1. The public Servants Varun Chechi and Rajesh Yadav posted as Sub-Inspectors with Delhi Police, have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred as to PC Act) and for the substantive offence under Section 7 PC Act 1988.

FACTS:-

2. The case was registered on the basis of complaint dated 11.11.2023 lodged by Manoj Kumar s/o Shyam Singh to the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi alleging that SI Varun Chechi posted at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, demanded a bribe of Rs.25 Lakhs from him for not implicating his employers namely Sh.Harsatinderpal Singh and Smt.Barinder Kaur in FIR No. 16/2018 (PS Barakhamba Road) New Delhi. In order to verify the contents of the complaint, Inspector Mukesh Kumar Mishra secured the presence of Sh. Arjun Singh, Inspector, CGST, Sh. Manoj Kumar (Complainant), Amit Kumar Pandey and Naveen Kumar, both Sub-Inspectors, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. A new Black Colour Sony make Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) and a new 16 GB SD card were arranged and after ensuring the blankness of the DVR, the said SD card was inserted. After ensuring the blankness of the SD card, introductory voice of Independent witness Arjun Singh was recorded. At around 11:53 hrs, a whatsApp call was made from the mobile of the complainant i.e. 9888880202 to the mobile 9813428283 of Varun Chechi by putting the mobile phone on speaker mode. In the said call, complainant told Varun Chechi that he was about to reach Delhi to meet him; on which Varun Chechi replied in affirmative. At around 12:02 hrs, the complainant received a WhatsApp call from Varun Chechi, however the same missed. Thereafter, at around 12:03 hrs, a WhatsApp call was made from the mobile of complainant to Varun Chechi (by putting the mobile phone on speaker mode) and the call was recorded.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, CBI team including above mentioned independent witness and the complainant left CBI HQ for PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. After reaching near PS Barakhamba Road, the said DVR was affixed under the left armpit of the complainant and put to recording and the complainant was sent to meet Varun Chechi. The independent witness along with other team members waited nearby PS Barakhamba Road. The complainant met Varun Chechi and their conversations were recorded in the SD Card Q-1. According to the prosecution, the conversation so held between complainant and SI Varun Chechi established demand of bribe on the part of Varun Chechi for not arresting Smt. Barinder Kaur and Sh.Harsatinderpal Singh. It was revealed that Rs.5 Lakhs would be delivered on 13.11.2023 as part payment. The verification proceedings were concluded and SD card so used for the verification was sealed separately after following due procedure. The verification memo was prepared and signed by the all the witnesses including the complainant and independent witness.

4. On the basis of verification report, FIR RC0032023A0043 was registered with ACB, CBI, New Delhi. Same was entrusted to Inspector G. Devi Prasad, CBI for laying the trap.

5. In order to lay the trap, a team was constituted on 13.11.2023 by trap laying officer Inspector G. Devi Prasad consisting of Inspector Mukesh Mishra, complainant Manoj, independent witnesses Arjun Singh and Harbans Rai Singhal and other CBI officials. During the pre-trap proceedings, complainant produced 900 GC Notes (Rs. 500/- each) amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-. The details of GC notes were noted and thereafter demonstration of phenolphthalein powder was given by explaining its purpose and significance to the trap team. The solution which was used for demonstration was thrown away while the independent witness Harbans Rai Singhal conducted the personal search of the complainant and his backpack, wherein nothing was left except his two mobile phones and the money of Rs.4,50,000/- (in yellow carry bag) was kept inside the backpack. The complainant was instructed not to touch the tainted amount and to hand over the same to accused Varun Chechi on his specific demand or to any other person as per his directions.

6. The complainant was instructed to visit PS Barakhamba Road in order to meet Varun Chechi while Arjun Singh was instructed to act as a shadow witness and to over see the transaction and to hear the conversations between them. The complainant was instructed to give a signal to trap team after the transaction of bribe is done. The other trap team members were instructed to remain discreetly in the vicinity and to rush immediately to the spot upon receiving the signal. Another memory card was arranged and inserted in the DVR and after recording the voices of both the independent witnesses, complainant was given the DVR to record the conversations. The pre-trap proceedings were completed and memo was prepared to this effect.

7. The trap team proceeded to police station Barakhamba Road for laying the trap where also, complainant made telephonic calls to the accused but there was no connect. At about 14.26 hours, complainant received a whatsapp call from accused Varun Chechi and he telephonically asked the complainant to meet advocate Ayush but on denial to do so, accused Varun Chechi further instructed the complainant to reach Police Station Barakhamba Road.

8. Complainant along with Arjun Singh moved towards Barakhamba Road followed by trap team and complainant leaving his backpack with Arjun Singh went inside the police station but he could not find accused Varun Chechi in his room. The complainant returned and again made a whatsapp call to the accused but the calls were declined. After sometime, whatsapp call was received from accused Varun Chechi and he directed the complainant to meet SI Rajesh Yadav in room no. 303. Complainant again went inside the police station and this time with the backpack containing tainted money. At about 15.30 hours, signal was received by trap laying officer and accordingly the team members rushed to the spot i.e. room no. 303, police station Barakhamba Road and found SI Rajesh Yadav inside the room and he was challenged for acceptance of bribe of Rs.4,50,000/-. The DVR was taken back from the complainant and switched off. The complainant informed that he had put the bag containing money on the T-shirt lying on the bed inside the attached small room. The yellow carry bag containing tainted money was not found and on further enquiries, SI Rajesh Yadav revealed that he had placed the said bag on the almirah under the helmet. The yellow bag containing tainted money was recovered. The handwashes of accused Rajesh Yadav were taken in a solution, which turned pink as also the washes of the helmet and T-shirt were taken. The number of currency notes were tallied. The bribe amount was kept in an envelope and sealed. Accused Rajesh Yadav was arrested in the case.

9. The memory card marked Q-2 was taken out from the DVR and sealed with the seal of CBI. The specimen voice of accused Rajesh Yadav and complainant Manoj were taken in the separate memory cards marked S-Rajesh Yadav and S-Complainant and the same were also sealed in a different packing. The DVR used in trap proceedings were also sealed. Transcripts of the conversations were prepared. Screenshots of whats-app calls and chats were taken. On the directions of court, accused Varun Chechi joined the investigation on 28.11.2023. His voice sample was taken and his mobile phone was seized. Specimen voices along with memory cards containing the conversations were sent to CFSL. Mobile phones and laptop of accused persons were also sent to CFSL. Sanction for prosecution against accused persons was accorded by the competent authority and thereafter charge-sheet was filed in the court.

10. On the basis of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the court on 26.02.2024.

CHARGE:-

11. Vide order on charge dated 01.06.2024 charges were ordered and on 08.07.2024, charges were framed against accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 of PC Act 1988 (as amended w.e.f. 26.07.2018) and for the substantive offence under Section 7 PC Act to which both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-

12. During the trial, prosecution examined 17 witnesses. The sum and substance of prosecution evidence is as follows:-

PW-1 Pranav Tayal, IPS posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police has granted sanction vide orders dated 29.12.2023 Ex.PW1/A in respect of accused Varun Chechi and vide Ex.PW1/B in respect of accused Rajesh Yadav. The requisition was received from CBI for granting the sanction along with FIR, statements of witnesses, memos and other relevant documents. During cross examination, PW-1 could not recollect if audio recordings relating to the case were received by him. However, witness admitted that transcripts of the conversations were received. The suggestion has been denied that facts and evidence have not been properly appreciated while granting the sanction. The witness admitted having received the draft sanction order and further denied the suggestion that sanction has been mechanically issued.

PW-2 Prakash Saxena, Nodal Officer has provided the CDR Ex.PW2/B and CAF Ex.PW2/C for the period 11.11.2023 to 13.11.2023 in respect of mobile number 9888880202 in the name of Manoj Kumar (complainant).

PW-3 Manoj Kumar s/o Shyam Singh is the complainant of the case. According to the testimony of PW-3, he was employed under Nirmal Singh Bhangoo and his family members, being the owners of M/s Pearls Group. The accused Varun Chechi was known to him being Investigating Officer of FIR No.16/18 PS Barakhamba Road. PW-3 came to PS Barakhamba Road in October 2023 with the medicines for being given to Nirmal Singh Bhangoo who was in custody. He discussed the case with SI Varun Chechi who said that daughter and son-in- law of Nirmal Singh Bhangoo namely Barinder Kaur and Harsatinderpal Singh were to be arrested and if they want to avoid the arrest, they have to pay the bribe of Rs.25 Lakhs. Next day, when Nirmal Singh Bhangoo was being produced at Patiala House Court, again the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs was raised by SI Varun Chechi for not arresting Barinder Kaur and Harsatinderpal Singh. The complainant further stated that on 04.11.2023 he received two notices on his mobile number 9888880202 through whatsapp sent by SI Varun Chechi seeking appearance of Barinder Kaur and Harsatinderpal Singh for 08.11.2023. On being contacted SI Varun Chechi said that if things are done as per his earlier instructions, then there was no need to come and time of two weeks may be taken. The reply was sent on 07.11.2023 on the whatsapp. On 10.11.2023, again a whatsapp message was received seeking appearance of Barinder Kaur and Harsatinderpal Singh for 11.11.2023 and it was felt that SI Varun Chechi is serious in demanding the bribe. The complaint was lodged with CBI on 11.11.2023 regarding the demand vide Ex.PW3/A. The verification of complaint was carried out by recording the conversations through DVR and memory card in the presence of witness Arjun Singh. Accordingly, a call was made to SI Varun Chechi on his mobile and conversations were recorded, wherein SI Varun Chechi agreed to meet. The verification team including witness Arjun Singh left for PS Barakhamba Road, where complainant entered the police station by fixing DVR under his left arm and on reaching there, he called SI Varun Chechi, who informed that he was reaching police station shortly. At the parking, outside PS Barakhamba Road, accused and complainant talked to each other, from where they went to a stall and discussion about money took place. Initially it was Rs.25 Lakhs on which complainant negotiated and it was finally settled at Rs.20 Lakhs. The said amount was written by SI Varun Chechi on his mobile and he also asked the complainant to write the same on his mobile. Accused also agreed to have money in four installments of Rs.5 Lakh each and first installment was to be paid on 13.11.2023. Complainant further stated that he went to cabin room no.303 of SI Varun Chechi situated at PS Barakhamba Road where also SI Varun Chechi wrote the dates on a rough paper on which installments were to be paid at the rate of Rs.5 Lakhs each.

