Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 110

INTHECOURTOFV.K.MAHESHWARI SPECIALJUDGE:(PCAct)03CBIDELHI CorruptionCaseNo.

49/2004

CBI

Vs.

GulabTulsyani,MMPatiala House,NewDelhi,r/oC75 DoubleStorey,RameshNagar,N Delhi.

DateofInstitution 16.11.2002 R.CNo. UnderSection 40(A)/86/CBI/ACB/N.D

U/s161IPCandU/s5(2)r/w 5(1)(d)ofPCACT1947 Argumentsconcluded on 17.4.2012 Dateoforder 25.4.2012

JUDGMENT:

FACTSOFTHECASE.

Accordingtoprosecutionthiscasewasregd.onthe basisofawrittencomplaintdt.6.6.86fromSh.AjeshMittalofM/s

CCNo.49/04 1/104

Mittal Paints & Chemicals, 24/14, Railway Road near Railway Station,Samepur,DelhiallegingthereinthatSh.GulabTulsiyani, thethen M.M.PatialaHouse,NewDelhihaddemandedillegal gratificationtothetuneofRs.2000/fromhiminhiscourtChamber on6.6.1986forshowingfavourinhisfactorychallancasewhich was pending in his Court for disposal. Sh. Gulab Tulsiyani had furtherdirectedthecomplainanttopaybribeamounttohimathis residenceNo.C75,DoubleStoreyRameshNagar,NewDelhiin themorningof7.6.1986at8A.M.Since,theComplainantwasnot willingtopaythisbribeamount,hemadeawrittencomplaintto CBI. 2 It was marked to Dy. SP Sh. R K Joshi for

investigation.Sh.Joshi,DySPconstitutedatrappartyanddirected theteammemberstoattendtheCBIofficeon7.6.1986at5.30AM. 3 On7.6.86atabout6.00AMallthemembersoftrap

partyincludingthetwoindependentwitnessesandthecomplainant andhiscousinassembledintheofficeroomofDySPSh.R.K. Joshi. After formal introduction with each and after observing otherlegal and necessaryformalities,thecomplainant Sh.Ajesh MittalproducedasumofRs2000/consistingof20GCnotesofRs. 100/ each. These GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein

CCNo.49/04 2/104

powder and a practical demonstration of the working of the phenolphthalein powder and its chemical reaction in colourless solutionofsodiumcarbonatewasgiventothemembersofthetrap party and thereafter the said solution was destroyed. Personal searchofthecomplainantSh.Mittalandothermemberofthetrap partywasalsoconductedandnobodywasallowedtokeepanycash or documents except the identity cards with them. Only the complainantwasallowedtokeepasumofRs.100/formeeting anyincidentalexpensesandhisexpenses.Thereafter,thetreated GC notes of Rs. 2,000/ were returned to Sh. Ajesh Mittal, complainant with specific direction to pass on the same to Sh. GulabTulsiyani,MMonlyonhisspecificdemand. 4 A pocket Sony Micro Cassette Tape Recorder fitted

with a blank cassette was also given to Sh. Ajesh Mittal, after briefinghimaboutitsworkingandoperationandhewasdirectedto switchonthetaperecorderbuttonbeforetalkingtoSh.Tulsiyani. Sh.ShiromaniKumar,cousinofthecomplainant,wasdirectedto accompany with the complainant to the house of Sh. Gulab Tulsiyani and as soon as Sh. Tulsiyani accepted the tainted GC notes,heshouldgiveasignalbycomingoutofthehouseofSh. Gulab Tulsiyani on pretext of taking the key of the car and by

CCNo.49/04 3/104

scratchinghisheadwithhisrighthandtoindicatetheacceptanceof bribemoneybySh.Tulsiyani.Thetwoindependentwitnesseswere directedtoremainascloseaspossibletothehouseofShTulsiyani towatchthesignalclosely. 5 Atabout7.20a.m.thetrappartyleftCBIofficeand

reachedRajouriGardenChowkatabout7.55a.m.Atabout8.00a. m.Sh.MittalandShiromaniKumarasperthedirectionofDy.SP Sh.RKJoshiwentinsidethehouseofSh.GulabTulsiyanibearing no.C75,DoubleStorey,RameshNagar,NewDelhi.Sh.Tulsiyani askedthemtositonthesofalyinginfrontofhim. 6 As per instructions, complainant Sh. Mittal before

talking to Sh. Tulsiyani switched on the tape recorder button. Thereafter,boththecomplainantandtheaccusedremainedengaged inconversationwitheachotherforabout810minutesinwhichthe accusedSh.TulsiyaniclearlydemandedasumofRs.2,000/as bribefromSh.MittalinpresenceofSh.ShiromaniKumarandon thespecificdemandofShTulsiyani,thecomplainanthandedover the tainted GC notes of Rs. 2,000/ to Sh.Tulsiyani which he acceptedwithhisrighthandandkeptthesameonthesofaonwhich hewassitting. TheconversationbetweenSh.TulsiyaniandSh. Mittalatthetimeofdemandandacceptanceofbribewereproperly

CCNo.49/04 4/104

recordedinthemicrocassettetaperecorder. 7 AftertheacceptanceofbribemoneybySh.Tulsiyani

fromthecomplainant,Sh.ShiromaniKumarcameoutofthehouse ofSh.Tulsiyaniatabout8.10AMon thepretextofbringingthe key of the car. Sh. Mittal also came out of the house of Sh. Tulsiyaniandgavetheappointedsignal.Onreceiptofthesignal, all the members of the trap party including two independent witnessesrushedtowardthedrawingroomofSh.Tulsiyani.Seeing theraidingpartyrushingtowardshim,Sh.Tulsiyaniimmediately rushedtowardshisbathroomandultimatelyhewasfoundinthe bathcumtoiletroomwherehewasengagedintearingofthetainted GCnoteswhichwasresistedbyDySP,Sh.Joshiwiththehelpof othermembersofthetrapparty.OnthedirectionofDySPSh. Joshi,independentwitnessSh.M.R.Aggarwalcollectedthetainted GCnotesfromthefloorofthebathroom.SomeoftheGCnotes weretornandthepiecesofthetornGCnotesscatteredinthetoilet cumbathroomwerealsocollectedbywitnessShM.R.Aggarwal. Sh.AggarwalbroughtalltheseGCnotesinthedrawingroomand talliedtheirnumberswiththenumberanddenominationmentioned inthehandingovermemo.Thereafter,theleftandrighthandwash of the Gulab Tulsiyani were taken separately in two separate

CCNo.49/04 5/104

solutionsofsodiumcarbonateandboththesolutionsturnedpink. Thesesolutionsweretransferredintwoseparatecleanglassbottles andsealedwithCBIsealNo.34/84afterwrappingitsmouthwitha cloth wrapper which were initialed by both the independent witnesses.Thebottlesweremarked'L'&'R'andtherecovered tainted GC notes and the sealed bottles were taken into police possessionviderecoverymemodated7.6.86whichwasprepared on the spot and signed by all concerned including the two independent witnesses. The cassette of the micro cassette tape recorder was also sealed in presence of the two independent witnessesandthesealafterusewashandedovertothewitnessSh. S.T.Mukkawarforsafecustody. 8 Investigation also disclosed that one challan no.

1244/CL/86dated1.1.85filedbytheMCDu/s416/417oftheDMC ActagainstSh.AjeshMittalpartnerofM/sMittalTraders(M/s Mittal Paints & Chemical) factory near Railway Station Badli Phatak,RailwayStationRoad,Samepurwaspendingtrialinthe courtofSh.GulabTulsiyani,MMPatialaHouse,NewDelhiand on6.6.86complainantSh.AjeshMittalhadvisitedthecourtofSh. Tulsiyani at Patiala House in connection with his challan case where he was called by Sh. Tulsiyani inside his chamber and

CCNo.49/04 6/104

demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/ with the direction to pay this amountinthemorningof7.6.86athisresidenceNo.C75,Double Storey,RameshNagar,NewDelhi,failingwhichhewouldimpose penaltyofRs.5,000/onhim. 9 CopiesrequiredU/S207CrPCsuppliedtoaccused.

Afterhearingboththepartiesvideorderdt.16.2.2008chargehas beenframedagainsttheaccusedU/s161IPC&u/s5(2)r/wSec. 5(1)(d)ofPCAct1988againstaccusedGulabTulsiyani.Accused pleadednotguiltytothechargeandclaimedtrial.Hence,thistrial. 10 Prosecution,inordertoproveitscase,hasproduced

followingwitnesses: PW1ShDurgaPrasadhasprovedjudicialfileExPW1/A, Challandt.1.1.85ExPW1/B,BailableWarrantExPW1/D,report onbailablewarrantExPW1/EandorderofissuanceofNBWEx PW1/F. PW2 Sh V S Bisaria, Chemical Examiner has proved his reportExPW2/A. PW3 Sh. M R Aggarwal, recovery witness has proved HandingOverMemoExPW3/A,recoverymemoExPW3/Band correctlyidentifiedthecasepropertyExC1toC29. PW4 Sh Manoj Kumar Sharma has proved gazette

CCNo.49/04 7/104

notification No.1/62/640/judl. dt. 20/9/74 Ex PW4/A and suspensionorderdt.14.6.86ExPW4/B. PW5ShriSTMukkawarhasprovedthedocumentsalready provedbyPW3. PW6Sh.ShiromanihasprovedmemoExPW6/Aandalso provedthedocumentsalreadyprovedbyPW3. PW7ShAjeshMittalisthecomplainant.Hehasprovedthe documentsalreadyprovedbyotherPWs. PW8ShRKJoshi,RetiredAddl.DCPhasprovedFIREx PW8/AandchargesheetExPW8/B. 11 Statement of accused recorded U/s 313 Cr. PC,

whereinaccusedhas deniedalltheallegationsmadeagainsthim andtheevidenceproducedbyprosecution.Hehasstatedthatafter disposingcasesinhisCourt,hewenttoChildrenCourtdirectlyas perorderandperformedjudicialworkthere.Copiesofthework includingjudgmentdeliveredhadbeenproducedinthisCourt.He didnotgotohisChambernorPW7wentinsidehischambernorhe demandedanybribefromhim.Rathercomplainantforciblytriedto thrustthemoneyinhishandsandintheprocesssomecurrency notesweretornoff.Sincenomoneywaskeptonsofathatiswhy thereisnowashofthesofa.HewasnotinPatialaHouseCourtson

