling well. On 23.11.2022 the
exhibits were put to the witness and he was also cross-examined
by ld. Addl.P.P. for the State and ld. Counsel for the accused
persons. The testimony of PW6 has to be read in the context of
the casual manner in which the raid was conducted, where even
the raiding party was not properly constituted and in fact the
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 82 of 94
purported raiding team members also did not depose about taking
part in the raid. Hence, the testimony of PW6 has to be read with
a pinch of salt in the backdrop of the nature of the raid
proceedings.
54) PW6 has deposed regarding the pre-raid proceedings
and the fact that the raiding team departed for PS Punjabi Bagh
where the complainant received a call from Ashok, who told the
complainant to call accused Shekhar as accused SI Amit had
made several calls. Thereafter the complainant contacted
accused Shekhar, who told the complainant to come to his office.
Thereafter the raiding team left for the office of accused Shekhar
at Rampura. The complainant PW14 has also deposed regarding
the fact that on the date of raid at about 02.00 pm he was asked
by the Vigilance Officials to make a call on the mobile phone of
SI Amit and when he called SI Amit, he told the complainant not
to talk to him and to talk to Shekhar. When the complainant
called accused Shekhar, Shekhar asked him to come to his office.
Thereafter he went to the office of accused Shekhar in an e-
rickshaw. Hence, the complainant PW14 did not mention about
any call having been received from Ashok regarding which the
panch witness has deposed and PW14 denied the suggestion
regarding receiving any call from Ashok. PW16 also denied the
suggestion that on 23.05.2018 he received a call from Shekhar,
who was asking about the whereabouts of Surender/complainant
as Surender had to pay Rs. 2,20,000/- to SI Amit on that day. No
suggestion was put to PW16 Ashok by the State that any call was
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 83 of 94
made by Ashok to the complainant on 23.05.2018 asking the
complainant to call accused Shekhar. Hence, the statement of
PW6/panch witness that a call was made by Ashok to Surender at
the time of raid is not proved. Moreover, mobile number
8178569258 that has been ascribed by the prosecution to Ashok,
however, as per CAF Ex. PW26/E of the said mobile number, it
is registered in the name of one Ranjit Chaudhary. There is no
statement of Ranjit Chaudhary to show that he had handed over
the said mobile number to Ashok.
55) As discussed, as per the testimony of PW14 he had
handed over cash amount of Rs. 50,000/- to accused Shekhar in
pursuance of the compromise Ex. PW14/B entered into between
him and accused Shekhar, which was prepared by accused SI
Amit on 16.05.2018 and the same was signed on 23.05.2018. In
view of the FSL result Ex. PW20/A, the portion containing the
statement of accused Shekhar in the compromise Ex. PW14/B
was in the handwriting of accused Amit and the said compromise
bore the signatures dated 23.05.2018 of complainant Surender
and accused Shekhar.
56) On the aspect of demand, PW6 i.e. panch witness
Ramesh Chand deposed that after Surender and PW6 reached the
office of Shekhar, complainant made a call to Shekhar and asked
him to come . After 5 minutes Shekhar reached there and he
made a call to accused SI Amit, who reached there in 15 minutes.
PW6 stated that accused SI Amit wrote a compromise type
statement in his handwriting. However, when the said
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 84 of 94
compromise/razinama Ex. PW14/B was shown to PW6 before
the court, he expressed his ignorance about the same. PW6
further deposed that thereafter Shekhar told Surender “Jo Laaye
Ho Inko De Do”. Thereafter the complainant Surender gave
powder smeared GC notes to accused SI Amit. Accused Amit
kept them in his right hand and thereafter PW6 came down 2-3
steps and gave a pre-determined signal to the raiding party.
57) Hence, as per the testimony of PW6 the powder
smeared GC notes were handed over by the complainant to
accused SI Amit. Pertinently, PW6 deposed that SI Amit Kumar
wrote a compromise type statement in his handwriting in his
presence. As per the prosecution version the said compromise
was signed by the complainant and accused Shekhar on
23.05.2018, however, there is no mention about signing of the
compromise by the parties in the testimony of PW6. The said
compromise Ex. PW14/B bears the signatures dated 23.05.2018
of both the complainant and accused Shekhar. Moreover, PW6
was also unable to identify the said compromise when it was
shown to him before the court and he claimed ignorance of the
said document, which formed basis of the transaction conducted
at the spot. In these circumstances and also in view of the
perfunctory manner in which the raid proceedings were
conducted, the testimony of PW6 is not free from doubt and does
not inspire confidence to base a finding of guilt thereupon.