Thereafter, complainant returned and recordings were heard at CBI office and verification memo was drawn vide Ex.PW3/B. On 13.11.2023 complainant (PW-3) again visited CBI office, carrying Rs.4.5 Lakhs (900 currency notes of Rs.500 each). A team was constituted consisting of CBI officials, complainant himself and other witnesses namely Arjun Singh and Harbans Singhal and they were briefed about the matter. The number of currency notes were noted down on the laptop and thereafter currency notes were treated with the powder substance and it was demonstrated that if the powder is touched and finger is put in solution of water and some other powder the solution would turn pink. The demonstration to this effect was given by witness Arjun Singh and the solution was thrown away. The currency notes were kept by Arjun Singh in a yellow carry bag and powder was also applied on the carry bag. The carry bag was kept in a backpack by Arjun Singh. The complainant further stated that he was instructed not to touch the yellow carry bag until the same is handed over to SI Varun Chechi or as per his direction. A new memory card was arranged and inserted in DVR and introductory voices were recorded. Pre-trap memo was drawn and proved as Ex.PW3/C.

According to PW-3 the complainant, Arjun Singh was directed to remain with him and further directions were given that after the transaction, signal is to be given by rubbing both hands on his head or by making a missed call to the trap laying officer (TLO). All the team members left for PS Barakhamba Road and DVR was switched on. Complainant was asked to make a call to SI Varun Chechi at which complainant made two whatsapp calls but the same were not picked up. After sometime, SI Varun Chechi called the complainant and on picking up the call, complainant informed that he has reached, at which SI Varun Chechi asked him to meet Advocate Ayush. On the reluctance of the complainant to meet Ayush, SI Varun Chechi asked the complainant to come to PS. The conversations were recorded and thereafter they proceeded to PS Barakhamba Road. The team members took position outside the gate and backpack containing money was given to Arjun Singh while complainant proceeded to the cabin of SI Varun Chechi but he could not find him. Complainant further stated that he came back and made two whatsapp calls to SI Varun Chechi but the same were again not picked up. Again SI Varun Chechi called the complainant and asked to handover money to SI Rajesh Yadav. The complainant then took his backpack containing money from Arjun Singh and proceeded towards cabin of SI Varun Chechi room no.303 but on reaching, he could not find anyone. He heard some voices coming from small room attached with room no.303 from where SI Rajesh Yadav came out. The witness asked him whether he was Rajesh Yadav at which he asked whether he brought the 'saman' (article).

PW-3 further stated that accused Rajesh Yadav connected to Varun Chechi from his phone and complainant then talked to Varun Chechi, who asked him to handover to Rajesh Yadav. Rajesh Yadav then asked the complainant to go inside and keep the same on the bed. Complainant further stated that he had already informed Rajesh Yadav that it was 4.5 although Varun Chechi asked for 5 and if there was any need to seek clarification. According to complainant, he went inside the room and kept yellow carry bag on the blue T-shirt lying on the bed. He then came out and asked Rajesh Yadav if he could move inside the police station with backpack at which Rajesh Yadav said no problem and the complainant went out and while coming out gave a missed call to the TLO. Complainant further stated that he was getting down the stairs from third floor when CBI team came rushing towards the third floor and complainant got along with them. The team went inside the room where accused Rajesh Yadav was already apprehended by two persons, the names of said two persons, he does not remember. The CBI officers asked Rajesh Yadav to call Varun Chechi and meanwhile DVR was taken from the complainant. When CBI team confronted Rajesh Yadav for having accepted the bribe, he refused. After sometime, Rajesh Yadav accepted and pointed out to the yellow bag, kept under the helmet on the top of the almirah. The hand-washes of accused Rajesh Yadav were taken and solution turned pink which was sealed in separate glass bottles. The helmet wash and T-shirt washes were also taken. The number of currency notes so recovered were tallied with the list already prepared. A memo was prepared about all the proceedings and signed by the witnesses. The money was recovered from the top of Almirah by witness Arjun Singh. The voice sample of accused Rajesh Yadav was taken in a new memory card. The voice of complainant himself was also recorded in the memory card and the memory cards were sealed. The print outs of whatsapp chats between the complainant and the accused Varun Chechi were taken from the mobile about which certificate was given by the complainant. The post trap memo has been identified as Ex.PW3/D. The bribe amount contained in yellow carry bag was produced in the court vide Ex.PW3/E. Printouts of the screen shots showing notices addressed to Harsatinder Pal Singh and Barinder Kaur and about whatsapp calls were taken vide Ex.PW3/G along with certificate Ex.PW3/H. The memory cards and DVR were also produced and the audio recordings were played in the court wherein complainant identified the voices. The conversations of 11.11.2023 have been recorded in Q-1 and of 13.11.2023 in Q-2 (Ex. PW3/J). The complainant also deposed about site plan Ex.PW3/DA which was prepared at his instance and admitted that position of helmet is not shown in the site plan.

During cross examination, complainant admitted having visited the court on 16.07.2024 (when he had already received the summons for appearance in this case). He met CBI officials who were available in the adjoining room to this court. The suggestion has been denied that he was informed by the officials about the manner in which the deposition is to be made by him. Complainant denied having shown his statement or that he remained there for about six hours. According to the complainant, he remained with CBI officials for about 30-45 minutes. Admittedly complainant did not visit the court on 18.07.2024 in response to the summons so issued.

It is admitted that PW-3 complainant is one of the accused along with his employers in case FIR no.79/20 PS City Zira District Firozpur under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 B IPC. He was bailed out on 15.11.2021 by the orders of High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Complainant's brother Ashwani Kumar is also an accused in the said case. The suggestion has been denied that complainant was under apprehension that the factum of fraud (for executing sale deeds by him and his brother), may be surfaced in FIR No.16/18, PS Barakhamba Road or that in order to overawe the officials of Delhi Police and to deviate from his own culpability, the present false case has been initiated under the advise of Ex. Joint Additional Director, CBI. PW-3 complainant further admitted that due to non-compliance of the notices, his employers were liable to be arrested. On 11.11.2023 Harsatinderpal Singh also accompanied the complainant to CBI office. The complainant has been permanent employee with Pearl Group of Companies from the year 2009 to 2015. It is also admitted that in FIR No. 79/20 PS City Zira, the allegations have been that complainant and his brother sold the properties despite stay from Hon'ble Supreme Court during the period 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is admitted that verification memo Ex.PW3/B was prepared after they came back from PS Barakhamba Road to the office of CBI and after getting the same checked from Harsatinder Pal Singh before signing the same. Mr.Ayush is the advocate of Mr. Harsatindepal and Ms.Barinder Kaur and it is admitted that complainant was asked to handover the reply to Advocate Ayush. It is admitted that he refused to handover the reply to Advocate Ayush for the reason that Varun Chechi had earlier instructed not to speak to Ayush. The suggestion has been denied that he (complainant) was anxious to meet Varun Chechi on 13.11.2023 so that he could be successfully trapped. It is admitted that accused Varun Chechi did not meet him on 13.11.2023 and also that room no. 303 was open room and any body could enter and move inside the said room. The complainant could not explain as to why he was not carrying the bribe amount when he first time entered the police station on 13.11.2023. It is denied that since no time, date and place was fixed and no demand of bribe was made by accused, he was not carrying the bribe amount. The complainant further denied the suggestion that in the garb of handing over the reply, he carried the tainted money and that in the anxiety to trap the police officials, he colluded with CBI and second time came with tainted money and planted the same. The Complainant admitted that Mr. A. K. Sharma came to meet Nirmal Singh Bhangoo during the period of his parole. The suggestion has been denied that despite the absence of SI Varun Chechi on 13.11.2023, the complainant and CBI team were anxious to carry out the successful trap or that money was planted without the knowledge and awareness of SI Rajesh Yadav. Complainant further admitted that main issue during the conversations was about filing reply to the notices and submission of documents. Complainant further denied that he purposely conversed in the manner (knowing that conversations are being recorded) to make it appear as if negotiations are not for reply but for money as he was instructed to make the verification successful. The suggestion is denied that money has been kept inside the room discreetly to make the trap successful or that signal was given by him without acceptance of bribe. The suggestion is denied that transcript Ex.PW3/L is not completely prepared in order to conceal the real facts. The suggestion is denied that CBI team compelled and forced accused Rajesh Yadav to call Varun Chechi in order to falsely show the acceptance of bribe. It is denied that complainant and his employers were apprehending arrest and therefore filed a false complaint.

During cross examination of behalf of A-2, witness (PW-3) stated that he was not knowing Rajesh Yadav but he had seen him on earlier occasions at the police station. The suggestion is denied that accused Rajesh Yadav did not meet him in room no.303 or that no conversation about exchange of bribe had taken place with him on 13.11.2023. It is also denied that no telephonic conversation had taken place between the complainant and Varun Chechi from the mobile phone of Rajesh Yadav. The suggestion is denied that no directions were given by Rajesh Yadav to keep the bag or any other thing inside the room. Complainant has denied having made improvements while giving testimony before the court or that accused Rajesh Yadav had not accepted or touched the tainted money or bag or polythene or that accused persons have been falsely implicated.

PW-4 Shashank Tyagi, Alternate Nodal Officer has provided Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW4/B and Call Detail Records (CDR) Ex.PW4/E for the period 11.11.2023 to 23.11.2023 of mobile number 981342823 in the name of Varun Chechi Ex.PW4/B. Witness has also provided the CAF Ex.PW4/C and CDR Ex.PW4/F for the period 11.11.2023 to 23.11.2023 of mobile number 9999929182 in the name of Rajesh Yadav. Witness was cross examined on behalf of accused persons.