CCNo.49/04 8/104

4thand5thJune1986anddidnotmeetthecomplainantatallon4th, 5thand6thJune1986oronanyofthesedates.Hehasbeenfalsely implicatedinthiscase. 12 defence: DW1 Sh. Sunil Dhyani, DW2 Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh, DW3Sh.AnilKumar andDW4Sh.OmParkashhavedeposed orallyandhavenotprovedanydocument. DW5 Smt. Bimla Makin has proved endorsement on affidavitEx.DW5/A,certifiedcopyoforderpassedbyherasMM Children Court on 5.6.86 Ex DW5/B and another judgment dt. 5.6.86ExDW5/C. PROSECUTIONARGUMENT 13 Ld. Special Prosecutor Sh. Brajesh Shukla Accused has examined following witnesses in his

arguedthatinthiscaseaccusedhasbeenchargedU/s161ofIndian PenalCodeandu/s5(2)r/w5(1)(d)ofPCActforhavingaccepted orobtainedanamountofRs.2,000/fromcomplainantAjeshMittal asgratificationotherthanlegalremuneration,asamotiveorreward for showing favour, in exercise of his official function, to complainantAjeshMittalinthematteroffactorychallancaseNo. 1244/CH/86 which was pending in his court for hearing and

CCNo.49/04 9/104

disposal. 14 During trial prosecution examined altogether eight

witnessesforbringinghomethecharges.PW1Sh.DurgaPrashad who was Reader cum Ahlmadin thecourt where accusedwas presidingoverasJudicialofficer, thoughbecamehostilebuthis evidenceintotalityhasprovedthefactthatjudicialfilerelatingto complainantExPW1/Awaspendinginthecourtpresidedoverby accused.HehasfurtherprovedBailablewarrantsofcomplainantas Ex PW1/D, challan Ex PW1/B, report on BWs Ex PW1/E and NBWExPW1/FissuedagainstcomplainantAjeshMittal. Bail bond having the signatures of complainant Ajesh Mittal and signaturesofaccused/PresidingOfficerisalsoprovedbyPW1. 15 PW3andPW5haveprovedthefactthatonepocket

MicroSonyCassetterecorderfittedwithblankcassettewasgiven tocomplainantandhewascarryingthesameinonpositionwhile interacting with accused. They have also proved the fact that accusedwasstandinginbathroomandwastearingthenotesand someofthenoteswerescatteredonthefloor.Wifeofaccusedand hissonhavealsotriedtoobstructtheCBIproceedings. Assuch theyhaveprovedrecoveryofGCnotesandtheirtornpiecesExC1 toC25.

CCNo.49/04 10/104

16

PW2 Sh. V S Bisaria has proved CFSL Report Ex

PW2/A,accordingtowhichinthehandwashofaccusedpresence ofphenolphthaleinpowderandsodiumCarbonatewasfound. 17 PW4 Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma has proved gazette

notification Ex PW 4/B according to which accused was undisputedlya publicservant. PW6and7haveprovedthefact thataccusedhadinformedtheminthecourtthateachpartnercan befinedRs.5,000/andafineofRs.5,000/couldbeimposedon thefirm.Itwasintentionallydonebyaccusedinordertocreatethe scope for accepting bribe and putting duress in their mind otherwise. Transcriptionofconversationhasalsoprovedthefact that accused/presiding officer has either solicited for bribe or agreed to accept bribe in the matter relating to the case of complainantpendinginhiscourt. 18 PW8 Sh. RKJoshi hascorroboratedtheversionof

complainant as well as witnesses. He has also detailed the circumstance and situation under which bribe amount was recovered. The conduct of accused relating to acceptance of money,accordingtosection8ofIndianEvidenceAct,provesthe ingredientofoffenceenshrinedU/s161IPCandSection5(2)r/w5 (1)(d)ofPCAct.Underpresumptionclause,whenrecoveryhas

CCNo.49/04 11/104

beenproved,itcanverywellbesaidthatthesamewasnothingbut illegal gratification other than legal remuneration accepted or obtainedbyaccusedasamotiveorreward. DEFENCEARGUMENTS 19 ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatPW1Durga

Prasadwhowasthethenreader/AhlmadoftheCourtofaccused hascategoricallydeniedeverysuggestionoftheprosecutionwhen confrontedwithhisallegedstatementU/s161CrPC.Inhiscross examinationhehasstatedthatwhenhewasinterrogatedbytheIO Sh.BNJhahehadthreatenedhimthathewouldimplicatehimin casehewouldnotdeposeaspertheversiongivenbyhim. 20 ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatasper

thestatementofPW3Sh.MRAggarwalcomplainantAjeshMittal wasdirectedtoswitchonthetaperecorderbeforetalkingtothe accusedwhichhasbeencorroboratedbyPW8RKJoshi,theTrap LayingOfficerandPW5Sh.STMukkawar. Thisfacthasbeen admitted by complainant in his cross examination. With these instructions he was supposed to record the entire conversation whatsoever allegedtohavetakenplacebetweentheaccusedand the complainant. Complainant has deposed, When we had occupied our seats, thereafter accused had asked whether I had
CCNo.49/04 12/104

broughtthemoneyornot Attentionofthiswitnesswasdrawn towardsthetranscriptExPW3/DCoftherecordedconversation whereinitisnotsorecorded.Thisfactspeaksvolumesaboutthe conductofthecomplainantandotherwitnesses,malafideintentions ofthecomplainantandunfairinvestigationcarriedoutbytheTLO andIO. 21 AsperthestatementofTLOSh.RKJoshihewas

calledatabout6PMbytheSPinhisofficeandhadgiventhe complaintExPW7/AofAjeshMittalwithhisendorsementandhe discussedthecomplaintwithhim. Hehasfurtherstatedthatfor satisfyinghimselfheproceededtotheareatofindoutthegeneral reputationofGulabTulsiyaniandhereturnedatabout8.30PM after finding that accused was not enjoying goodreputation and informedthisfacttoSPwhodirectedforregistrationofthecase anditwasdecidedtolayatraponthenextmorning.Requisitionof twoindependentwitnesseswassenttoOrientalBankofCommerce. Banksnormallycloseat5PMandthereisnochance/possibilityof informingtheGeneralmanagerofaBankafter9.15PMandfurther directionsgivenbyhimtohissubordinatesinwritingtoreachCBI office on the next morning i.e. 5 AM. This statement in itself speaksvolumesthattheTLOisanimpulsiveliarandcangotoany

CCNo.49/04 13/104

extentwhiletellinglies.Hehasfurtherstatedwhenquestionedto whichareahehadgonefortheverificationhehadtheaudacityto saythat,Icannotanswerthisquestionasitisrelatedtodisclosure accordingtome. Hehasfurtherstatedthathedoesnotremember theconveyancevidewhichhehadgoneoutofCBIofficeforthe purposeofverification.HoweverheisveryspecificthatSP,CBI, ACBhadsummonedtheindependentwitnessesonthesamenight. Hehasfurtherstatedthatshadowwitnesswasdirectedtoremainas closeaspossibletothecomplainantandobserveallhappenings, which fact is admitted by the complainant. However, when questionedaboutthepositionoftheindependentwitnessduringthe traphesaysthathedoesnotrememberthepositionoftheshadow witnessastowherehewasstationedatthattime,howeverthesite mapmayindicateaboutthesame.AsperthestatementofPW5ST Mukkawar,thesocalledshadowwitness,wasstandingacrossthe roadfromthehouseofaccused.Moreover,asperthestatementof the complainant the independent witness was sitting in the complainant's car which was parked at some distance from the houseofaccused. 22 It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that

unfairnessoftheinvestigationcanbefoundoutfromthefactthat

CCNo.49/04 14/104

thewashbottlesExP26&P27 havinglabelofSura.TLOhas admittedthisfactinhiscrossexaminationwhichisasfollows:


On seeing bottles which are marked as withthecaseno.RC40/86whichisExPW26&27 itisseenthatsomelabelofSURAisthereonone bottle.Sinceitismatterrelatingto25yearsoldI donotexactlyrememberwhetherthelabelswere asitis.

23

ThereisaCourtObservationthatononesideofboth

bottlesthereisprintedlabelhavingprintedmaterial.Ontheother sideonwhitepaperRCNo.andotherparticularsofthiscaseare mentioned,isaffixedonsomelabel. 24 It is argued that PW 5 S TMukkawar, in his cross

examinationhasstatedthathewasshownbottleswhentheystarted fromtheCBIofficetothespotandatthattimethebottleswereneat andcleanandweretransparenthencetheycouldseethroughit.He hasstatedinhiscrossexaminationasfollows: NowIcannottellwhetherthesebottlesaresameevenafter lookingatExP26&P27.meaningtherebythateithertheevidence hasbeentamperedwithorthewitnessesarenottellingthetruth thus,theinvestigationhasnotbeencarriedoutfairly. 25 ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatasfar

as the demand by accused either on 4th or 5th of June, 1986 is


CCNo.49/04 15/104

concerned,nosuchquestionarisessinceon4thand5thaccusedwas workinginCivilLinesZoneandinChildrencourtandhadeven signedsomejudgmentsashasbeenstatedbySmt.BimlaMaken, Retd. Judge, the then MM Children court who had signed that judgmentonthesamedatealongwithaccused. 26 It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that

witnessesaretellingliesdeliberately,becomesevidentfromthefact that Pws 3, 5, 6 & 8 have stated that the complainant and his companionPW6ShiromaniKumarwereallowedtokeepRs.100 eachwhileleavingtheCBIofficeandonpersonalsearchafterthe trapithasbeenstatedbyTLOthatasumofRs.84/werefoundon thepersonofPW6ShiromaniandRs.50/fromthepersonofthe complainant.Thefactremainsthatthecomplainanthasadmittedin his cross examination that he was allowed to keep Rs.200300 whileleavingCBIofficeandhehadspentRs.50/forthepetrolon hiswaytothehouseofaccusedandRs.100/wasallowedtobe kept by Shiromani Kumar who had accompanied him. Hence, recoveryofRs.50/andRs.84/createsdoubtinthethetheoryof prosecutionbeingpropoundedbytheTLOandunfairinvestigation carriedoutbyhim. 27 It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that

CCNo.49/04 16/104

prosecution has triedtoconcealthefact fromtheCourt isthat complainanthasadmittedthathehadengagedanadvocateSh.SC Malikandhadgivenhischallantohimon4th Juneanditwashe whohadtakenhimtoRKJoshiandhehadlearntthatinsuch challansonlyfineofRs.50/orRs.100/weretobeimposed.There wasnoreasonforpayingRs.2,000/ asillegalgratificationwhen oneknowsthathewillbefinedRs.100/only. Itcannotbelost sightthatcomplainantinhiscomplainthaswrittenthataccusedwas notavailableinthecourton4thand5thofJune,1986. 28 Complainant and TLO have categorically stated that

whenthetrapteamenteredthehouse/drawingroomofaccusedtrap moneywaslyingonthesofabutnowashofthesofaseatwastaken. Thestoryconcoctedbytheprosecutionthataccusedrushedtowards his bathroom is controverted by the site plan prepared by TLO himself.Ithasbeenadmittedbycomplainant,shadowwitnessand TLOthatthereisnopassagefromthedrawingroomorfromthe adjoiningbedroomtothebathroomasindicatedinthesiteplan. 29 ItisfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatonly

Rs.650/wasrecoveredfromthepersonal/housesearchofaccused and nothing was found in the locker of accused while he was workingasMagistrateforthelast15years.