58) Moreover, the onus is upon the prosecution to
establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification which is
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 85 of 94
a condition precedent for constituting the offences with which the
accused persons were charged with. The complainant has turned
hostile upon the allegations of demand. The panch witness PW6
has stated in his examination-in-chief that Shekhar asked
Surender “Jo Laaye Ho Inko De Do” and thereafter the
complainant gave powder smeared GC notes to accused SI Amit,
who kept them in his right hand. In his cross-examination by ld.
Addl.P.P. for the State the panch witness PW6 has merely
affirmed the suggestion of Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State that
accused SI Amit Kumar had demanded bribe of Rs. 50,000/-
from the complainant and accepted the same from him. PW6
further affirmed the suggestion that accused SI Amit had asked
the complainant regarding the remaining bribe which was to be
given by the complainant and the complainant had replied that
the same would be given within 2-4 days. In his examination-in-
chief PW6 has specifically stated that accused Shekhar asked the
complainant to give what he had brought and thereafter the
powder smeared GC notes were handed over by the complainant
to accused SI Amit. Merely by use of words “Jo Laaye Ho Inko
De Do”, a demand of bribe cannot be inferred. The complainant
in his testimony has deposed regarding the background in which
the said money was handed over i.e. in pursuance of a
compromise arrived at between him and accused Shekhar and not
upon any demand of bribe by accused SI Amit. The words “Jo
Laaye Ho Inko De Do” pursuant to which money was handed
over, can be merely related to handing over of money and
nothing further than that and hence, no demand can be inferred
by use of the said words. Hence, there is no oral evidence of
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 86 of 94
demand of illegal gratification by accused SI Amit Kumar or that
he had conspired with accused Shekhar to commit the offence
under section 7/13(1)(d) of PC Act.
59) The prosecution has also relied upon the voice
recording of the complainant and the accused persons. It may be
noted that during investigation the mobile phones of accused
Amit Kumar was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/D on
23.05.2018. As per the seizure memo Ex. PW14/D, the two
mobile phones of accused Amit Kumar were taken in police
possession and they were the following :
i) Apple I phone, cream and golden colour, having
Airtel SIM No. 9911456545 (CAF Ex. PW9/A) and
ii) Vivo phone of white and golden colour having a
SIM which was not disclosed.
The identity of the above mobile phones was not
disputed by accused Amit Kumar as they were released to him.
60) Two mobile phones were recovered from accused
Shekhar and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/E and the
details whereof are as follows:
i) Samsung Android mobile phone (Ex. P-12) of
metallic blue colour having dual SIM numbers 9910806520
(Airtel) (CAF Ex. PW9/C) and 8368464557 (Jio) (CAF Ex.
PW26/D) and
ii) Samsung Duos mobile phone (Ex. P-13) of golden
colour having Vodafone SIM bearing no. 9311005650 (CAF Ex.
PW11/A).
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 87 of 94
61) Subsequently, on 25.05.2018 the IO seized mobile
phone of the complainant of make Gionee (Ex. P-9) of light
golden colour and having two SIM numbers 8168961034 (Jio)
and 9813878402 (Vodafone) (CAF Ex. PW11/C), vide seizure
memo Ex. PW8/A.
62) The aforesaid mobile phones of accused Amit and
Shekhar were sent to FSL for extracting the data i.e. audio and
video files created between 16.05.2018 to 23.05.2018. As per the
FSL result Ex. PW23/A dated 28.02.2019, the data i.e. audio and
video files created between 16.05.2018 to 23.05.2018 was
retrieved from exhibit MP3 i.e. one mobile phone make Samsung
containing two SIM cards (Jio, Airtel) i.e. mobile phone of
accused Shekhar and the retrieved data was enclosed in one CD
mark CD-1 with folder named ‘DATA OF MP3’ which was
sealed with the seal of ‘DOC FSL’ and the same was forwarded
to physics division for further examination. A certificate u/s 65B
of I.E.Act Ex. PW23/B in support of CD1 was also enclosed with
the report.