PW-5 Vipin Kumar, Head Constable (Ministerial) in the office of DCP, New Delhi, handed over documents vide production cum seizure memo Ex.PW5/A relating to transfer and posting of SI Rajesh Yadav and SI Varun Chechi.

PW-6 Mahesh Chand Meena, Assistant Public Health Inspector, MCD joined the investigation of the present case when audio recordings were played and voices were identified by Inspector Mahabir Singh vide memo Ex.PW6/A (in terms of transcripts Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C.

PW-7 Arjun Singh working as Inspector CGST (since December 2022) visited CBI office on duty. PW-7 has been the part of verification proceedings and trap team and accompanied the complainant Manoj Kumar. It is confirmed by PW-7 that telephonic conversations and audio conversations were recorded between the complainant and SI Varun Chechi. Verification memo has been confirmed as Ex.PW3/B. Witness has also deposed about pre-trap proceedings Ex.PW3/C, trap proceedings and post trap proceedings Ex.PW3/D conducted in his presence whereby he had accompanied the complainant Manoj Kumar to PS Barakhamba Road. The tainted money was kept in the yellow bag and thereafter in the shoulder bag by this witness. The demonstration of phenolphthalein powder has been admitted. PW-7 further testified about arrest cum personal search of accused Rajesh Yadav vide Ex.PW7/A and about taking of printouts Ex.PW7/B. The articles produced during the trial such as handwashes, envelope of recovered money have been identified. The witness also identified his voice in the audio recordings. As per the witness, the handwashes of SI Rajesh Yadav were taken and solution was of phenolphthalein powder and sodium bicarbonate, which was sealed in a separate bottle.

Witness was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor on the ground that witness has resiled from his statement (recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C) during which PW-7 admitted that his statement was recorded by Inspector Anshul Sharma. He admitted that Phenolphthalein powder was also applied on the yellow bag. PW-7 admitted that accused Rajesh Yadav was present when CBI team entered the room situated at third floor on 13.11.2023 and complainant Manoj Kumar informed that he had kept the money on the bed inside the small room. Accused Rajesh Yadav was interrogated by CBI and he revealed that he kept the bag on the top of the almirah under the helmet. Witness further admitted that a solution was prepared consisting of water and sodium carbonate and that accused Rajesh Yadav was asked to put his fingers in the said solution. The suggestion is denied that no solution of phenolphthalein powder was prepared or that he is deposing falsely about the solution. Witness deposed about the helmet wash turning pink and that solution was sealed in a separate bottle. The specimen voices of accused Rajesh Yadav and another witness Harbans Rai Singhal were recorded in the presence of this witness and specimen voice of complainant was also recorded. PW-7 further admitted having visited CBI office on 1.12.2023 but could not recollect, if the voices were identified by Manoj Kumar or that memo was prepared vide Ex.PW3/K. The signatures have been identified on the memo as well as on the transcripts. Witness stated that he entered the room of Varun Chechi and Rajesh Yadav which was situated at 3rd Floor. He was at a distance outside the room. Rajesh Yadav asked to keep the money inside a room situated at the back of main room. Signal was given to the CBI team by this witness before entering the police station.

During cross examination, witness denied the suggestion that no recovery proceedings took place in his presence or that no handwashes, helmet wash and T-shirt wash were taken. It is admitted by PW-7 that he had not heard or seen any police official demanding or accepting any bribe money from the complainant either on 11.11.2023 or 13.11.2023. The complainant went inside police station on 13.11.2023 leaving the bag with him as complainant wanted to ensure, if sub-inspector was in the police station or not. Witness has admitted that without opening Ex.PW7/C (yellow envelope containing yellow carry bag having money) it is not visible whether the envelope was containing documents/ papers or currency notes. It is also admitted that on the apprehension of accused on 13.11.2023, SHO and other police officials were not involved in the proceedings despite their presence in the police station. The witness had not seen or heard as to whom the complainant Manoj Kumar had met on 11.11.2023 after entering the police station. PW-7 also admitted that all the documents were signed by him as it was stated that they relate to the proceedings of the matter. It is denied that he is a stock witness or was asked to participate in the proceedings as a formality.

During cross examination on behalf of A-2, PW-7 stated that he only recollect that SI Varun asked the complainant to meet Rajesh Yadav. He was not knowing to whom the complainant was speaking on phone on 13.11.2023. This witness has not seen Rajesh Yadav accepting or holding the envelope containing tainted amount nor he has seen complainant Manoj Kumar keeping the envelope on the bed.

PW-8 Mahabir Singh, SHO PS Barakhamba Road, stated that both the accused persons SI Varun Chechi and SI Rajesh Yadav have been working under him. The documents were provided by this witness vide letter Ex.PW8/A relating to the posting / transfer of the accused persons. The witness admitted the certified copy of FIR No. 16/18 and also identified his signatures on production cum seizure memo Ex.PW8/I. On 29.11.2023, PW-8 visited CBI office and was asked to identify the voices in the recordings. After hearing the conversations, he told that in the said conversations voices appear to be that of accused Varun Chechi and Rajesh Yadav. The transcripts were also matched. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, PW-8 admitted that accused Nirmal Singh Bhangoo was arrested in case FIR No.16/18 and he remained at Police station during 30.10.2023 to 31.10.2023 and accused Rajesh Yadav was on leave during the said period. He could not recollect, if CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 was handed over to CBI. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, witness identified a letter Ex.PW8/DA. No enquiries were conducted from this witness about issuance of notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C in relation to the case FIR No.16/18. The investigation of the case was within his knowledge. On 11.11.2023, neither Harsatinderpal Singh, or Barinder Kaur or Manoj Kumar came to meet him at the police station. On 13.11.2023 CBI conducted the proceedings but did not involve him at any point of time. It is admitted that SI Rajesh Yadav was in the custody of CBI officers on 13.11.2023. PW-8 was not introduced to the complainant Manoj Kumar or to any other witness of the trap.

PW-9 Mukesh Kumar Mishra, CBI, ACB deposed that complaint Ex.PW3/A preferred by Manoj Kumar was marked to him for verification. The verification proceedings were conducted whereby complainant called accused Varun Chechi and accused agreed to meet him and thereafter conversations held during the meeting were recorded through memory card in the DVR by the complainant. Witness has deposed about verification report Ex.PW9/A about pre-trap and trap proceedings and proved various proceedings drawn through memos. Witness deposed about recovery of bribe amount, handwashes, helmet and T-shirt wash, recording of voices of the witnesses and recording of conversations and about laying trap. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, PW-9 denied the suggestion that accused Rajesh Yadav was apprehended in the gallery outside room no.303 or that he was forced to call Varun Chechi by CBI officials or that accused Rajesh Yadav was wrongly arrested and implicated in the case. The suggestion has been denied that accused had not disclosed at any point of time that bribe amount was lying on the almirah. Witness admitted that he had not seen accused SI Rajesh Yadav accepting or holding the yellow envelope containing currency notes but the suggestion has been denied that same was planted upon him. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, witness deposed that he did not enquire from the complainant that in compliance of notice, dated 10.11.2023 his employers were required to appear before the IO nor he verified about notice dated 04.11.2023 or second notice so issued. The witness could not recollect as to why shadow witness was not sent along with complainant for verifying the complaint against Varun Chechi. It is admitted that complainant went alone to meet accused Varun Chechi. No enquiries were made by this witness as to why the employers of the complainant were being summoned. PW-9 had not met Harsatinder Pal Singh and Barinder Kaur during the course of verification proceedings and denied the presence of Harsatinderpal Singh in the office. The suggestion has been denied that no verification of any kind was conducted or that verification memo Ex.PW3/B was prepared without visiting the police station or that contents of Ex.PW3/B are false or that Q-1 has been fabricated in collusion with the complainant and his employer Harsatinderpal Singh. The witness has denied the suggestion that verification report Ex.PW9/A has been falsely prepared. It is admitted that without opening the yellow envelope Ex.PW7/C, it cannot be ascertained whether it carries documents / papers or currency notes. SHO and other police officials of PS Barakhamba Road were not involved in the proceedings. Witness has no knowledge about antecedents of the complainant as he did not inquire about the same. Witness could not recollect, if the complainant came out of the police station after allegedly giving the bribe amount, however, it is admitted that after getting the missed call from the complainant, CBI team immediately rushed towards room no.303 and apprehended accused Rajesh Yadav. It is also admitted that from the DVR records, it was not checked or verified, if bribe amount was accepted by Rajesh Yadav before apprehending him. Ex.PW3/D (recovery memo) was prepared as per the narration of the complainant. The suggestion has been denied that CBI was pre-determined to conduct the verification and trap proceedings or that accused persons have been falsely implicated.

PW-10 Dharu Singh Meena, Government Scientific Expert has given chemical examination report Ex.PW10/A with respect to the sealed glass bottles which tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, witness admitted that due to lapse of time solution in bottles was appearing colorless. Witness has no personal knowledge of the case. The suggestion has been denied that false report has been given at the instance of CBI. During cross examination on behalf of A-1, witness has denied that glass bottles contain colorless solution and report given in this respect is perfunctory.

PW-11 Jayesh Bhardwaj, Government Scientific Expert, CFSL, DFSS, MHA, New Delhi is an expert and examined audio conversations containing questioned conversations and specimen voices (Q1, Q2, S1, S2, S3 and DVR). Witness has given his detailed report Ex.PW11/A and has also identified memory cards and DVR so produced. During cross examination, PW-11 denied that his report is perfunctory and scientifically incorrect. Witness had brought the office file and the set of transcripts annexed in the file are Ex.PW11/DA-1.