CCNo.49/04 17/104

30

Withregardtorecoveryitisarguedby Ld.Defence

CounselthataccusedhasmadeitclearinhisstatementU/s313Cr PCinreplytoquestionNo.19thatheneverdemandedanymoney rather the complainant forcibly tried to thrust the money in his hand,inthisprocesssomecurrencynotesweretornoffandsince nomoneywaskeptonthesofathatiswhynowashofthesofaseat wastaken. ThecredibilityofthewitnessesandtheTLOcomes down to Zero when it is found out as per the documents and statementsthattheyaredeliberatelytellinglies,concealingthetruth fromthecourtandareoutandouttofalselyimplicatetheaccused. 31 Itcannotbelostsightofthefactthatnosamplevoice

ofaccusedwasevertakenorsenttoCFSLforcomparison/opinion. Additions have been made in handing over memo and other documentsas apparent onthefaceofdocumentsasit is,which reflectsthatadditionsandalterationshavebeenmadewithaview toplantafalsecaseupontheaccused. 32 Ld.DefenceCounsel insupportofhisargumentsas

placedrelianceonthefollowingauthorities: P K Gupta Vs. CBI, 2011 (4) JCC 2352,SitaRamVs.TheStateofRajasthan, 1975Crl.LJ.1224,PanalalDamodarRathi Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1191, Suresh Kumar
CCNo.49/04 18/104

ShrivatavaVs.StateofMP1994Crl.L.J. 3738, G V Nanjundiah Vs. State, AIR 1987SupremeCourt2402,JagdishNarain Vs.StateofRajasthan, 2009(4)Criminal CourtCases171(Rajasthan),ASubairVs. State of Kerala, V (2009) SLT 272, MunicipalCorporationofDelhiVs.Ganga RamandanotherDLTVol.IIIP6(1967) andKharaitiLalVs.TheStateDLTVol.I, Page362(1965)

PUBLICSERVANTANDSANCTION 33 PW4ManojKumarSharma,SeniorJudicialAssistant,

Gazette Branch, High Court of Delhi has proved Gazette NotificationNo.1/162640/judl.dt.20.9.74ExPW4/Avidewhich accusedGulabTulsiyaniwasnotifiedtobeappointedinthecadreof DelhiJudicialServiceasJudicialOfficer. InthemonthofJune 1986 accused Gulab Tulsiyani was working as Metropolitan MagistrateandpostedatPatialaHouseCourts.Eventhisfacthas notbeendisputedonhisbehalfduringthetrialoratthetimeof addressing final arguments by Ld Defence counsel , thus it is undisputedthathewasworkingaspublicservanton6.6.86andon 7.6.86. 34 Originallychargesheethasbeenfiledagainstaccused

CCNo.49/04 19/104

GulabTulsiyanion31.3.87inthecourtofthethenSpecialJudge, however accused was discharged by Hon'ble High Court vide judgmentdt.30.3.2002onthegroundthatsanctionorderforhis prosecutionwasnotinconformitywiththemandatoryprovisionof article235oftheConstitutionofIndiawiththeobservationthat challanmaybefiledafterobtainingpropersanctionorderandafter removing the legal infirmities in the sanction order. Accused retiredinthemonthofSeptember,1995.Presentchargesheethas beenfiledinthecourtofmyLd.Predecessoron16.11.2002afterhis retirement. 35 Cognizanceoftheoffencesagainsttheaccusedwas

takenbytheLd.Predecessorofthiscourton22.5.03. Accused wasretiredinthemonthofSeptember,1995fromtheservice,thus ceasestobeapublicservantonthedateoffilingofchargesheetas wellasonthedateof takingofcognizance,hencenosanctionis requiredforhisprosecutioninthiscase. 36 MyLd.PredecessorSh.DineshDayal,thethenSpecial

Judge,CBIvidehisorderdt.16.2.2005directedtoframeacharge against the accused for the offence punishable U/s161 IPC and Section5(2)r/w5(1)(d)ofPCAct,1947.MyLd.Predecessor Sh.Dinesh Dayal has also accordingly framed charge against

CCNo.49/04 20/104

accusedon16.2.05. Accusedhaschallengedtheabove orderof framingofchargeofmyLd.Predecessoragainsthimvidecriminal revisionpetitionNo.208/2005.Inhisrevisionpetitionhehasalso disputedthevalidityofcognizanceofoffencestakenagainsthimby myLd.Predecessor.Hon'bleHighCourtvideorderdt.10.12.2010 dismissed the revision petition filed by the accused. Relevant portionoftheorderofHon'bleHighCourt,inthisregard,isas under:
It is admitted case of prosecution that chargesheetagainstthepetitionerhasbeenfiled without obtaining sanction for his prosecution underSection6ofthePCAct,1947. Theplea takenbytheprosecutionisthattherewasnoneed of sanction for prosecution as by the time the chargesheetwasfiled,thepetitionerhadalready ceased to hold the Office of Metropolitan Magistrate. The question of law which requires considerationiswhetherornotafterthecessation ofofficebyapublicservanteitherbyretirementor terminationofservice,sanctionforhisprosecution undersection 6ofthePCAct,1947issinequa non for taking cognizance of the offences purportedlysubmittedbyhim.Lawonthisissueis wellsettled.IthasbeenheldbytheSupremeCourt in various pronouncements that once a public servantaccusedofanoffenceunderPCActhas ceased to hold public office, no sanction for his prosecutionisrequired. In the case of Kali Charan Vs. State of Orissa, (1998)6SCC411,itwasholdthatapublicservantwho CCNo.49/04 21/104

committedanoffencementionedinthePCActwhilehe wasapublicservantcanbeprosecutedwiththesanction contemplated in section 19 of the P C Act, 1988 (correspondingtoSection6ofthePCAct1947)ifhe continues to be a public servant when the court take cognizanceoftheoffence.But,ifheceasestobeapublic servantbythattime,thecourtcantakecognizanceofthe offencewithoutanysanction. InthematterofStateofKeralavs.Padmanabhan 1999(6)ad(SC)363,itwasheldthatanaccusedfacing prosecutionforoffenceunderPCActcannotclaimany immunityonthegroundofwantofsanction,ifheceased tobeapublicservantonthedateonwhichtheCourttook cognizanceofoffence. Petitioner has relied upon the case R.Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another,AIR1996SC901.Eveninthatcase,the Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of sanctionunderSection6ofthePCAct1947in thecaseofapublicservantwhohadceasedtobe in office at the time of taking cognizance of offencebytheCourt,upheldtheviewoftheHigh Courtthatinsuchacase,sanctionforprosecution was not required. From the above pronouncementsofSupremeCourt,itisapparent thatonceapublicservantceasestoholdtheoffice, he cannot take shelter of the protection granted under Section 6 of the P C Act 1947 to evade prosecution and punishment for the offence of corruptioncommittedbyhim. Thenextsubmissiononbehalfofthepetitioneris that once the Special Judge had discharged the petitionervideorderdt.30.3.2002andobserved thatprosecutionmayfilefreshchargesheetafter obtaining a proper and valid sanction for prosecutionandoncethatorderhadbecomefinal, CCNo.49/04 22/104

thesuccessorcourtcouldnothavetakenaview that no sanction for prosecution was required becausethepetitionerhadretiredbecauseassuch, theorderamountstoreviewoftheearlierorder passedbytheCourt. Ifindnosubstanceinthiscontention.On perusal of the order dt. 30.3.2002 of the then SpecialJudge,ittranspiresthatwhiledischarging thepetitioner,theSpecialJudgegaveopportunity totheprosecutiontofilefreshchargesheetafter obtaining proper sanction, after removing the defect/infirmitiesinthesanctionorder.Fromthis, itisobviousthatbythatorder,theSpecialJudge leftawindowopenfortheprosecutiontofilea freshcharge sheet. once the freshcharge sheet wasfiled,inmyconsideredview,thethenSpecial Judgewhodealtwiththechargesheetwaswithin hispowerstoconsiderthechargesheetandtake cognizanceonthestrengthofthefactsprevailing at that stage. Since the petitioner had retired beforethefilingofsubsequentchargesheet,there wasnorequirementoflawtoobtainsanctionfor hisprosecution.Therefore,Ifindthatthelearned SpecialJudge,whilepassingimpugnedorderdt. 16.2.2005rightlytooktheviewthatnosanction forprosecutionwasrequiredandframedcharges againstthepetitioneronthebasisofthematerial producedbytheprosecution.

37

InviewofaboveorderofHon'bleHighCourt,nowit

iswellsettledthat nosanctionisrequiredfortheprosecutionof accusedinthesecircumstances. DEMAND,ACCEPTANCEANDRECOVERY 38 It is forcefully argued on behalf of accused that

CCNo.49/04 23/104

prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification made by the accused from the complainant and acceptanceofthebribemoneybyhimandrecoveryofthesame fromhisconsciouspossession. 39 Complainant Ajesh Mittal had given his written

complaint dt. 6.6.86 to S P, CBI stating therein that he was challanedbyanInspectorofCorporationwhichwaspendinginthe CourtofSh.GulabTulsiyani. Hehascategoricallymentionedin hiscomplaintthaton5.6.86hecametoknowthatwarrantshad beenissuedagainsthim,hencehehadgonetocourtinthemorning of6.6.86alongwithShiromaniKumar. Hegothischallanputup beforetheMagistratewhohadtoldhimthatafineuptoRs.5,000/ canbeimposedoneachpartneraswellasonthefirm.Afterthat Magistratehadleftthecourtandgoneinhischamber. Hewas calledbytheMagistrateinhischamber.Magistratehadtoldhim that he will impose a nominal fine on him if he (complainant) wouldpayhim(accused)Rs.2,000/onthenextdaymorningathis residence. 40 Thefactthatchallanofcomplainantwaspendinginthe

Court of accused GulabTulsiyani andNonBailablewarrantsof complainantwereissuedandcomplainanthadattendedthecourtof