63) No audio and video files could be retrieved from
other mobile phones or from the SIM cards in those mobile
phones or from the memory card contained in the Vivo mobile
phone. The Apple I phone of accused Amit Kumar and the
Gionee mobile phone of the complainant were found to be
password protected and hence, they were returned unexamined.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 88 of 94
64) During recording of testimony of complainant
PW14, CD1 which was prepared by FSL, was played before the
court and after listening to the contents of CD1, PW14 stated that
it was the same conversation that took place between him and
accused Shekhar on mobile phone. CD1 is Ex. PW22/Article-1.
65) It may also be noted that during investigation, on
25.05.2018 IO PW29 seized the mobile phone of the complainant
make Gionee Ex. P-9 vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. It is
deposed by the IO/PW29 that the complainant handed over his
mobile phone containing call recording of conversation between
him, accused SI Amit Kumar, Shekhar and one another person
namely Ashok, owner of M/s Anshu Roadlines. PW29 went to
the IT Centre of PS Vigilance situated in the premises of PS
Vigilance and after hearing the relevant conversations, the same
were transferred in the office computer and thereafter CD was
prepared by him. The CD was kept on file for day-to-day
investigation. The said CD i.e. CD-R Ex.PW14/Article X on
which date 25.05.2018 was mentioned and the same was put to
the complainant PW14 during recording of his testimony and the
complainant after hearing the contents of the CD stated that same
were the audio recordings of his mobile phone Ex. P-9. The said
CD-R was not put to the IO/PW29 or PW8 Ct. Ankush during
recording of their testimony and there is no certificate u/s 65B of
I.E.Act in support of the said CD-R and hence, the same is not
admissible in evidence. Moreover, the said CD was never sent
to FSL for examination and evaluation of its data.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 89 of 94
66) During investigation, the voice samples of the
complainant, Ashok, accused Shekhar and accused Amit were
recorded at FSL,Rohini. The voice samples and the CD1 ( Ex.
PW22/Article-1) having data retrieved from MP3 i.e. mobile
phone of accused Shekhar were sent to FSL for their evaluation
and analysis. As per the FSL result Ex. PW22/A on auditory
analysis of the relevant audio files in CD marked exhibit CD1
( Ex. PW22/Article-1) there was no indication of any form of
alteration. It was opined that the voice of speaker marked exhibit
Q1 and exhibit S1 were similar voice of same person i.e.
Surender Singh. It was further opined that the voice of speaker
marked exhibit Q3 and exhibit S3 are possible voice of same
person i.e. Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Singh.
67) Accordingly, no alteration was indicated in CD1
(Ex. PW22/Article-1), however, only the voice of the
complainant in the recordings was found to be similar to his
sample voice and the voice of accused Shekhar was stated to be
only his possible voice. Additionally, no opinion was given
regarding voice of accused Amit Kumar or Ashok. Upon hearing
the contents of CD1 (Ex. PW22/Article-1) it emerges that it
contains conversation between accused Shekhar and
complainant, however it does not contain any conversation of
demand of bribe. The said conversation between accused
Shekhar and complainant (mobile no. 9910806520) which is also
a part of the transcript Ex. PW29/DE and though there is a
discussion regarding sorting out a matter and arrangement in that
regard. However, a demand of bribe is not discernible from the
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 90 of 94
same.
68) It is also relevant to note that the aforementioned
transcript Ex. PW29/DE stated to be of the concerned voice calls,
was placed on record by Insp. Virender Singh, SHO Vigilance,
on 23.11.2019. IO/PW29 Insp. Dharamvir Gautam did not
depose regarding preparation of transcript by him in his
examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination he deposed that
rough transcription was prepared by him vide Ex. PW29/DE. He
affirmed that the said transcription was undated and was not
counter signed by the complainant or panch witness. He denied
that Ex. PW29/DE was not correct and was fabricated.
Moreover, as per the testimony of IO/PW29 Insp. Dharamvir
Gautam, he had prepared a CD Ex. PW14/Article-X from the
mobile phone of the complainant containing audio files of the
conversation with accused SI Amit Kumar, accused Shekhar and
Ashok. As discussed, there is no certificate u/s 65B of I.E.Act in
support of the said CD i.e. Ex. PW14/Article-X. It is stated by
PW29 himself that the transcript Ex. PW29/DE was a draft
transcript which was typed by him. It is to be noted that the said
transcript was not put to the complainant PW14 during his
examination. There is no panch witness of preparation of the
transcript. Moreover, even IO/PW29 did not depose about
preparation of the transcript by him in his examination-in-chief
and only stated that he had prepared a rough transcript Ex.