Witness admitted that transcripts were provided to him but denied the suggestion that they indicated the names of respective speakers. During cross examination of the witness, worksheet and spectrograms were taken on record Ex.PW11/DA-2 (colly). Witness admitted that he has no degree, diploma or certificate in linguistic and phonetic field. According to the witness, he had in-house training and inter-laboratory training on study of linguistic and phonetic features. It is admitted that he has not been notified under Section 79A of IT Act or 45-A of Indian Evidence Act. The suggestion has been denied that in the capacity of Senior Scientific Assistant (Physics), he is not notified under Section 293 Cr.P.C. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, witness admitted that software Speech Science Laboratory 4.1 can analyse the audio data in waveform only and not in any other format. The questioned voice of accused Rajesh Yadav was not subjected to the spectrographic analysis. The text spoken by the said speaker was not found sufficient for spectrographic analysis. The auditory analysis of voice of Rajesh Yadav was done. PW-11 denied the suggestion that he has given a false report.

PW-12 Harbans Rai Singhal, Inspector with CGST, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi joined the proceedings of the present case from 13.11.2023. He was a member of trap team and was briefed about the complaint of Manoj Kumar and action to be taken against Vaun Chechi on the basis of FIR. Witness was informed that there was demand of Rs.25 Lakhs raised by accused Varun Chechi in connection with the case. PW-12 deposed about pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings and about recovery of bribe amount at the instance of accused Rajesh Yadav from the top of Almirah. Witness stated that envelope containing money was lying on the top of the Almirah covered by Blue T-shirt and under the helmet. The handwashes of the accused Rajesh Yadav were taken and same turned pink. The witness has also deposed about recording of voices and identified his signatures on various memos drawn during the proceedings. The articles like memory cards, DVR etc were produced and identified by the witness.

During cross examination, PW-12 stated that Manoj Kumar (complainant) did not meet any police officer nor the money or the envelope was handed over in his presence. Witness had seen the complainant entering the gate of the police station from a distance. Witness denied to be a planted witness. It is admitted that from envelope Ex.PW7/C, it cannot be ascertained whether it contained money, papers or documents. PW-12 admitted that he was an accused in CBI case which was a trap case. He has been acquitted in the said case in the year 2024 namely CBI vs Dilip Singh Dhankad & Others. Witness admitted that he was accused at the time he joined the proceedings of this case. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, witness deposed that when he entered the room, he found the complainant available in the room and accused Rajesh Yadav was already apprehended by CBI officials. The suggestion has been denied that no recovery was effected in his presence or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of CBI officials.

PW-13 Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer, deposed that he sent medicines to the police station in October 2023 for his father-in-law Nirmal Singh Bhangoo through complainant Manoj Kumar. He was informed by Manoj Kumar that SI Varun Chechi indicated to make them accused in the case and SI Varun Chechi demanded money. On 08.11.2023, notice was sent by SI Varun Chechi through Whatsapp to Manoj Kumar and thereafter the witness discussed the matter with Manoj and family members and asked Manoj to take some time from SI Varun Chechi. Reply to the notice was prepared by the lawyer and sent to SI Varun Chechi through whatsapp but even thereafter another notice was received seeking appearance on 11.11.2023. On this, they decided not to pay the money and file a complaint against him and accordingly filed a complaint with CBI. During cross examination, PW-13 admitted that he is an accused in two criminal cases and he was arrested only once relating to a case of M/s Pearl Group. He is also an accused in CBI case pending trial before Rouse Avenue Court. Notice Ex.PW3/DA1 was seen by the witness and his wife on the mobile phone of Manoj. Witness admitted that no demand of bribe or money was raised from him. It is also admitted that Manoj Kumar was under custody in a cheating case and even PW-13 himself remained in custody for about two years. The suggestion has been denied that they are professional criminals and they were knowing that non-compliance to the notice would authorise SI Varun Chechi to arrest them or that in order to avoid arrest they filed the complaint against the Investigating Officer. The suggestion has been denied that advise was being taken from A.K.Sharma, Ex.Special Director, CBI. The suggestion is denied that he visited PS Barakhamba Road on 11.11.2023 and 13.11.2023 but did not choose to appear before SI Varun Chechi but rather implicated him in this case. The suggestion has been denied that he was present throughout the trap proceedings or that he was part of the same unofficially.

PW-14 Kuldeep Singh was working as Teacher in MCD Primary School for Boys since 25.10.2019. Witness deposed that on 28.11.2023 he went to CBI office and met Inspector Anshul Sharma. In the CBI office, his voice was recorded through DVR and voice of Varun Chechi was recorded in his presence. The mobile of accused Varun Chechi was taken in his presence and was sealed. Witness has proved the observation memo as Ex.PW14/A and declaration relating to specimen voice of Varun Chechi as Ex.PW14/B.

PW-15 Inspector G. Devi Prasad is the trap laying officer and has deposed about constituting a trap team and about arranging Rs.4.5 Lakhs through the complainant and treating them with phenolphthalein powder. The bribe was kept inside a yellow bag and the same was kept in the backpack. Witness deposed about pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings conducted in the present case and has proved various memos drawn during the same. Witness stated that on receiving missed call from the complainant, he along with trap team members went towards room no.303. The complainant was seen coming out of room no.303 and they found accused Rajesh Yadav present inside the room. He was challenged for having accepted the bribe amount and on his disclosure, yellow bag containing money was recovered from under the helmet from the top of the Almirah. The details of post-trap proceedings have been given by this witness and various articles recovered / seized have been identified. Witness has proved FIR Ex.PW15/A.

During cross examination on behalf of A-1, PW-15 denied that entire purpose of the present case was to shield Harsatinderpal Singh and his wife Barinder Kaur for the default to the notices issued by IO SI Varun Chechi in case FIR No.16/18. Witness has no knowledge if Harsatinderpal Singh is also an accused in the CBI case and is facing trial. The suggestion has been denied that they were being instructed by Ex. Joint Director Sh.A. K. Sharma during trap proceedings. It is admitted that position of T-shirt and helmet is not shown in the site plan. The trap money was sealed in a yellow envelope during the post trap proceedings. According to PW-15, complainant handed over money to SI Rajesh Yadav in a transparent polythene, although admitted that he was not present at the spot when the money was handed over. The money was kept in a transparent polythene and was placed inside backpack. The concluding portion of Q-2 was played before the witness and he identified the voice of CBI official Inspector Ajay who was saying to Rajesh Yadav, “Jaldi Karega, do minute ke andar, ek minute ka time hai bas sirf”.

The suggestion has been denied that no recovery was effected or that bribe money was planted upon the accused or that there was no acceptance of undue advantage or recovery thereof.

During cross examination on behalf of A-2, PW-15 stated that he got the signal through whatsapp call from the complainant and at that time he had already entered the police station on third floor. They reached room no.303 within 2-3 minutes while the complainant was coming out of the room and accused was available in the room and was immediately apprehended. The money was not recovered, when SI Rajesh Yadav was asked to call SI Varun Chechi. The suggestion has been denied that SI Rajesh Yadav had no knowledge or awareness about any demand or payment of bribe or that he had not accepted the bribe or that tainted money was planted or that handwashes have been manipulated.

PW-16 Ct. Nitesh deposed that he had gone to CBI office and provided CCTV footage of three cameras installed at third floor, vigilance gate and parking site of PS Barakhamba road in a Pen drive. He proved the pendrive as Ex.PW16/D. During cross examination, witness stated that he has no knowledge about the CCTV footage of 13.11.2023. He denied the suggestion that he has downloaded CCTV footage as per the convenience of CBI.

PW-17 Inspector Anshul Sharma was entrusted with the investigation of the case after the trap. Witness had taken the specimen voice of accused Varun Chechi and obtained the transfer posting details of accused Varun Chechi and accused Rajesh Yadav. PW-17 sent the washes, memory cards (containing recorded conversations) and specimen voice samples, mobile phones of accused persons, laptop of accused Rajesh Yadav to CFSL for analysis. He also obtained CCTV footage of police station Barakhamba Road and sent to CFSL. He examined the complainant, his employer Harsatinder Pal Singh, both the independent witnesses and TLO, Verification officer and other relevant witnesses. Relevant records from PS Barakhamba Road were also collected. CDRs and CAFs of accused persons and complainant were collected. The transcriptions of the recorded conversations were also prepared in the presence of independent witnesses. PW-17 also received sanction orders for prosecution of accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court.

During cross examination on behalf of A-1, witness stated that he did not know who directed to keep the tainted money in an envelope for the purposes of handing over to the accused. He did not make any inquiry from Advocate Ayush. He admitted that while preparing the transcripts, the audio conversations which were only relevant to the case, were reduced into writing. He admitted that some portions of audio conversations, (though are available in Q1 and Q2) are not the part of transcripts. Witness denied the suggestion that during investigation it had surfaced that the yellow bag shown in Ex.PW3/D was never recovered in the manner detailed in the said memo. Witness denied the suggestion that he had consciously not brought true facts on record. During cross examination on behalf of A-2, witness stated that he observed the voice of accused Rajesh Yadav in file no. 231114_1434. Witness denied the suggestion that he purposely skipped the crucial portion of conversation so as to conceal material facts.

Also, prosecution has provided the video examination report of CCTV footages prepared by expert Sh. Vinod Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant, CFSL, Delhi and CFSL report of mobile phones of accused Varun Chechi and Rajesh Yadav and laptop of accused Rajesh Yadav prepared by expert Sh. M. B. Pathak, Scientist-B, CFSL, DFSS, Hyderabad.

Video examination report of CCTV footages has been exhibited as Ex.P1 and CFSL report with regard to mobile phones and laptop has been exhibited as Ex.P2 as report of scientific expert is admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS (U/S. 313 Cr.P.C):-

13. After the closure of prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting across entire incriminating evidence in question answer form.