CCNo.49/04 24/104

accusedGulabTulsiyanion5.6.86and6.6.86,hasbeenprovedby PW1 Durga Prasad who was the then posted as Reader cum AhlmadinthecourtofaccusedGulabTulsiyani.Relevantportion ofhisstatementinthisregardisasunder:
Duringtheperiod198586Iwaspostedas Reader cum Ahlmad in the Court of Sh Gulab Tulsiyani the then MM,Patiala House Courts N Delhi.IknowaccusedGulabTulsiyanipresentin the Court. I have seen original judicial file containing 1 to 26 pages pertaining to case File MCDVsAjeshMittelandM/SMittalTradersU/S 416/417DMCAct.Theconcernedfilewasbeing dealt with by me under my hand writing , the judicial file is Ex PW1/A. I have seen challan dated1.1.85inrespectofAjeshMittalwhichwas received in the Court, this challan bears the signature ofGulab Tulsiyani at point Awhich I identifyasIhaveworkedunderhimandhaveseen himwritingandsigning,thechallanisExPW1/B. The challan was put up before the accused on 29.4.1986undermyhandwritingforissuanceof bailablewarrantagainstAjeshMittal.Earlierthis challanwasputupbeforetheMobileCourt.The orderof bailablewarrantforasumofRs.2000/ wasissuedbytheaccusedGulabTulsiyaniunder hisinitialatpointAforappearanceofaccusedin the case on 16.5.86. The order bears the signatures/initialatpointAwhichIidentify.The bailablewarrantundertheintialofaccusedatpoint AisExPW1/DwhichIidentify.Thewarrantwas duly executed and the bailable warrant was receivedbackwiththereportwhichisExPW1/E. On16.5.86AjeshMittaldidnotappear/turnupin theCourt.Sincethebailablewarrantwasreceived CCNo.49/04 25/104

very late therefore the challan was not put up before Presiding officer. Again the challan Ex PW1/Bwasputupbeforetheaccusedon5.6.86to whichaccuseddirectedmeforissuanceofNBW whichwasputupundermyhandwriting,whichis ExPW1/F. On5.6.86AjeshMittalcametothecourt andenquiredaboutthechallaninthenameof Ajesh Mittal. I informed himthatNBW has been issued against him. So better you come tomorrow fordisposalofchallan. On6.6.86 AjeshMittalcametocourtatabout10.30or11 AMandcontactedmeAthisrequestItookout hischallanfromthebundleandafterpreparing thenoticeU/s251CrPC putthesamebefore Ld. Presiding officer after the signature over notice U/s 251CrPC. Ld.POhad enquired fromAjeshMittalwhetherhewanttodispose ofthechallanornot.AjeshMittalhadtoldthat he had applied for the licence. Ld. PO had giventhefiletomewiththedirectionstowrite an ordersheet, adjourning the case for 7.6.86 withthedirectionstoaccusedtoproduceallthe documents.

41

ComplainantAjeshMittalhasappearedinthewitnessboxas

PW7whereinhehasdeposedasfollows:
ThechallanwasdonebyMCDInspector regardingpollution,causedbyourfactory.Asper challan,IwastoappearintheCourtofSh.Gulab Tulsyanion04/06/1986.Accordingly,Ihadgone inthecourton04/06/1986atabout10/11.00am. AccusedGulabTulsyanihadtoldusthatweboth thepartnerswillbefinedRs.5,000/each.Itold CCNo.49/04 26/104

accusedthatthefactorywhichwasadjacenttomy factorywasfinedRs.50/only.Accusedaskedme thatifIwanttocontestthecasethenIhadtofilla form.Wewenttobringthatform. Meanwhile, there was lunch time. During the lunch time, ReaderofMr.GulabTulsyanihadtoldmethatwe werecalledbyaccusedGulabTulsyaniinsiderhis chamber. Iwentinsidethechamberofaccused. AccusedhadaskedmetopayRs.2,000/tohimat hishouseandhewilladmonishthechallan.After makingenquiryfromsomewhere,IwenttoCBI officetomakethecomplaint. MycomplaintwastakenbytheSP.Hehad calledR.K.Joshiand instructed himtodealwith mycomplaint.Accusedhadgivenmethetimefor making the payment of money to him on 07/06/1986whichperhapswastheSunday.

42

Ld. Defence Counsel forcefully argued that

ComplainantAjeshMittalhasdeposedthathemetaccusedGulab Tulsiyani on4.6.86whenhemadetheallegeddemandofillegal gratification, which is not even the case of prosecution itself, thereforethereisnotruthintheallegationsmadeagainstaccused withregardtotheallegeddemandofillegalgratification. Hehas further argued that complainant even in his complaint has specifically mentioned that accused Gulab Tulsiyani was not availableinthecourtwhenhehadgoneon4.6.86and5.6.86. 43 It is correct that complainant has mentioned in his

complaint that when he went to the court on 4.6.86 and 5.6.86

CCNo.49/04 27/104

accusedGulabTulsiyani wasnotavailableinhiscourt. Itisalso correct that in the above quoted examination in chief of complainant he has stated that on 4.6.86 Gulab Tulsiyani had demandedillegalgratificationofRs.2,000/fromhimforimposing minimumfine. 44 Complainant in his cross examination on behalf of

accusedhasclarifiedthisfactthataccusedhaddemandedillegal gratificationofRs.2,000/fromhimon6.6.86.Relevantportionof hiscross examination onbehalfofaccuseddt.2.11.2011inthis regard,isasunder:


NowIdonotrememberthetimewhenIreachedin thecourton6.6.86.Somepersonwerepresentin thecourtroomwhen Ihadgoneinthesameon 6.6.86.InitiallyMr.Tulsiyaniwassittingonthe dais,howeverinthelunchhehasretiredinhis retiringroom. OnthatverydayMr.Tulsiyani had told to impose fine of Rs.5,000/ each on both the partners prior to his going in the retiringroom. NowIdonotrememberwhether Mr.Tulsiyani hadgivenmethenextdate orhis ahlmad/staffhadgivenmethenextdate.

45

From the above quoted portion of the cross

examinationofcomplainantitisclearthataccusedGulabTulsiyani had told him of imposing fine of Rs.5,000/ each on both the partnersanddemandedillegalgratificationon6.6.86.
CCNo.49/04 28/104

46

In this case accused was trapped on 7.6.86 while

statementofcomplainant,inthiscourt,wasrecordedin theyear 2011. Priortoitstatementofcomplainantwasalsorecordedon 12.8.88duringtheprevioustrialofthisveryaccusedintheCourtof thethenSpecialJudge.Thatjudicialfileisalsoattachedwiththis file. In these circumstances because of long lapse of time such mistake can be the result of confusionhoweverthedemandof illegal gratification on 6.6.86 is duly corroborated by the documentaryevidenceiecomplaintExPW7/Aandtranscriptionof taperecordedconversationExPW3/DCandfromthestatementof PW6ShrimoniKumar.Relevantportionofhisstatementinthis regardisasunder:
AccusedMr.Tulsiyaniwassittingonhis seatwhohadtoldusthatafineofRs.5,000/on eachpartnerandafineofRs.5,000/onthefirm can be imposed. We had appeared and Mr. Tulsiyanihadtoldusthataformcosting15paise onlybegotfilledupfromthereader.IandAjesh Mittalhadbroughtthatform.Readerofthecourt gotfilledthatformfromAjeshMittal. Atthat timeJudgeGulabTulsiyaniwasnotsittingonhis seatinthecourtandhadgoneinsidehischamber. We requested the reader for getting the challan disposedof.Hehadgoneinthechamberofjudge andaftercomingfromthechamberhehadtoldus tohaveadate/adjournment.Werequestedtohim togetthechallandisposedofonthatday.Thenhe wentinsidethechamberandaftercomingoutof CCNo.49/04 29/104

thechambertoldusthatJudgewascallingAjesh Mittalinsidehischamber.ThereafterAjeshMittal had gone inside the chamber of the judge. I remainedoutside.AjeshMittalaftercomingoutof the chamber told me that judge sahib Gulab Tulsiyani was demanding a sum of R.2,000/ otherwise a fine of Rs.5,000/ on each will be imposed. (Objected to being hearsay. Objection overruledbeing apart ofbeingresgeta) Ajesh Mittaldidnotwanttogivethemoney. Thenwe wenttoourhousetodiscussthematter. Wehad decidedtoapproachtheCBIwithregardtomaking ofcomplaintofdemandofmoney.AccordinglyI andAjeshMittalhadgonetoCBIoffice.Wemet withSPintheCBIOffice.AjeshMittalhadgiven anapplicationtoSP.

47

Complainant had visited the court of accused on

6.6.86and noticeU/s251CrPCwasservedonhimon6.6.86. ThisfactthatnoticeU/s251CrPCwasservedonthecomplainant on 6.6.86 is also corroborated from the notice Ex PW 7/DZ2 whichbearsthedateof6.6.86andsignaturesofComplainantAjesh Mittal andthatof accusedGulabTulsiyanihavingdateof6.6.86 underneaththesame. PW1hasalsocorroboratedthisfactthathe hadpreparedthenoticeU/251CrPCandservedthesameonthe complainant and put up the notice before Ld. Presiding Officer (accused).RelevantportionofthestatementofPW1DurgaPrasad, the then Reader of thecourt of accused GulabTulsiyani,isas under:
CCNo.49/04 30/104

On 6.6.86AjeshMittal cametocourtatabout
10.30or11AMandcontactedmeAthisrequestI took out his challan from the bundle and after preparingthenoticeU/s251CrPCputthesame before Ld. Presiding officer after the signature overnoticeU/s251CrPC.Ld.POhadenquired fromAjeshMittalwhetherhewanttodisposeof thechallanornot. AjeshMittalhadtoldthathe hadappliedforthelicence.Ld.POhadgiventhe file to me with the directions to write an ordersheet,adjourningthecasefor7.6.86withthe directions to accused to produce all the documents.

48

Thefactthatcomplainantwasdirectedtoproducethe

paperson7.6.86afterservingNoticeU/s251CrPConhimon 6.6.86,hasalsobeencorroboratedbytheordersheetdt.6.6.86of thejudicialfileExPW1/AofcasetitledMCDvs.AjeshMittalM/s MittalTraders,U/s416/417DMCActwhichisasunder:


Present:accusedinpersonandstatedthatI haveappliedtwoapplicationsforissueoflicence. Heisdirectedtoproduceallpaperson7.6.86. MM/6.6.86

49

ThisordersheetwaswrittenbyPW1,thethenReader

ofaccusedonhisdirection.RelevantportionofstatementofPW1, inthisregard,isasunder:
CCNo.49/04 31/104

Ld.POhadgiventhefiletomewiththedirections to write an ordersheet, adjourning the case for 7.6.86withthedirectionstoaccusedtoproduceall thedocuments.