PW29/DE. Accordingly, the transcript Ex. PW29/DE does not
stand proved.
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 91 of 94
69) Accordingly, there is no oral or electronic evidence
to prove demand by accused SI Amit Kumar in conspiracy with
accused Shekhar Kumar. However, as per the seizure memo Ex.
PW6/B the GC notes were recovered from the hands of accused
Amit Kumar. The seizure memo of the handwash and the sample
seal is Ex. PW6/C. As per the FSL result Ex. PW10/A the sealed
glass bottle exhibit RHW-1 i.e. right hand wash of accused SI
Amit contained Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. In this
regard, it is deposed by the complainant PW14 that he had
handed over Rs. 50,000/- to accused Shekhar at his office in
pursuance of settlement arrived at with him. In this context PW6
panch witness deposed that the said amount was handed over to
accused SI Amit. It is deposed by PW14 in his cross-
examination by ld. Counsel for the accused that when he met
accused Amit in the office of accused Shekhar, he greeted him
and shook hands with him, thereby indicating that
Phenolphthalein Powder from his hand could have rubbed on to
the hand of accused Amit, thereby resulting in pink colour hand-
wash of accused Amit in Sodium Carbonate solution. Be that as
it may, the prosecution has not been able to establish on record
any demand for illegal gratification by the accused persons. It is
settled law that mere receipt of money by the accused in absence
of proof of demand is not sufficient to make out a case u/s 7 PC
Act.
70) In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy AIR 2015
SC 3549, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:
“21. In State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao,
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 92 of 94
this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-
vis the same offences, held that mere recovery
by itself, would not prove the charge against
the accused and in absence of any evidence to
prove payment of bribe or to show that the
accused had voluntarily accepted the money
knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be
sustained.
22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to
discern the imperative pre-requisites of
Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been
underlined in B. Jayaraj in unequivocal terms,
that mere possession and recovery of currency
notes from an accused without proof of
demand would not establish an offence Under
Sections 7 as well as 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the
Act. It has been propounded that in the
absence of any proof of demand for illegal
gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal
means or abuse of position as a public servant
to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be proved. The
proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an
indispensable essentiality and of permeating
mandate for an offence Under Sections 7 and
13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act,
which permits a presumption as envisaged
therein, it has been held that while it is
extendable only to an offence Under Section 7
and not to those Under Section 13(1)(d)(i) &
(ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the
proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for
doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such
proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it
was emphasized, could follow only if there
was proof of demand. Axiomatically, it was
held that in absence of proof of demand, such
legal presumption Under Section 20 of the Act
would also not arise.
23. The proof of demand of illegal
gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the
offence Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii)
of the Act and in absence thereof,
unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail.
Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by
way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof,
dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would
thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 93 of 94
under these two sections of the Act. As a
corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove
the demand for illegal gratification would be
fatal and mere recovery of the amount from
the person accused of the offence Under
Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his
conviction thereunder.” (Emphasis supplied)
71) Accordingly, for the purpose of Section 7 of PC Act
there has to be a specific demand of illegal gratification and mere
acceptance or handing over of money would not suffice. It is
only if the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance
thereof is proved that presumption under section 20 of PC Act
can be invoked by the Court to presume that the demand was for
a motive or reward for doing any official act. In the present case
the prosecution has not been able to establish demand of illegal
gratification by the accused persons and in absence thereof mere
acceptance is not sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty of
the charged offences.
72) In view of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Amit Kumar and
Shekhar Kumar @ Shekhar Singh are given benefit of doubt and
they are acquitted of the charged offences. Their bail bond stands
cancelled and surety stands discharged.
73) File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance. DEEPALI Digitally signed by
DEEPALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.12.24
16:20:22 +0530
Announced in the open Court ( Deepali Sharma )
on 24 December, 2024
th
Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01)
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex
New Delhi
CC No. 335/2019 FIR No. 05/2018 , PS Vigilance, State vs. SI Amit Kumar & Anr. Page 94 of 94