When questioned u/s. 313 Cr.P.C, accused Varun Chechi (A-1) denied the prosecution case and the allegations thereof. Accused admitted having been posted as Sub- Inspector at police Station Barakhamba Road and being the investigating officer of FIR No.16/18 and having issued the notices to Harsatinderpal Singh and Barinder Kaur for their appearance and production of documents. Accused, however, has denied that he asked PW-3 to do anything. Other persons to whom the notices were issued in the said case, had joined the investigation. According to the accused, he did not raise any demand and the complaint is false and motivated and complainant and his employers were interested to derail the investigation and to falsely implicate him in order to escape from the consequences of their default and illegal acts. The complainant himself repeatedly requested to meet and it is denied that there was discussion about negotiation of money with PW-3. Accused has no knowledge with regard to pre-trap proceedings as also according to accused, conversations had taken place in context of handing over of reply to advocate Ayush since he was representing employers of the complainant. It is specifically denied that complainant Manoj Kumar was asked to handover money to co-accused SI Rajesh Yadav. The factum of receiving call from SI Rajesh Yadav or mentioning about money is also denied. Accused claimed that money must have been planted.

Accused Varun Chechi further stated that CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 has been withheld and also the transcripts of relevant conversations are missing. The complete facts are not brought to the knowledge of sanctioning authority particularly the recorded conversations and CCTV footage and therefore sanction so issued is bad in law. The expertise of PW-10 Dharu Singh Meena and PW-11 Jayesh Bhardwaj and their reports have also been challenged. The credibility of witnesses i.e. PW-3 Manoj Kumar and PW-13 Harsatinderpal Singh is challenged on the ground that they have been involved in criminal cases. The accused further claimed that Ex.Joint Director CBI Sh.A. K. Sharma have been advising the complainant and his employers.

Accused Varun Chechi further stated that his voice sample was taken and expressed violation of directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and he was forced to speak in a particular tenor. Nothing incriminating could be seen or made out from CCTV as per detailed version of the accused. The investigation conducted by Inspector Anshul Sharma has also been brought in question. The statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C have been fabricated. The FIR and the entire charge-sheet have been challenged on the ground that they contain false facts. Witnesses examined by the prosecution are false and so also the proceedings drawn during the verification and trap. Complainant is stated to be an interested witness who has failed to explain as to why he had not entered the police station on 13.11.2023 along with his backpack at the first instance. Accused further claimed that he has been falsely implicated. The written statement under Section 313 (5) Cr.P.C detailing the defence pleas has also been filed.

Accused Rajesh Yadav has also controverted the case of the prosecution in his statement so recorded. According to Rajesh Yadav, he had no knowledge about verification and pre-trap proceedings. The trap proceedings dated 13.11.2023 have also been denied. The allegations of acceptance of bribe, handwashes or recovery have also been denied with specific assertions that handwashes have been manipulated and false case has been planted upon him. It is also denied that his specimen voice was recorded or that audio recordings (Q-2) contain his voice. The recovery of bribe is stated to be planted and according to the accused, he has been falsely arrested in the case. Accused further stated that he was pressurized to call SI Varun Chechi and to say that money has been received and claims to be wrongly involved in the present case. Accused has specifically denied that he has accepted any amount either personally or on behalf of Varun Chechi. The contents of the memos have also been questioned. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated and he has nothing to do with the investigation of FIR No.16/18 as he had no acquaintance with complainant Manoj Kumar. Complainant has deposed falsely being the interested witness and he was working in connivance with CBI to make a case against accused SI Varun Chechi. The proceedings and the expert report have been manipulated and falsely planted.

Both the accused persons preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.

ARGUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS:-

14. I have heard arguments as advanced by Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Sh.Harsh K Sharma, Advocate for accused Varun Chechi and Sh.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for accused Rajesh Yadav and also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of defence. I have also examined the evidence of witnesses and other material including audio conversations, transcripts and exhibited documents.

15. Ld. Sr. PP Sh. A. K. Kushwaha submitted that prosecution has been able to prove its case by way of sufficient evidence. The testimony of the complainant is clear and consistent showing demand and acceptance of bribe on the part of accused SI Varun Chechi in collusion with co-accused SI Rajesh Yadav. The sanction has been properly and validly granted. The audio conversations recorded during verification proceedings clearly show element of negotiations and accused SI Varun Chechi had agreed to accept Rs.5 Lakhs. The demand was also raised by writing the text on mobile as well as by writing it on a piece of paper. It is not in dispute that investigation of case FIR No.16/2018 was being conducted by SI Varun Chechi and he was in a position to extend benefit to the employers of the complainant. The bribe amount was accepted by SI Rajesh Yadav on the instructions of SI Varun Chechi as is evident from the audio conversations. SI Rajesh Yadav was knowing that the bag was containing money for SI Varun Chechi. The trap was properly conducted and proceedings were drawn vide various memos at the spot and signed by the witnesses concerned. CCTV footage has confirmed the presence of the complainant inside the police station on 11.11.2023. The recovery of bribe amount was effected on 13.11.2023 from room no.303 by the trap team. The expert evidence has proved the matching of voices. The questioned and specimen voices are reportedly similar. The voices have also been identified by complainant Manoj (PW-3) and SHO Mahabir Singh (PW-8). The ingredients of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (as amended in 2018) are fulfilled as against both accused persons and therefore their conviction be recorded. Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Prosecutor relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-

"1. Vinod Kumar Garg vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 1797.

2. Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2023 SC 330.

3. Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439."

16. Arguing on behalf of accused Varun Chechi, Ld. Counsel Sh.Harsh K. Sharma firstly raised the point of sanction being not valid as complete set of documents particularly audio recordings were not provided to the sanctioning authority. Audio recordings and expert reports are stated to be an important piece of evidence but were not provided to the sanctioning authority. The transcripts were sent for consideration of the sanctioning authority but it is an admitted position that transcripts are not complete. They have been selectively prepared only to favour the prosecution. It is specifically pointed out by Ld. counsel that some portions of Q-2 are missing from the transcripts as well as CCTV footages were also not sent for consideration of the sanctioning authority. In this regard, Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of CBI vs Ashok Kumar Agarwal, JT 2013 (15) SC 251. It is specifically argued that in the absence of valid sanction cognizance should not have been taken against the accused. Even otherwise, the question of sanction goes to the root of the matter and benefit thereof must be extended to the accused persons.

17. Second point raised by Ld. Counsel has been that PW-3/complainant Manoj Kumar is not a reliable witness due to material variations and improvements in his testimony and also due to his antecedents as he himself has been involved in criminal cases of cheating and forgery. PW-3 stated that demand was also written on a piece of paper by accused Varun Chechi, but this important fact does not find mention in the verification proceedings nor the said piece of paper is produced before the court. Complainant and his employers had a strong motive to implicate the accused as they were avoiding arrest due to non compliance of notices issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

18. Coming to the audio conversations contained in Q-1, Ld. Counsel argued that conversations do not reveal any demand so much so that accused even refused to meet the complainant. It was the complainant himself who insisted to meet the accused and even during the meeting, conversations took place mainly on the issue of filing reply to the notice. No categorical or clear demand is coming forth from the accused, on the contrary, accused is clarifying that he is asking about reply only. Infact whole conversations are about filing of reply and documents. The complainant, knowingly well that recordings are being done, tried to lead the conversation in the manner that it gives impression that negotiations about money are taking place and in this way, complainant tried to manipulate the conversations in his own favour. No time, date or place for handing over the alleged money was fixed and importantly, there is no mention about Rs.20 or 25 Lakhs as stated by the complainant in his testimony and in the complaint Ex.PW3/A. Ld. Counsel further argued that PW-3 is a tutored witness as admittedly he visited the court premises and met CBI officers on 16.07.2024 but interestingly failed to appear on 18.07.2024 when he was supposed to appear before the court for evidence. The complainant rather sent his medical on 18.07.2024 seeking time to appear for evidence. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the judgment of Manikandan vs State by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 500 on this aspect.

19. On the issue of acceptance of bribe, Ld. Counsel argued that accused Varun Chechi was not present at the police station to accept the bribe nor he was responding to the calls of the complainant. If any sort of exchange of bribe was to take place, accused would have been readily available. In specific terms, accused conveyed the complainant on phone to handover the reply and take the receiving firstly naming Advocate Ayush and on refusal naming Rajesh Yadav for handing over the reply. The complainant himself informed SI Varun Chechi that he reached the police station Barakhamba Road and only thereafter accused re-directed him to SI Rajesh Yadav. If there was any kind of conspiracy, Varun Chechi would have named accused Rajesh Yadav at the first instance itself. Even otherwise no prudent person would accept bribe at the official place itself where there is lot of movement of other officials. The false implication of accused is reflected from untranscribed conversations available in audio file (which is part of Q-2) where team members are giving instructions and saying that even if accused is not available they will send the complainant along with DVR.

20. Ld. Counsel further argued that there was no acceptance on the part of Rajesh Yadav and he has been falsely implicated and was forced to call SI Varun Chechi and to confess that he has accepted the amount. The expert report about audio conversations is also challenged on the ground that same is not the conclusive proof of the fact that they contain the voices of accused and the complainant as the word ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ have been mentioned in the report. On this aspect, the counsel has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court Ajay Gupta vs CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine 3549 wherein it was held that accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of probabilities in the criminal trial. Ld. Counsel further stressed on the issue that CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 has not been produced to show the relevant recordings of police station Barakhamba Road. On this point the judgment of Tomaso Brunu vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 has been relied upon wherein it was held that failure to produce CCTV footage and call records would amount to holding best evidence which could have challenged the issue and even electronic evidence has not been produced, which creates serious doubt about the prosecution story.