50

Inviewofabovediscussionitiswellprovedonthe

judicialfilethatcomplainanthadmettheaccusedon6.6.86when accusedhadmadetheinitialdemandofillegalgratificationfrom him. 51 PW8 R K Joshi, TLO of thiscasehasdeposedthat

after receiving the complaint ExPW7/A on 6.6.86 from the ComplainantAjeshMittal,hehadenquiredaboutthereputationof accusedGulabTulsiyaniandinformedSP,CBIwhodirectedhimto registerthecaseandtolayatrap.Relevantportionofstatementof PW8RKJoshi,TLOofthiscase,isasunder:
TheSP,CBIintroducedmetothemand told that Sh.Ajesh Mittal has given a complaint dated06/06/1986againstSh.GulabTulsiyani,a judicialofficer.Thesameisalreadyexhibitedas PW7/AonwhichthethenSP,Sh.V.N.Dixitput hisendorsementtomeatpointB. Icanidentify his handwriting and signatures since I have workedunderhimandhaveseenhimwritingand signing.Idiscussedthecomplaintoverthereand then brought the complainant and Shiromani Kumartomyroomforfurtherdiscussion. After satisfyingmyself,Iproceededtotheareatofind outthegeneralreputationofSh.GulabTulsyanito makesurethathisconductwasgenerallygoodor bad.Ireturnedatabout8.30pmafterfindingthat CCNo.49/04 32/104

he was not enjoying good reputation. I accordingly informed the SP, CBI who directed forregistrationofthecase.Atabout9.15pm,I receivedacopyoftheFIRandthecomplaint.The FIRisEx.PW8/A.Thesamebearsthesignatures ofSh.V.N.Dixit, thethen SPat pointA.It was decided to lay a trap on the next morning. Accordingly, requisition for two independent witnesses was sent to the Oriental Bank of Commerce. I also constituted a raiding party including Inspector Vijay Rawal, Inspector N.S.Kharait,InspectorSukhRam,SIL.K.Asthana and lower subordinates including Ct.Suraj Bhan andL/Ct.ZaidaQureshi.Thecomplainantandthe raidingpartymembersweredirectedtoassemble on07/06/1986between5.30to6.00am.

52

PW7 Complainant Ajesh Mittal with regard to

demandofillegal gratificationmadebyaccusedonthespothas deposedasfollows:


IandShiromaniKumarhadenteredinthe house of accused after pressing the call bell. Accusedhimselfhadcomethenweenteredinthe houseofaccused.Accusedhadaskedmetositon thesofa.IandShiromaniKumarsatdownonthe sofaandswitchedonthetaperecorder.Accused hadaskeduswhetherwehadbroughtthemoney.I toldhimthatIhadbroughtthemoney. Accused asked us to pay the money to him, therefore I handedoverthemoneytoaccused.Iaftercoming outhadflashedthesignalwhichwastoldtometo flashbytheCBIofficersintheCBIofficeafter completionofthetransaction.Thereaftertheentire staffhadcomeinsidethehouseofaccused.After seeingthestaff,accusedhadrushedtowardsthe CCNo.49/04 33/104

bathroom.Moneywasrecoveredfromaccusedby the CBI officers including R.K.Joshi in the bathroom. Accused was trying to tear of the currency notes in the bathroom. Accused was broughtoutofthebathroombytheCBIofficers. Witness had also come. Accused was trying to throw the currency notes in the flush of the bathroom.Allthecurrency notes werecollected bytheofficers.Handwashofaccusedweretaken afterbringinghimoutofthebathroom. Inhiscrossexamination,inthisregard.this witnesshasdeposedasfollows:

CBIofficershadalsocameindrawingroom. Independentwitnesshadalsocomealongwith them. Accusedrushedtothebathroom. CBI officers had also followed him. They might have gone from drawing room to Bath room directly,nowIdonotrememberexactly. We hadalsoenteredinsidetheroom...... ....Thehandwashtakenonthespot were sealed in the bottle. The bottles were brought by the CBI officials. Cassette after takingfrommewassealed.Sealwasgivento independentwitnessafterusehowevernameof thatwitnessNowIdonotremember. 53 Inthisregard,PW6ShiromaniLalwhohadaccompanied

thecomplainanttotheaccusedinhishousealongwiththetaintedmoney hasdeposedasfollows:
I and AjeshMittal had gone inside the house of Gulab Tulsiyani. Other members remainedoutside.GulabTulsiyanimetusinthe drawingroomofthehouse.AjeshMittalhadtold GulabTulsiyanithatyesterdayhewasveryafraid. CCNo.49/04 34/104

GulabTulsiyanitoldAchcha.Thereaftermoney was given in the hand of Gulab Tulsiyani. Mr. Tulsiyanihadkeptthatamountonthesofaafter holdingGCnoteswithhisrighthand.Theamount wasdemandedbyhim.AfterthatIcameoutfrom there telling that I had forgotten the key of my vehicle and thereafter I flashed the signal after which the team members entered in the house through drawing room and bed room. Mr. Tulsiyanirushedtowardsthetoilet.Hetornaway somenotes.HewasthrowingtheGCnotesinthe toilet RKJoshicaught holdboththehandsof GulabTulsiyani inthetoilet byhiswrists. The notes were got collected from the witness. Number of GC notes were got tallied with the HandingOvermemoandfoundthesame.boththe handsofaccusedweregotwashedseparatelybyR KJoshiinavessel.Washhadturnedpinkwhich waspreservedinthebottles.Bottlesweresealed. TodayIhaveseen20Govt.CurrencynotesofRs. 100/denominationseach.(Witnessaftertallying thenumbersofGCnoteswiththehandingover memoalreadyExPW3/Ahasstatedthattheseare the same currency notes Ex C1 to C25 which were recovered from the toilet of the house of accused) . Some of the GC notes are in torn condition.IcannottellhowtheseGCnoteswere tornasIcameoutofthetoilet. I have seen Handing Over Memo already Ex PW3/AwhichbearsmysignaturesatpointYon each page. I have also seen recovery memo alreadyExPW3/Bwhichbearsmysignaturesat pointY.IalsoidentifymysignaturesatpointC onmemoExPW6/Awhichwaspreparedwhen sealedcassettewasopenedandplayedonmicro CCNo.49/04 35/104

cassettetaperecorder. Inhiscrossexamination,inthisregard,this witnesshasdeposedasfollows: Thesofasetonwhichwesatinthehouse of accused was having cloth covering. Bribe moneywasnotkeptonthesofabyAjeshMittal.It was given in the hand of accused who kept the sameonthesofa.Nowashofthesofawastaken. IhadtoldtheTLOonthespotafterwardthatbribe moneywaskeptbytheaccusedonthesofa.Ajesh Mittalwasalsopresentintheroomwhohadgiven themoney.Ihadgiventhesignalaftercomingout ofthegateofthehouseofaccusedtothetrapteam.

54

Withregardtorecoveryoftaintedmoneyindependent

witnessPW3MRAggarwalhasdeposedasfollows:
At about 8 A M Mr. Ajesh Mittal and Siromani Kumar went inside the house of Sh. GulabTulsyani.Afterabout10MinutesSiromani Kumar came outside the house and gave pre decided signal to the police party. After some minutes Mr. Ajesh Mittal also came out of the house alongwith Mr. Gulab Tulsyani. Then the policepartyincludingmyselfrushedtowardsthe residence of Mr. Tulsyani and on suspicion Mr. Tulsyanialsoranbackinsidehishouse.Wealso rushed inside the house to recover the bribe amount.Ienteredthroughthedrawingroomofthe house and some members of trap party also enteredthroughtheotherdoorofthehouse.His wife,andhissonwerealsopresentinthehouse andtheytriedtoobstructtheactivitiesofraiding party.ThenwefoundthatMr.Tulsyanipresentin the court (witness has correctly identified the accused)wastryingtotearoftheGCnotesnear CCNo.49/04 36/104

washbasininthebathroom.Thenthepoliceparty caughtholdMr.Tulsyanifromboththewristsand wastakentodrawingroom.TheGCnoteswhich wereinthehandsofTulsyaniweretakenfromthe handsofaccusedfromthebathroom.Thereafter Gulab Tulsyani was brought to drawing room........ .... All the persons present there including the wife of accused and his family memberswerecameinthedrawingroomwhenthe accusedwasbroughtfromtoiletcumbathroomto drawing room. Nothing was said by the family member of the accused but the atmosphere had becometensed.Ihadcollectedthecurrencynotes someofthecurrencynoteswerelayinginthewash basin which I had collected myself and handed overtotheIO.OutofthecurrencynoteswhichI hadpicked upfrombelow thewashbasinsome weretornedoneandtheremainingcurrencynotes werealsopickedupbymesomefromoutsidethe bathroom and some from other place now I am unabletorecollectasitisanoldmatter.TodayI have seen currency notes recovered from the premises of Sh. Gulab Tulsyani which are amounting Rs.2000/ and are Ex.C1 to C25 which have been compared by their numbers mentioned in handing over memo which is Ex.PW3/AonwhichIcanidentifymysignature atpointXoneverypageofit.Thenthehandwash of both the hands were taken by CBI officials separately.Ondipingboththehandsofaccusedin chemicalsolutionseparatelyandboththesolutions turned pink. Then the same was sealed in two separatebottleswithlabledaslefthandwashand righthandwash.ThesameisEx.C26andC27, respectively.

CCNo.49/04 37/104

55

Inhiscrossexaminationthiswitness,inthisregard,

hasdeposedasfollows:
After receiving signal from Srimoni Kumarweallproceededtowardsthehouseofthe accused.CBIofficerswereaheadofme.Wefirst enteredaroomwhereasofasetwaslying.Inthat room I heard some voices coming from gallery sidehence,Iwenttowardsthatgallery.Akitchen and bathroom was by the side of gallery where accused Tulsiyani was present and some other persons including family members and CBI personnelwerepresent.Ihadgonetothatgallery through drawing room where the sofa set was lying.WhenIenteredinsidethegalleryaccused was trying of tear of the GC notes and CBI officials weretryingtocomeoverit.Thereafter boththehandsoftheaccusedwerecaughtbythe wrist.Ihadenteredthebathroomaswellassome GCnoteswerelyingonthefloorofthebathroom. NowIdonotrememberwhetherthefloorofthe bathroomwastiledormarbled.Toiletwasalsoin that bathroom. Washbasin was not inside the bathroom.Fewofthecurrencynoteswerelyingin thebathroomwerewet.NowIdonotremember whetherIhadtoldinmystatementthatsomeof theGCnoteswerewetornot.Bathroomwasof about35to40sq.feetindimensionasfarasnow Irecollect.Siteplanwaspreparedonthespotin my presence. I have seen site plan Ex.PW3/DB (D6).Itiscorrectthatinthesiteplantheentry fromitinthegalleryisnotvisible.Someofthe currencynoteswerecollectedfromthefloorofthe bathroomandsomecurrencynotescollectedfrom the washbasin which was outside the bathroom. NowIdidnotrememberfromwhichroomMr. CCNo.49/04 38/104

Joshihadgonetothebathroom.

56

PW5theotherindependentwitnesSTMukkawarhas

also corroborated the above version with regard to recovery of taintedamountfromthepossessionofaccused.Relevantportionof hisstatement,inthisregard,isasunder;
And after a short while on receiving of appointed signal the members of trap party standing outside rushed inside the house of accused Gulab Tulsiyani. When I reached inside thehouseMrMRAggarwalwasalreadyreached inthehouseandhewasstandingonthegateof bathroom.InthebathroomJoshiandoneortwo otherCBIofficerholdingMrTuliyanibyhisboth thewrist.PerhapsGulabTulsiyaniispresentinthe Court.Oneladywasalsopresentinthebathroom whowasdraggedoutfromthebathroombythe lady constable. That lady must be opposing the trappartyhencetheladyconstablewasdragging heroutfromthebathroom.ThereafterTulsiyani wasbroughttothedrawinghall.GCnoteswere lyingscatteredonthefloorofbathroom.MrMR AggarwalandoneCBIofficerhadcollectedthose GCnotesattheaskingofDySP.SomeGCnotes were in torn condition. Mr M R Aggarwal had broughtthoseGCnotestoDySP.Wehadtallied the number of GC notes with the hading over memoExPW3/A,whichalsobearsmysignatures atpointB,whichwas prepared intheofficeof CBI. ThenumbersofGCnotescorrectlytallied. TheGCnotesareExC1toC25(SomeGCnotes areintornconditionthatiswhytheGCnoteswere in25innumber)Witnesshascorrectlyidentified the GC notes C1 to C25 after talling with Ex CCNo.49/04 39/104

PW3/A. Washofboththehandsoaccusedwas takenseparatelyinthesolutionpreparedofSodium Carbonate bydippingthefingers inthesolution, washofboththehandfingerswasturnedpink.The handwashesofboththehandswerepouredintwo separate bottles and both the bottles were sealed separately. I and Mr M R Aggarwal put their signature on cloth wrappers affixed on both the bottles.BothbottlesarelabelledLandR.Ican identifymysignatureatpointBwhicharenowin feded condition . Cloth wrappers are already Ex P28and29andbottlesEx C26andC27. The GC notes and bottles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex PW3/B on which I can identifymysignaturesatpointD.

57

In hiscrossexamination,inthisregard,thiswitness

hasdeposedasfollows:
Ihadseenthesignalflashedfromthespot. ThecomplainantandShriomaniKrhadcomeout of the house but I do not remember who had flashed the signal out the two. I was standing across the road . All other team members were occupying their position at different place. Mr Joshiontheroadnearthehouseofaccused.Lady constablewasalsostandingbesideMrJoshi.Ido notrememberwhetheranypersonwasstandingin the street ( Gali ) or not. During the raid proceedings I had entered in side the house of accused.Icannotrecollectwhetheranydoorofthe house of accused opening towards the house or accused or not. I donot remember from which sidewehadenteredthehouseofaccused.Idonot recollectnowwhetherIhadseenanypersoninthe bedroomoftheaccusedwhenIenteredinit.From thebedroomIhadgonetowardsbathroomside. CCNo.49/04 40/104

Bathroomwasbesidesthebedroom.NowIdonot rememberwhetherthebathroomwasattachedwith the bed room . I had gone upto the bathroom throughthebedroom.WhenIenteredtheaccused wasinthebathroom.Accusedwasbroughtfrom bathroomtothedrawingroomafterapprehending. I had gone in the drawing room intersee as the same are intersee connected. I had seen the bathroomhoweverIdo notrememberwhetherit was cemented or tiled . I did not enter the bathroom.IcantellwheretheGCnoteswerelying inthe bathroomasthesamewerevisiblefrom outsidebathroom.GCnotesweremainlylyingon thefloor.Icannotrecollectwhetherthefloorwas wetornot.SomecurrencynotesweretornbutI cannotsaywhohadtornthesame.Itisincorrectto suggestthatIhadnotenteredinthehouse. Itis incorrecttosuggestthattherewasnopassagefrom thebedroomtothebathroomandtothedrawing room.ItisincorrecttosuggestthatIhadcameout ofthehouseofaccusedformthebedroomitself.I donotrememberwhetherMrJoshihadprepared anysiteplanornotinmypresence.NowIcannot tellfromthesiteplanExPW3/DBashowIhad gone upto bathroom from the bed room . I am unable recollectastohowIenteredthedrawing fromthebedroom.ItisincorrecttosuggestIam intentionallytellinglieandIhadnotenteredthe houseofaccused.

58

Withregardtotherecoveryoftaintedmoneyfromthe

possessionofaccusedTLORKJoshihasdeposedasfollows:
At about 8.10 am, Sh.Shiromani Kumar and Ajesh Mittal entered the house of Sh.Gulab Tulsyani. Ct.Suraj Bhan remained sitting in the car posing as Chowkidar of the factory of CCNo.49/04 41/104

Sh.Mittal.Atabout8.18am,Sh.AjeshMittalcame outofthehouseofSh.Tulsyanitotakethekeysof thecar.ShiromaniKumaralsofollowedhimand havetheappointedsignalbyscratchinghishead. Immediately, we rushed to the house of Sh.Tulsyaniwhohadcometothegatetoseethem off. Seeing us, Sh.Tulsyani ran back to the drawing room and picked up the GC notes and enteredthebathroombehind.Wealsorushed.He startedtearingoffthenotes.Hewasheldbyme and Sh.Vijay Rawal, Inspector. The independent witnesses and other members of the party also reachedthespot. Sh.Tulsyaniwasdisclosedour identity. HethrewtheGCnotesinthebathroom itself. Sh.Aggarwal, witness was directed to recover the GC notes from the floor of the bathroom. Sh.Tulsyani was brought back to the drawing room where his hand wash of both the handswastaken.Thesolutionsturnedpinkwhich weretransferredintocleanglassbottlesandsealed withtheseal34/84.Thesealwashandedoverto Sh.S.T.Mukkawar.

59

Inthisregard,thiswitness,inhiscrossexamination,

hasdeposedasfollows:
Ienteredhouseofaccusedthrough hisdrawingroomasfar asIremember.WhenI enteredIsawShGulabiTulsiyanipickingupthe tainted money from the sofa and rushing to the bathroom,whichwasneartodrawingroom.Ido not remember the location of the door in the drawing room and the bath room. However we followedaccusedtothebathroomwhowastearing ofthetaintedmoneyandwasabletotearofsome ofthem. Thehandwashisalwaysdulytightly CCNo.49/04 42/104

packed in trap cases. The neat and clean bottles withoutwrapperpastedthereonwereusedinitially. Onseeingthebottles whicharemarkedwiththe caseNo.RC40/86whichisExP.27andP.26itis seen that some label of SURA is there on one bottle,sinceitismatterrelatingto25yearsoldIdo notexactlyrememberwhetherthelabelswereasit is. CourtObservation: On one side of both the bottles thereisprintedlabelhavingprintedmaterial.On theothersidewhitepaperonwhichRCNo.and other particular of this case are mentioned is affixedonsomelabel. Idonot remember whether thesofawas havingclothcoveringorrexincovering.Idonot rememberiftheseatofthesofaweredetachable ornot.Itiscorrectthatnowashofsofaseatwas taken.Itisincorrecttosuggestthatthemoneywas forcibly put into the hand of accused and the ensuingscufflethecurrencynotesgottornof.

60

TaintedGCnoteswererecoveredviderecoverymemo

Ex PW 3/B which has been signed by M R AGGarwal, S T Mukkawar,ShiromaniLal,AjeshMittal,RKJoshietc.copyof which was also given toaccusedGulabTulsiyani whichhehad receivedvidehisendorsementatpointNunderhissignatures.All thesefactshavealsobeen specificallymentionedintherecovery memowhichhasbeenprovedbyalltheabovereferredwitnessesin thiscourt,intheirstatements.

CCNo.49/04 43/104

61

Ld.DefenceCounsel referringsiteplanExPW3/DB

arguedthatthereisnodirectentryfromthedrawingroomtothe bathroom.Ld.DefenceCounselarguedthatithasbeenadmittedby complainant, shadow witness and TLO that there is no passage fromthedrawingroomorfromtheadjoiningbedroomtothebath roomasindicatedinthesiteplanhencethereisnotruthinthestory of prosecution that accused had torned tainted GC note in the bathroom. As discussed above all the witnesses PW3 M R Aggarwal, PW5 S T Mukkawar, PW6 Shiromani Kumar, PW7 AjeshMittalandPW8Sh.RKJoshihavespecificallydeposedthat onseeingthetrapteamaccusedafterpickinguptaintedGCnotes from the sofa rushed in bathroom; and was in the process of torning of GC notes when he was apprehended. PW5 S T Mukkawar has explained the way from which they reached to bathroomfollowingtheaccused. Theirtestimonyinthisregard, remainedunshaken.Inthesecircumstancesthereisnomeritinthis argument. 62 Demandofillegalgratificationmadebyaccusedatthe

timeoftrapandacceptanceofthesamehasalsobeenprovedfrom the tape recorded conversation, transcription of which is Ex PW3/DC.Therelevantportionofthesameisasunder:

CCNo.49/04 44/104

CCNo.49/04 45/104

63

PW7ComplainantAjeshMittalhasdeposedthathe

wasgivenataperecorderwiththeinstructiontoswitchitonafter reachingneartheaccused. Inthisregard,relevantportionofhis statementisasunder;


I had switched on the micro cassette recorderafterenteringinthedrawingroomofthe accused. Now I do not remember whether it switchedoffautomaticallyorIhadswitcheditoff. Shiromanihadnotspokenanywordduring the period till we remained in the house of accused.Priortoapprehendingtheaccusedthere was nonoise.I canot tell whether anybodyhad spoken or uttered even after apprehension of accusedbyCBI officeronthespot. Ihadnot askedShiromanitoremainsilent. NowIdonot rememberwhetherRKJoshihadtoldShiromani toremainsilent.Ornot.Itisincorrecttosuggest thaton7.6.86 mynoconversationwasrecorded withtheaccusedathishouse.

64

With regard to preparation of the transcription of the

recordedconversation,thiswitnesshasfurtherdeposedasfollows:
Intheoffice,thecassettewasopenedin the presence of two witnesses and the transcription of conversation was prepared and cassette was again resealed. Then after sometime I was allowed to go but I cannot CCNo.49/04 46/104

recollect at what time I left CBI office. The recovery memo already exhibited as PW3/B bearsmysignatureatpointAandmemoalready exhibitedasPW6/Aalsobearsmysignatureat pointA.Transcriptionofcassettewasprepared in my presence on which I identify my conversation with accused. Same is already exhibited as PW3/DC. My statement was recorded.