21. Ld. Counsel further submitted that alleged recovery of bribe amount is absolutely doubtful as according to the testimony of IO, (PW-15 G. Devi Prasad) the tainted money was kept in a transparent polythene bag whereas recovery is shown in a yellow carry bag. As per recorded conversations contained in Q-2, the complainant is unilaterally speaking as to where the amount was to be kept and there is no voice of accused Rajesh Yadav affirming or confirming the acceptance of bribe from the complainant, meanwhile there are immediate sounds of persons walking (which was CBI team). The question is as to how immediately (within few seconds) after keeping the amount, the complainant could reach to CBI team and then got accused Rajesh Yadav apprehended. These voices go on to show that entire events have been stage managed and accused Rajesh Yadav was falsely apprehended. Ld. Counsel further raised the point that independent witness Harbans Rai Singhal (PW-12) cannot be termed as an independent witness as admittedly he was an accused in a CBI case and was facing trial and due to the prosecution by CBI, he could not have given different version and whatever he has spoken, it has been under the influence of CBI. Ld. defence Counsel has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:-

"1. Varkey Joseph vs State of Kerala (1993) Suppl. (3) SCC 745.

2. M. K. Harshan vs State of Kerala (1996) 11 SCC 720.

3. State of H. P. vs Jai Lal & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 280.

4. Amarpal (Rajpal) vs State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2113

(DB).

5. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143.

6. P. Parasurami Reddy vs State of A. P. (2011) 12 SCC 294.

7. Dhavan Gopalbhai Dobraiya vs State of Gujarat, 2015 Cri. L. J. SC 3807

8. C. Sukumaran vs State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 314

9. Parminder Kaur @ P. P. Kaur @ Soni vs State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 605.

10. Neeraj Dutta vs CBI, (2023) 4 SCC 731."

22. Arguing on behalf of accused Rajesh Yadav, Ld. Counsel Sh.Sandeep Sharma has submitted that accused Rajesh Yadav was having no knowledge about the investigation of case FIR No. 16/2018 nor he was involved therein. The accused of this FIR namely Nirmal Singh Bhangoo remained at police station between 30.10.2023 to 31.10.2023 when admittedly Rajesh Yadav was on leave (as deposed by PW-8). The accused Rajesh Yadav has only been charged for having accepted the bribe amount on 13.11.2023 in pursuance to the conspiracy. There is no evidence on record to suggest that there was any contact between accused SI Varun Chechi and accused SI Rajesh Yadav on 13.11.2023 or priorly to show the conspiracy. On 13.11.2023, complainant entered the police station for the first time without carrying the tainted money, which itself shows that it was not pre-decided that Rajesh Yadav would accept anything from the complainant. It is evident from the telephonic conversations (Q-2) that SI Varun Chechi specifically asked to handover the reply firstly to Advocate Ayush and thereafter re-directed the complainant to SI Rajesh Yadav. At no point of time, any mention about money or valuable thing came up. Accused Rajesh Yadav has not accepted anything from the complainant and the entire story is fabricated. From the audio recordings, it is clear that within less than two minutes of allegedly keeping the bribe money, accused Rajesh Yadav was apprehended by the CBI team. There was no sufficient time with SI Rajesh Yadav to accept and thereafter keep the tainted money on the Almirah under the helmet as alleged by the prosecution. The bribe amount has been planted upon accused SI Rajesh Yadav in order to falsely implicate him. The contents of post-trap memo Ex.PW3/D are inconsistent with the audio recordings and nothing of the sort as detailed in the memo, had taken place. Accused Rajesh Yadav was not challenged for having accepted the bribe amount and in fact he was directly apprehended and was threatened and forced to call SI Varun Chechi to admit that money has been received. The only fault of SI Rajesh Yadav was that he was present inside the police station on 13.11.2023. Even otherwise, the witnesses have admitted that money was kept in the bag/envelope and was not visible so it cannot be attributed that money was consciously and deliberately accepted by accused Rajesh Yadav.

23. PW-3 Manoj (complainant) is an interested and tutored witness and he had strong motive to conduct a successful trap. The expert report Ex.PW11/A is also not conclusive in nature as it is stated that on the basis of similarities, the questioned voice is the possible voice of Rajesh Yadav. No spectrographic test of specimen and questioned voice of Rajesh Yadav was conducted. There are contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses which make the whole prosecution story doubtful. The independent witnesses have not given the testimony in a strong manner so as to believe the acceptance of bribe by accused Rajesh Yadav. The handwashes allegedly taken at the spot cannot be relied upon particularly in view of statement of PW-7 Arjun Singh who stated that solution prepared at the spot was prepared by mixing phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Bicarbonate. The site plan of the spot does not reflect the place of recovery of the tainted amount. The prosecution case suffers from various lapses for which benefit must be extended to the accused persons.

24. Relying upon the judgments of Trilok Chand Jain vs State of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 761, Sadashiv Mahadeo Yavaluje And Gajanan Shripatrao Salokhe vs State of Maharashtra (1990) 1 SCC 299 and Virendranath vs State of Maharashtra (1996) 11 SCC 688, it is asserted that even if it is believed that some article was accepted by accused Rajesh Yadav, the same cannot be taken with the requisite mens-rea. Alternatively, no culpability of Rajesh Yadav is there in the case, if he has innocently accepted the envelope under the impression that same was containing reply or documents. Ld. defence Counsel for Rajesh Yadav relied upon the following cases in support of his arguments:-

"1. Anand Ramchandra Chougle vs Sidrai Laxman Chougule & Ors. 2019 (8) SCC 50.

2. Gurcharan Singh @ Channi & Anr. Vs State, 1993 SCC OnLine Del 101.

3. Anvar P. V. vs P. K. Basheer & Ors., AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 180

4. Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gprantyal & Ors. AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4908.

5. Parveen @ Sonu vs The State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184.

6. K. Santhamma vs State of Telengana (2022) 4 SCC 574.

7. Roshan Lal Saini vs CBI, Criminal Appeal No.809/2005 dated 08.10.2010 of Delhi High Court.

8. Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs State of Maharastra, 2011 (4) SCC 143.

9. Ajay Gupta vs CBI, 2022/DHC/004498.

10. Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Ors. 2015 (3) SCC 123.

11. Vijay Singh vs State of MP., 2005 CRI. L. J. 299.

12. Shingara Singh vs State of Haryana & Anr. (2003) 12 SCC 758.

13. Kishan Chand Verma vs State through CBI, Crl. A 788/2000 dated 04.07.2019 of Delhi High Court.

14. Suraj Mal vs State (1979) 4 SCC 725.

15. C. M. Girish Babu vs CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779.

16. Lachman Dass vs State of Punjab, 1970 (2) SCC 563.

17. Chander Bhan vs State (CBI), 1998 (46) DRJ.

18. Ganpathi Sanya Naik vs State of Karnataka, 2007 (8) SCC 309.

19. Varkey Joseph vs State Kerala represented by Circle Inspector of Police. 1993 AIR 1892

20. Ram Pratap vs State of Haryana, (2023) 2 SCC 345."

APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS:-

25. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and substantive offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

26. Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is defined as under :-

‘‘7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed Any public servant who,—

a. obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or.

b. obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or.

c. performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.

Illustration.—A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section.

Explanation 2.—For the purpose of this section,—

i. the expressions “obtains” or “accepts” or “attempts to obtain” shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or “accepts” or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means;

ii. it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party."

27. Section 120-B Indian Penal Code is defined as under :-

"120A Definition of criminal conspiracy

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

1. an illegal act, or.

2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.

1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]."

Sanction.

28. The first and foremost requirement for the prosecution is to prove sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The grant of sanction is solemn function which the sanctioning authority is required to perform with due care and due application of mind on appreciation of material placed on record before him / her along with request for sanction for prosecution. The grant of sanction is not merely a paper formality.

29. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2014) 14 SCC 295 has held as under :-

“16. In view of the above, the legal propositions can be summarised as under:

1. The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.

2. The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withhold the sanction.

3. The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.

4. The order of sanction should make it evident that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.

5. In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."

30. Thus, in view of the above directions, the order of sanction should speak for itself and make it evident that the sanctioning authority had examined the entire set of record, relevant for the purposes of determining whether there is a case of the alleged offences made out against the accused and then accord sanction. In the present case, PW-1 Pranav Tayal, IPS received the requisition from CBI for granting sanction against both the public servants namely SI Varun Chechi and SI Rajesh Yadav. It is noted in the sanction orders Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B that the material like FIR, memos, statements of witnesses (recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C) and other relevant documents have been considered by the sanctioning authority. The sanctioning authority (PW-1) has admitted that the draft sanction order was received by him. PW-1 could not recollect during his cross examination if he had received audio recordings, although admitted that transcripts of the conversation were received by him. This shows that either the sanctioning authority did not deem it appropriate to hear the recordings which were allegedly going to prove or disprove the demand and acceptance of bribe or that the said recordings were not even placed before the sanctioning authority. The audio conversations are an important piece of evidence particularly when the prosecution seeks to prove the elements (such as demand, acceptance and recovery) of the offence under Section 7 of PC Act through these recordings. It is also evident from the record that transcripts have been selectively prepared and the entire conversations have not been transcribed particularly the concluding portion of SD Card Q-2 whereby Rajesh Yadav was pressurized to call SI Varun Chechi and to convey that he has received the bribe amount. The portion of Q-2 has also not been transcribed whereby the trap team members have been conversing with each other about laying the trap even in the absence of Varun Chechi. It is also evident that CCTV footage was not sent for consideration of the sanctioning authority as also CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 was not collected despite being available.

31. The contents of post trap memo (Ex.PW3/D) are inconsistent with the audio recordings as it specifically mentions therein that at the time of delivering the bribe amount, SI Rajesh Yadav replied to the complainant “Koi Baat Nahi” and further the bribe amount was kept by the complainant to the attached small room as per the directions of SI Rajesh Yadav, while no such recordings are found in the Q-2. In this scenario, it is very important to hear the audio conversations and to come to the conclusion, if the case is properly made out against both the accused persons regarding acceptance of bribe. In the absence of audio conversations, the sanctioning authority had no occasion to hear and examine the same and the sanctioning authority proceeded to believe the memo and transcripts only. Even the expert reports showing the result of voice analysis were not placed before the sanctioning authority. These circumstances highlight that there has been a lack of application of mind on the part of sanctioning authority on the crucial issue of acceptance of bribe. This also reflects that sanctioning authority has passed the sanction order merely on the basis of draft order so forwarded to him and without analysing the electronic records. The decision of the sanctioning authority stands vitiated in the absence of audio recordings which are, the very basis of the case, against the accused persons.

ELEMENT OF DEMAND:-

32. The next important requirement for the prosecution is to prove specifically the demand of illegal gratification by the accused.

33. The legal position in this regard remains settled that proof of demand is sine-qua-non to prove the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

34. In the case of Krishan Chander vs State of Delhi, (2016) 3 SCC 108, on the basis of previously pronounced judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the law on the subject and made the following observations:-

"35. It is well-settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine-qua-non to convict the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 nd 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj v. State of A. P. (2014) 13 SCC 55, A. Subair. State of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587 and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) 10 SCC 152 upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant.

36. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus:

“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779.

“... In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (2015) 10 SCC 152, it was held by this Court as under (paras 21-23):

“21. In State of Kerala and another V. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-a-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, the conviction cannot be sustained.

22. In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, it has been underlined in B. Jayraj (supra) in unequivocal terms, that mere possessions 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 rise.

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 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 and 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under. …”

35. In a recent judgment, Neeraj Dutta vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731, Supreme Court has clearly down the principles in this context:-

"88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

1. (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.

2. (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.

88.3(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.

88.4(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

i. if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

ii. On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

iii. In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when 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.

5. (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.

6. (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

7. (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.

8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5 (e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”

36. Basically “demand” precedes the complaint of corruption. No specific form of demand is the requirement of law. The demand can be expressed by words, gestures, signs, indications or even by adopting clever methodology so that the purpose of conveying the message is served. The making of demand is a matter of understanding between the person who demands and the person who proceeds to pay. It is not necessary that the act for which the bribe is given, be actually performed. A representation by a public servant that he has done or he will do an act, impliedly includes a representation that it was or is within his power to do that act. Once the premise is established, the inference is to be drawn that said gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

37. Corruption is not a technical issue. It is simply give and take system to serve the purpose of bribe seeker and bribe giver. The demand may not be direct and categorical by the public servant but it should be clearly discernible from the evidence of his conduct. Moreover, it is not the requirement of law that demand must be proved by direct evidence. The element of demand can also be established through circumstances surrounding the transaction of acceptance or agreement to accept illegal gratification. The inference from the facts and attending circumstances however must be natural, probable and based upon the process of intelligent reasoning.

38. In the present case, the demand is sought to be established through the following:-

i. Complaint dated 11.11.2023 Ex.PW3/A.

ii. Audio conversations dated 11.11.2023 contained in Q-1.

iii. Verification proceedings dated 11.11.2023 Ex.PW3/B.

39. The genesis of the present case is complaint Ex.PW3/A moved by complainant Manoj Kumar wherein he has specifically stated that SI Varun Chechi raised the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs from him for not arresting his employers namely Harsatinderpal Singh and Smt.Barinder Kaur. This was in October 2023. Thereafter on receiving notice on 04.11.2023, they sought time for 15 days vide reply dated 07.11.2023. However, SI Varun Chechi again pressurized on whatsapp calls for Rs.25 Lakhs for not arresting Harsatinderpal Singh and Barinder Kaur and accordingly complaint was lodged.

40. The complainant (PW-3) in his testimony deposed about raising of demand of Rs.25 Lakhs by SI Varun Chechi in October 2023 at the police station and also at Patiala House Courts where accused Nirmal Singh Bhangoo was being produced. According to the complainant, complaint was lodged after receiving the notice on 10.11.2023 as they felt that accused Varun Chechi was serious in demanding the bribe. In this way, there is not only delay in filing the complaint on the part of complainant as the demand was allegedly raised initially in the month of October 2023 and the complaint was lodged on receiving the notice dated 10.11.2023 but also the complaint (Ex.PW3/A) does not mention the fact that complainant had visited the Patiala House Court where also the demand was raised by SI Varun Chechi. The complainant has therefore given incomplete details in his complaint or has improved upon his version in his testimony.

41. It is an admitted position that employers of the complainant were being called for investigation and they were required to appear before Investigating Officer to face the inquiry into criminal allegations. The formal notices were issued seeking their presence. It seems quite possible that complainant and his employers were interested in avoiding to appear in response to the notices and they opted to file the complaint having strong motive to implicate the Investigating Officer so as to avoid and deviate the investigation of the case against them. On the day, the employers of the complainant were supposed to appear at PS Barakhamba Road, they opted to file the complaint against investigating officer before CBI. It is important to note that the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs as alleged against SI Varun Chechi has not been corroborated by verification proceedings or by any other material on record. After receiving the complaint (Ex.PW3/A) , CBI officers proceeded to conduct the verification by sending the complainant and independent witness to the suspect officer (accused Varun Chechi) and their conversations were recorded in DVR through SD card produced in evidence as Q-1, (the transcripts Ex. PW3/L). I have analysed and examined the recorded conversations and the verification memo Ex.PW3/B and following points have been noticed:-

i. Complainant himself insisted and persuaded to meet the officer (accused Varun Chechi) while the officer was reluctant to meet him.

ii. There has been no mention that Varun Chechi had previously raised the demand of Rs.25 Lakhs. Infact figure of Rs.25 Lakhs nowhere finds mentioned in the entire conversations. Even the figure of Rs.20 Lakhs is not coming in the conversations.

iii. Accused clearly asked the complainant for appearance of his employers or for filing the requisite reply and clarified that he was only speaking in the context of seeking reply, while the complainant kept on insisting for having time to file the reply and documents.

iv. Most of the conversations and dialogues were spoken about filing of reply (on behalf of employers of the complainant) or giving time on that count. Complainant himself tried to bring in the element of calculation / negotiation which could be taken as referring to the reply or money or bribe or gratification, to be done on Monday and to be finalized in November but the things are not being spoken with clarity. The conversations are so interwined about reply (or possibly for money) that it is difficult to discern the exact demand.

v. There is clear mention about complainant coming with the reply on Monday with authority letter either personally or through counsel and that the reply should contain signatures and when they were directors or on any other position. Complainant clarified that they did not resign in 15 or 16 but they were removed from the company. There has also been discussion about bail and charge-sheet. The complainant even said that on Monday any one else could also come to which accused said “Yes Yes” and the complainant clarified “along with reply”. Accused Varun Chechi clarified that there was no problem in that and even named lawyer Ayush for discussing.

vi. It is very important to note that nature of conversations are such that they lead to multiple interpretations and capable of being understood differently.

vii. No specific place or time of delivery of bribe or undue advantage was fixed between the complainant and the accused.

viii. Complainant prolonged the conversations (in the anxiety to make the verification successful) and tried to lead the conversations as if he was talking about negotiations (knowingly well that conversations were being recorded).

ix. The complainant has stated that accused typed on his mobile the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs and also asked the complainant to type on his mobile but when the conversations are examined, it is observed that in the context of submissions of documents or reply, the same were being done and even otherwise, if accused had himself written Rs.20 Lakhs on his mobile, there was no reason to ask the complainant to type the same on his mobile. In my view, no clear demand from public servant SI Varun Chechi is coming nor any specific offer or acceptance thereof has been observed (particularly in view of multiple meanings and interpretations of dialogues).

42. The verification memo Ex.PW3/B has been signed by the complainant as also by independent witness Arjun Singh. The shadow witness, must be in a position to depose about the conversations which takes place between complainant and the accused so as to find out the basis for the exchange of money / bribe. However, PW-7 could not testify in a consistent and confident manner and accordingly was cross examined on behalf of prosecution. The witness stated that he had not seen or heard as to whom the complainant Manoj Kumar met on 11.11.2023 after entering the police station and he signed the documents on the basis of information that they relate to the proceedings. It is also admitted by this witness that he had not heard or seen any police official demanding bribe from the complainant either on 11.11.2023 or on 13.11.2023. In view of this, the evidence relating to the demand of bribe is not strongly proved by the prosecution so as to invariably establish the allegations.

43. The complainant Manoj Kumar (PW-3) also stated that on 11.11.2023 he went to cabin room of 303, PS Barakhamba Road, along with SI Varun Chechi, where he wrote the dates on a rough paper for paying the installments of Rs.5 Lakhs each. The said rough paper has not been produced in evidence nor non-production of the said paper has been explained. In the verification memo Ex.PW3/B, nowhere it is mentioned that accused had written on rough piece of paper about the installments of bribe to be paid by the complainant. In this way, complainant has improved upon his version about the alleged demand and due to these inconsistencies, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of the complainant as also the credibility of the complainant is questionable due to his antecedents.

ACCEPTANCE AND RECOVERY:-

44. The next important essentiality for the prosecution is to prove acceptance and recovery of bribe by and from the accused. Acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant is an important ingredient. Once the acceptance is established, presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 invariably arises to the effect that bribe was accepted by accused as a motive or reward for giving favour in the matter in which the complainant has been interested.

45. The raising of presumption would arise only if there is conscious acceptance of bribe by public servant. Mere recovery of money is not sufficient to prove the deliberate acceptance of bribe. In order to prove the acceptance, the prosecution has relied upon trap proceedings conducted in the presence of CBI officers and two independent witnesses namely Arjun Singh and Harbans Rai Singhal along with the complainant on 13.11.2023. It is the case of the prosecution that on 13.11.2023, complainant visited Police Station Barakhamba Road, carrying the amount of Rs.4.5 Lakhs (kept in a yellow carry bag) treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over the same to SI Rajesh Yadav on instructions of SI Varun Chechi. In other words, prosecution is alleging conspiracy between SI Varun Chechi and SI Rajesh Yadav and that the acceptance of bribe by SI Rajesh Yadav has been on behalf of SI Varun Chechi.