65 In thisregard,inhiscrossexamination,thiswitness hasdeposedasfollows:
...... The cassette having spot recorded conversation was desealedintheCBI officein mypresence. Transcriptionofthatcassettewas prepared and it was resealed. Now I do not rememberwhohadpreparedthetranscriptionand howmuchtimewasconsumedinit........ ......... While preparing the transcription microcassettewasplayedagainandagaintowrite thetranscription.NowIcannottellthetimespent forpreparationoftranscription.CBIofficersand independentwitnesseswerealsopresentthereat thattime.Ihadalsosignedit.Witnesseshadalso signedit. Attentionofwitnessisdrawntowards transcription Ex PW3/DC which does not bear eitherhissignatureoranyotherwitness.

66

PW6 Shiromani Kumar who had accompanied the

Complainant tothehouseofaccusedatthetimeoftraphasalso deposedthatataperecorderfittedwithmicrocassettewasgivento AjeshMittalwhohadkeptthesameinhispayajama.Inhiscross examination PW6 has deposed that blank cassette was given to
CCNo.49/04 47/104

ComplainantAjeshMittal alongwithtaperecorder. ItwasSony MicroCassette. Hehaddeniedthesuggestionthatmicrocassette tape recorder was given to him. PW6 has also deposed that transcriptionoftherecordedconversationwasalsopreparedinthe CBIoffice.IndependentwitnessPW3MRAggarwalhasdeposed asfollows,inthisregard:
One pocket micro Sony Cassette tape recorder fitted with blank cassette was also given to Sh. Ajesh Mittal and was directed to switch on the samebeforetalkingtoMr.Tulsyani.

67

Inhiscrossexamination,withregardtopreparationof

the transcription of the recorded conversation, this witness has deposedasfollows:


Tape recording conversation was playedintheCBIofficeafterreturningofoffice after completing the proceedings. its transcriptionwasalsoprepared.Idonotremember whohadpreparedthattranscriptionandIdonot rememberwhetherIhassignedthesameornot.It is correct that on transcription Ex.PW3/DC(D7) my signatures are not there. It is incorrect to suggestthatIhadnotheardanyconversation.Itis alsoincorrecttosuggestthatnotranscriptionwas preparedinmypresence.

68

TheotherindependentwitnessPW5STMukkawarhas

CCNo.49/04 48/104

alsodeposedthatapocketmicrocassettetaperecorderwasgivento AjeshMittal.Relevantportionofhisstatementinthisregardisas under:


Then a pocket Micro Cassette tape recordermakeSonyfittedwithblankcassettewas also given to Sh. Ajesh Mittal. After briefing aboutitsworkingandhewasdirectedtoswitchon taperecorderbeforetalkingtoMrTulsiyani.

69

Withregardtopreparationoftranscriptionofrecorded

conversation,thiswitnesshasdeposedasfollows:
After completing the housesearch CBI teamleftthehouseforCBIofficealongwithMr TulsiyaniandreachedtheCBIatabout2.15pm. Then after reaching there the sealed cassette was open in my presence as well as in the presenceofMrAggarwalanditstranscription of conversation was prepared which was containingthefactofdemandandacceptance of bribe by the accused from Mr Mittal, the cassettewasagainsealedinourpresenceand dulyinitializedbyus.

70

Inthisregardinhiscrossexamination,thiswitnesshas

deposedasfollows:
Micro cassette was taken back from the complainant.Idonotrememberwhetherthesame was played on the spot or not. However I remember it was played in CBI office. Micro cassettewassealedonthespot.Itwasdesealedin theCBIoffice.Idonotknowwhetheranymemo CCNo.49/04 49/104

was prepared with regard to desealing of cassette.

71

PW8 Dy. SP R K Joshi, TLO of this case has also

specificallydeposedthatcomplainantwasgivenamicrocassettetape recorder with the direction to switch iton before talking to accused. Relevantportionofhisexaminationinchiefisasunder:
A micro cassette tape recorder was also arranged and a blank cassette was fitted into it. The blank cassette was played before the independent witnesses to show that it did not contain any conversation. Ajesh Mittal was directed to switch on the tape recorder before talking to Sh.Gulab Tulsyani and record the conversationwhichtakesplacebetweenthem.

72

Thiswitnesshasalsodeposedthataftercompletionof

trapproceedingsinthehouseofaccusedtaperecorderwasopened andcassettewastakenoutandsealedwiththeseal34/84.Relevant portionofhisstatementinthisregardisasunder:


The tape recorder was opened and the cassette wasalsosealedwiththesameCBIseali.e.34/84.

73

Hehaspreparedthetranscriptionofthetaperecorded

conversationinhisownhandwritingandprovedthesameinthe court after hearing the micro cassette. Relevant portion of his statement,inthisregard,isasunder:

CCNo.49/04 50/104

In CBI office, the sealed cassette was opened in the presence of independent witnesses andthetapewasplayedtofindouttherecorded conversation.Ascriptofthesamewasprepared which is already Ex.PW3/DC. This script is writtenfrompointAtoA1inmywriting. At this stage, ld.SPP made a request that micro cassette may be desealed to put to the witness.Requestallowed.Thepackedcontaining micro cassette is desealed in which one khakhi envelope was found having micro cassette in its plasticcover.Ithasbeenshowntothewitnesswho afterseeingthesameidentifiedthemicrocassette as the cassette used in this case. The same is Ex.C30.MemoalreadyEx.PW6/Awasprepared for openingand sealing ofthemicro cassette. It bearsmysignaturesatpointD.Thesealwasagain handedovertoSh.S.T.Mukkawar....... .......Atthisstage,ld.Prosecutormade arequestthathemaybeallowedtoplaythe micro cassette to tele with the transcription hencesealedenvelopebedesealedtotakeout the microcassette. Request allowed. Sealed envelopopenedandmicrocassettetakenoutofit andinsertedinthemicrocassetteplayerproduced byCt.NarenderSinghfromMalkhanaCBIand playedtothewitness. Witnessafterhearingthemicrocassetteplayed inthiscourtconfirmedthefactbycomparing CCNo.49/04 51/104

the voice from the transcription,already Ex. PW3/DCbytickingwithredinkand makeit clearthatthedialogsrecordedinfrontofAjesh Mittal complainant is mentioned in this transcription as AM and the voice of Gulab Tulsyaniin theshapeofdialogs mentioned in transcriptionasGT.Hefurtherconfirmedthat voicerecordedinmicrocassetteisthesameas mentioned in corresponding dialogs of Ajesh MittalandGulabTulsyaniinEx.PW3/DC.

74

This witness has been cross examined at length.

relevant portion of his cross examination with regard to tape recorded conversation and preparation of its transcription is as under;
The seal of the tape was opened for noting down the conversation in the CBI office andit was againsealwiththesamesealwhich wasobtainedandreturnedtothesamewitness.A memo Ex PW6/A is prepared in regard to the preparation of transcription and playing the cassetteinwhichitismentionedthatthetapehas again been sealed by CBI seal 34/84 and given backtoShSTMukhawar.

75

This is the only cross examination of this witness

conductedquathetaperecordedconversationandpreparationofits transcription. Fromabareperusalofthiscrossexaminationitis clearthatnothingsuchhascomeoutinthecrossexaminationsoas to disbelieve the version given by this witness. With regardto

CCNo.49/04 52/104

recordingofconversationbetweencomplainantandaccusedatthe timeoftrapandwithregardtopreparationoftranscriptionofthe same, in these circumstances, this court is of opinion that prosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtsthatcomplainant hadrecordedtheconversationbetweenhimandaccusedatthetime oftrapcorrectlyandExPW3/DCisitscorrecttranscription. 76 ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounsel thatprosecution

hasneithertakenthesamplevoiceofaccusednor sentthetape recordedconversationtotheCFSLforcomparingitwiththevoice ofaccused.Inthesecircumstancesnoreliancecanbeplacedonthe taperecordedconversation.ItisalsoarguedthattranscriptionEx PW3/DCofthetaperecordedconversationdoesnotbearsignature ofindependentwitnessesorthecomplainantorTLO. 77 Itiscorrectthatneitherthesamplevoiceofaccused

wastakennorthetaperecordedconversationwassenttoCFSLfor comparisonwiththevoiceofaccused. However,fromtheabove discussion it is also proved on the file that complainant had identifiedhisvoiceandthatofaccusedafterhearingtherecorded conversation between them at the time of preparation of transcription Ex PW3/DC. Relevant portion of his cross examinationinthisregard,isasunder:

CCNo.49/04 53/104

At the time of preparing of transcriptionIhadidentifiedmyvoiceandthat ofaccused.

78

Nothing has come on the record to prove that

complainant has not correctly identified his voice and that of accused in the tape recorded conversation while preparing the transcription. Itiswellsettledlegalprepositionthatreportofan expertwhetherhandwritingexpertorvoicedistinguishingexpertis an opinion, which in itself isnot conclusive. There areseveral authorities that expert's report cannot be relied upon without corroborationfrom independentevidence. Here,inthecasein hand identification of voice by complainant during cross examinationisadirectevidenceandrathermorecrediblethanthe reportofanexpert. 79 Theevidenceofcomplainant,inthisregard,hasalso

been corroborated by PW8 R K Joshi. Relevant portion of his statementinthisregard,isasunder:


..... a script of the same was prepared which is already Ex PW3/DC. This script is writtenfrompointAtoA1inmyhandwriting.

80 follows:

Foridentifyingthevoice, hehasfurtherdeposedas

CCNo.49/04 54/104

Witness after hearing the microcassette played in this court confirmed the fact by comparingthevoicefromthetranscription,already Ex.PW3/DCbytickingwithredinkandmakeit clearthatthedialogsrecorded infrontofAjesh Mittal complainant is mentioned in this transcription as AM and the voice of Gulab Tulsyani in the shape of dialogs mentioned in transcription as GT. He further confirmed that voice recorded in microcassette is the same as mentioned in corresponding dialogs of Ajesh MittalandGulabTulsyaniinEx.PW3/DC.

81

From the above discussion it is proved by

complainantaswellasTLOthatrecordedconversationisbetween accused and complainant and TLO has deposed that he has prepared the transcription of the tape recorded conversation correctlywhichisExPW3/DContheidentificationofcomplainant AjeshMittal. Inthesecircumstances notsendingofcassettefor distinguishing the voice of complainant and accused cannot be treatedfataltotheprosecution. 82 ItisalsocorrectthattranscriptionExPW3/DCdoes

notbearanybody'ssignature. Ld.DefenceCounsel arguedthat both the independent witnesses complainant and Shiromani Lal havedeposedthattheyhadsignedthetranscriptionbutitdoesnot bear anybody's signatures. Ld. Defence Counsel has also
CCNo.49/04 55/104

confrontedallthesewitnesseswiththetranscriptionExPW3/DC withregardtotheirsignatures.Allthesewitnesseshaveadmitted thatitdoesnotbeartheirsignatures.MemoExPW6/Awasmade with regard to preparation of transcription of the tape recorded conversationwhichhasthesignaturesofallthesewitnesses. The memoExPW6/Aisdt.7.6.86. Allthesewitnesseshavedeposed thattranscriptionofthetaperecordedconversationwaspreparedon 7.6.86 itself in CBI office. According to TLO R K Joshi transcriptionExPW3/DCwaspreparedon7.6.86.Thus,allthese witnessescorroboratesthefactofpreparationoftranscriptionon 7.6.86. Memo Ex PW6/A with regard to preparation of transcriptionoftaperecordedconversationisasunder:
In the presence of the signatories to this memo sealed cassette was opened and played on the micro cassette tape recorder. Thetranscriptionoftheconversationhasbeen taken down separately with the help of Sh. AjeshMittal. Thetapehasagainbeensealed byCBIseal34/84andgivenbacktoSh.ST Mukkawar.