46. I have analysed and examined the testimony of witnesses along with memos (pre-trap Ex.PW3/C and post-trap Ex.PW3/D) and audio conversations recorded in Q-2 (Ex. PW3/J). It is evident that accused Varun Chechi was not available at Police Station on 13.11.2023 and even he did not pick up various calls of the complainant. However, the call was made by SI Varun Chechi to the complainant (in response of receiving various calls) wherein complainant informed SI Varun Chechi that he had come, to which accused Varun Chechi clarified if he had come with the reply. Although complainant informed that it was not reply but did not say anything further to convey that he had come with the money or bribe while Varun Chechi overlapped the dialogue of complainant and asked him to handover the same to Advocate Ayush. Complainant declined to do so and requested that he would reach PS Barakhamba Road in 5-7 minutes. Accused Varun Chechi confirmed if he had already come with the reply then come to the office. Thereafter, the complainant came to the cabin of Varun Chechi and called him at which accused asked to meet SI Rajesh Yadav who would be available in his room only and would give the receiving. Thereafter, there has been conversations between SI Rajesh Yadav and complainant but on analysing these conversations, it could not be clearly ascertained that Rajesh Yadav accepted the bag from the complainant or that SI Rajesh Yadav asked the complainant to keep the same inside the attached room. It is observed that complainant in a zeal to make the trap successful, talked in an ambiguous manner in order to leave an impression that he had come with the reply or documents, to the accused persons.

47. It is worth to note that if there was clear understanding between the complainant and SI Varun Chechi for payment of Rs.5 Lakhs on 13.11.2023 at PS Barakhamba Road, in the afternoon, accused would have been available to personally accept the same. The natural conduct of SI Varun Chechi whereby he first suggested the name of Advocate Ayush for being handed over the reply and thereafter on reluctance of complainant, named SI Rajesh Yadav for handing over the reply and giving the receiving, shows that he was not conversing in context with any bribe or any undue advantage. The important link is missing in the entire sequence of events of the case. The nature of conversations dated 13.11.2023 (Q-2) do not establish that accused Varun Chechi consciously accepted the bribe by asking the complainant to handover the reply to SI Rajesh Yadav. It is possible that public servant Varun Chechi was under the impression that complainant had brought the reply / documents and asked him to handover the same to SI Rajesh Yadav (particularly in reference to the conversation dated 11.11.2023). Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond doubt the acceptance of bribe by accused Varun Chechi through co-accused Rajesh Yadav.

48. So far as role of accused Rajesh Yadav is concerned, it is not proved that he had any association or knowledge about the details of the case or that he had any dealings with the complainant. It has been admitted by the witnesses that bribe was kept in a yellow carry bag and no one could make out, if it was containing currency notes. The contents of yellow bag were not visible to Rajesh Yadav. Even on this point, the trap laying officer (PW-15) contradicted the entire case by stating that money was handed over to SI Rajesh Yadav in a transparent polythene. All the other witnesses maintained that money was kept in a yellow bag and was not visible. On examining the conversations between complainant and SI Rajesh Yadav (Q-2) firstly it is noticed that very few words were spoken by SI Rajesh Yadav and material was not enough to conduct the voice analysis. Even the expert report has noted that dialogues were possibly spoken by SI Rajesh Yadav. Even if, it is assumed that the voice in the conversation was of Rajesh Yadav, the only dialogue whereby he asked the complainant if he had come with “saman” (article), is spoken and this cannot be taken as Rajesh Yadav was fully knowing about bribe transaction between Varun Chechi and the complainant. There is no conversation in (Q-2) showing that Rajesh Yadav asked the complainant to keep the same inside the attached room. The statement given by complainant in his testimony and the contents of post-trap memo (Ex.PW3/D) are not consistent with the audio conversations. The shadow witness namely Arjun Singh (PW-7) has clearly admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen the police official accepting any bribe from the complainant. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution have clearly admitted that they have not seen Rajesh Yadav accepting or holding yellow color bag containing money. In this way, there is no evidence to show that the bag containing tainted money was accepted by Rajesh Yadav from the complainant.

49. The recovery of bribe amount is sought to be proved through memo Ex.PW3/D. It is the case of the prosecution that recovery was effected from top of the almirah where yellow bag was kept under the helmet. Complainant has stated in his testimony that he kept the bribe amount on the T-shirt lying on the bed and thereafter he came out of the room. The CBI team immediately rushed to room no.303 on receiving the signal from the complainant. On examining the audio conversations (Q-2), it is observed that there is sound of opening and closing the zip of backpack and thereafter in few seconds, there are sounds of CBI team rushing towards room no.303 and within two minutes, the accused Rajesh Yadav was apprehended and was asked to call SI Varun Chechi and to convey that he has accepted the money in the following manner:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

This was done by CBI team in a threatening manner and at no point of time, Rajesh Yadav was challenged by trap team to the effect that he has consciously accepted the bribe on behalf of SI Varun Chechi.

50. The complainant (PW-3) in his testimony testified that after delivering the bribe, he came out of the room and got along with the CBI team and on entering the room again, found SI Rajesh Yadav already apprehended by two persons. The complainant could not recollect the names of these two persons, while prosecution witnesses who were members of the CBI team have deposed that when they rushed towards room no.303, complainant was seen coming out of the room. As per audio recordings (Q-2), within less than two minutes, accused was apprehended by the CBI team and was pressurised to call SI Varun Chechi. These entire events clearly indicate that accused SI Rajesh Yadav had no time to go inside the room, pick up the bag containing money and to keep it on the almirah under the helmet. The recovery proceedings are clearly doubtful so also the alleged handwashes. The independent witness PW-7 Arjun Singh (despite cross examination on behalf of prosecution) maintained that solution was prepared at the spot with the help of phenolphthalein powder. PW-7 also admitted that he had not seen SI Rajesh Yadav accepting or holding the envelope containing tainted amount nor he had seen complainant Manoj Kumar keeping the envelope on the bed. The sealed bottles showing handwashes and washes of helmet and T-shirt were colorless when produced during the trial. The evidence of handwashes is also doubtful in the face of statement of PW-7 that solution was prepared at the spot with the help of phenolphthalein powder. The recovery proceedings have not been proved by the witnesses through their consistent and cogent testimony and in my opinion, the entire proceedings conducted by the Trap Laying Officer and other CBI officials have been brought under shadow of doubt.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE:-

51. The credibility of prosecution witnesses is questionable as complainant Manoj Kumar (PW-3) has been an interested witness and was having strong motive to lay a successful trap and to implicate the accused persons. He has been having criminal antecedents and has been involved in criminal cases along with his employers Harsatinderpal Singh and Barinder Kaur in cases related to cheating and forgery. The presence of Harsatinderpal Singh on 11.11.2023 is admitted by the complainant and by Harsatinderpal Singh (PW-13) himself but the same is not reflected by the proceedings drawn on the relevant date. PW-12 Harbans Rai Singhal has been a member of the trap team and has deposed in favour of the prosecution but this witness himself is an accused in a trap case (CBI vs Dilip Singh Dhankad & Ors). PW-12, therefore, cannot be said to be an independent witness as he could not have gone and testified differently against the CBI. The participation of PW-12 Harsbans Rai Singhal, in the trap team, raises serious questions about the integrity of the entire trap.

52. The prosecution examined expert witness to prove the report of the voice analysis Ex.PW11/A. On perusal of the report, it is observed that questioned voices have not been identified with certainty and it is opined that questioned voices are possible voice of Rajesh Yadav and probable voice of Manoj Kumar and Varun Chechi. SHO Inspector Mahabir Singh (examined as PW-8) after hearing the conversations recorded in Q-1, stated that voices appears to be of Varun Chechi and on hearing the conversations recorded in Q-2, stated that voices appeared to be that of Varun Chechi and Rajesh Yadav. PW-8 failed to identify the questioned voices in a definite manner. In this way, there is no conclusive proof on record that the voices in audio conversations are that of SI Varun Chechi and SI Rajesh Yadav. Even otherwise, voice matching/ identification is not a perfect science and there can be margin of errors. It was held in judgment Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 143 as under:-

“31. In our opinion, the evidence of voice identification is at best suspect, if not, wholly unreliable. Accurate voice identification is much more difficult than visual identification. It is prone to such extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing that the reality can be completely replaced by fiction. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely on the evidence of voice identification. This, Court, in a number of judgments emphasised the importance of the precautions, which are necessary to be taken in placing any reliance on the evidence of voice identification.”

53. Prosecution case also suffers from various shortcomings such as non-involvement of SHO during the proceedings despite his presence at the police station. PW-8 SHO Mahabir Singh was heading the police station, Barakhamba Road, and at the time of laying the trap, or conducting the proceedings, CBI team did not involve him nor any endorsement / signatures have been taken from him confirming the trap and the proceedings. It is very important to note that although CCTV footage of 11.11.2023 has been placed on record but the CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 has not been brought on record. This raises serious doubts about the genuineness of laying the trap and conducting the proceedings at Police station. This also shows that evidence has been selectively brought before the court as well as before the sanctioning authority. There is no explanation furnished as to why the CCTV footage of 13.11.2023 showing the presence of trap team the complainant and the accused Rajesh Yadav is not brought on record.

54. Needless to mention that there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of witnesses which make the entire prosecution story unbelievable particularly the credibility of the complainant is lost due to his involvement in criminal cases and due to his anxiety to help his employers. The discrepancies noted in the evidence cannot be said to be minor or trivial. They are concerning the vital aspects of the case. The so called independent witnesses of the prosecution are not privy to the demand or acceptance or delivery of bribe. The defence pleas set up by accused persons, cannot be said to be wholly improbable, while the onus lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. A cumulative effect of all the above mentioned points, make the accused persons entitled to benefit of doubt.

CONCLUSION:-

55. In view of the above detailed discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case suffers from various lapses and infirmities on crucial elements of demand, acceptance and recovery and hence the case of the prosecution fails. The case for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC or for the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is not proved against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.

56. Accused persons are required to furnish bail bonds under Section 437A Cr.P.C to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

57. File be consigned to the record room.