83

ThismemohasbeensignedbyShirmani Lal,Ajesh

Mittal, S T Mukkawar, M RAggarwal and R K Joshi. These witnesseshavedeposedthattheyhadsignedthetranscriptionEx PW3/DC,however,theirsignaturesarenotavailableonExPW


CCNo.49/04 56/104

3/DCbut onExPW6/A,thememovidewhichtranscriptionEx. PW3/DCwasprepared.Statementsofthesewitnesseshavebeen recordedinthiscourtintheyear2010and2011i.e.afterthelapse ofabout2425years.Itappearsthatthismistakeisbecauseoflong lapse of time. In these circumstances there is no merit in the argumentthattranscriptionoftaperecordedconversationwasnot preparedinthepresenceofthesewitnessesbecausetranscriptionEx PW3/DCdoesnotbeartheirsignatures.

84

Ld.DefenceCounsel arguedthatinthetranscription

Ex PW 3/DC the wordings when we had occupied our seat thereafteraccusedhadaskedwhetherIhadbroughtthemoneyor not. as deposed by the complainant is not present in the tape recorded conversation or in its transcription which speaks the volumeofmalafideintentionofcomplainantandotherwitnesses andalsoprovedtheunfairinvestigationcarriedoutbyTLO.Even ifthisportionisexcludedstillthereisenoughmaterialinthetape recordedconversationtoprovethedemandofillegalgratification made by accused and its acceptance on the spot. Trap was conductedon7.6.86whilethestatementofwitnessesinthiscase hasbeenrecordedintheyear2010and2011i.e.afteralapseof

CCNo.49/04 57/104

about2425years.Insuchcircumstancessuchomissioncanbethe resultofthelossofmemorybecauseoflonglapseoftime.Inthese circumstancesthisomissionisnotfataltothecaseofprosecution. 85 Fromtheforgoingdiscussioninthisjudgmentitisalso

proved that accused after seeing the trap team rushed to the bathroomalongwiththetrapmoneyandtornsomeofthetainted GCnotes. 86 Inaprosecutionfortheoffenceofbriberytheconduct

ofaccusedisrelevantU/S8ofEvidenceAct. Inthiscaseitis provedbeyondreasonabledoubtsonthejudicialfilethatwhentrap teamenteredinthehouseofaccusedherushedtothebathroom alongwiththetaintedGCnotesandtriedtoflushthemout.Hehad alsotornsomeoftheGCnoteswhichwerecollectedbyPW3MR Aggarwalfromthefloorofbathroom. 87 InhisstatementU/s313CrPCaccusedhastakena

defencethathedidnotgotohischambernorAjeshMittalcame inside his chamber. He had never demanded any money rather complainantforciblytriedtothrustthemoneyinhishandsandin thisprocesssomecurrencynotesweretornoff. Sincenomoney waskeptonsofathatiswhynowashofthesofawastaken.Hewas manhandled.

CCNo.49/04 58/104

88

RecoverymemoExPW3/Bwaspreparedonthespot

andacopyofthesamewasgiventoaccusedwhichhehasreceived videhisendorsementwithsignatureatpointN, Receivedcopyoftherecoverymemo. Sd/accused 89 Accusedwhowasajudicialofficial,knowingthelaw

wellcouldhavementionedhisabovedefenceinhisendorsement. It is not his case till datethat TLOoranyCBIofficerhadnot allowed/restrictedhimtomentionhisabovedefenceatthetimeof receivingofthecopyofrecoverymemo. 90 AccordingtoaccusedhewasmanhandledbytheCBI.

Judicial Officers are under the direct control and protection of Hon'bleHighCourt. IftheGCnoteswereforciblythrustinhis handsorhewasmanhandledbytheCBIofficers,hecouldhave broughtthesefactstothenoticeofHon'bleHighCourt.Hecould havealsofiledacriminalcomplaintinthecourthavingcompetent jurisdiction.Buthehasnotdonesoforthereasonsbestknownto him. 91 Asuggestion,inthisregard,hasbeengivenonlyto

TLORKJoshi,inhiscrossexamination,whichisasunder:
Itisincorrecttosuggestthatthemoney wasforciblyputintothehandofaccusedandthe CCNo.49/04 59/104

ensuingscufflethecurrencynotesgottornof.

92

No such suggestion has been given to Complainant

Ajesh Mittal and Shiromani Kumarwhohadaccompaniedthe complainantinthehouseofaccusedGulabTulsiyaniandwitnesses theexchangeoftransactionofbribe.Boththesewitnessesarethe bestpersontodeposeinthisregard.Similarly,nosuchsuggestion hasbeengiventoboththeindependentwitnessesMRAggarwal andSTMukkawar. 93 InCKDamodaranNaiVs.Govt.ofIndia,AIR1997

Supremecourt551,Hon'bleSupremeCourt,insuchcircumstances, hasheldasfollows:
PreventionofCorruptionAct(2of1947), Ss.5(2),4BriberyAccused,apublicservant alleged to have obtained sum of Rs.1,000/ as illegal gratification from hospital authorities Recovery of marked currency notes from possessionofaccusednotdisputedEvidenceof independent witness that they saw complainant handingovernotestoaccusedandaccusedputting them into his pocket Defence plea that complainant thrusted said notes into pocket of accusedisfalsePresumptionunderS.4attracted Nonrebuttalofsaidpresumptionbyaccused ConvictionunderS.161ofPenalCodeproper.

94

InthepresentcasecomplainantaswellasShiromani

Kumar has specifically deposed that money was demanded by accusedandafterreceivingitfromthecomplainantaccusedhad


CCNo.49/04 60/104

keptthesameonthesofaandwhentrapteamenteredinthehouse ofaccused,accusedafterpickingupthetaintedmoneyrantowards bathroomandhewasapprehendedbyCBIofficerswhilehewas intheprocessoftorningthetaintedGCnotes. 95 Hencetakingthesedefencesatthetimeofrecordingof

hisstatementU/s313CrPC, appearstobeconcoctedandafter thought. 96 Hon'bleSupremeCourtin ParkashChandVsDelhi

AdmnAIR1979SC400inparaNo.8hasobservedasfollows:
Itwascontendedbytheld.Counselfor the appellant that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challenged by the Inspectorwasinadmissibleasitwashitbysection 162 Criminal Procedure Code. He relied on a decisionofthe AndhraPradeshHighCourtin D.V.NarisimhanV.State,(AIR1969andhPra 271).WedonotagreewiththesubmissionsofSh. Anthony.Thereisacleardistinctionbetweenthe conductofapersonagainstwhomanoffenceis allegedwhichisadmissibleundersection8ofthe EvidenceAct,ifsuchconductisinfluencedbyany fact in issue or relevant fact and the statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by sec. 162 Criminal Procedure code. What is excluded by sec. 162 CriminalProcedureCodeisthestatementmadeto apoliceofficerinthecourseofinvestigationand not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person ( not amounting to a statement) whenconfrontedorquestionedbyapoliceofficer CCNo.49/04 61/104

during the course of an investigation. For example, the evidence of the circumstances, simplicitor,that an accused person led a police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articlesorweaponswhichmighthavebeenusedin the commission of the offence where found hidden,wouldbeadmissibleasconduct,u/s8of the evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statementbytheaccusedcontemporaneouslywith or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purviewofSection27oftheEvidenceAct(vide Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om PrakashAIR1972SC975

97

From the above discussion it is again proved that

accusedGulabTulsiyanihadacceptedRs.2,000/voluntarilyand consciously which was also recovered from his conscious possession. 98 Fromthe foregoingdiscussioninthisjudgment itis

also proved that hand washesofboththehandsofaccusedwas taken which had turned pink in colour which was preserved in separatebottlesandsentforchemicalexamination.PW2Sh.VS Bisaria who had chemically examined the hand washes has deposedthatchemicalexaminationofboththesampleshadgiven positive test for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. He has provedhisreportExPW2/Ainthisregard. 99 Itprovesthepresenceofphenolphthaleinpowderon

CCNo.49/04 62/104

boththehandsofaccused. Phenolphthaleinpowderappearedon thehandsofaccusedbecausehehadreceivedthephenolphthalein quotedGCnotesfromAjeshMittalandkeptthesameonthesofa. 100 Theimportanceofphenolphthaleintestwasunderline

bytheHon'bleSupremeCourtinSomParkashVsStateofDelhi AIR1974SupremeCourt989, whereinpara10itisheldas under:


............... of course, the oral evidenceofPWs1and4byitself,if believedas rightly believed by the High Court , proves the passing of the money to the accused and its productionbyhim whenchallengedbyP.W7. The fact is indisputable that the hands, the handkerchief and the inner lining of the trouser pocketoftheaccusedturnedvioletwhendippedin soda ash solution. From this the State counsel arguesthatonnohypothesisexceptthatthenotes emergedfromtheaccused'sPocketorpossession canthetriplecolourchangebeaccountedfor.The evidencefurnishedbyinorganicchemistryoften outwits the technology of corrupt officials, providednoalternativereasonablepossibilityis madeout.Theappellantoffersaplausibletheory. PW1keptthenoteswithhimandhishandsthus carriedthepowder.Hegaveabottleofcaketothe accusedandthebottlethustransmittedparticlesof phenolphthalein to the latter's hands. He ( the accused)wipedhisfacewiththehandkerchiefand put itintohistrouserpocketthuscontaminating theliningwiththeguiltysubstance.Moreover,the innerliningwasdippedbyPW7withhishands CCNo.49/04 63/104

whichhadthepowder.Thus,allthethreeitems standexplained,accordingtohim.Theserecondite possibilities andlikely freaks havebeenrejected byboththe courts andweare hardly persuaded intohostilitytothatfinding.Itisputmeetthat scienceorienteddetectionofcrimeismadea massiveprogrammeofpolicework, forinour technologicalagenothingmoreprimitive canbe conceivedofthandenying thediscoveriesofthe sciencesasaidstocrimesuppressionandnothing crudercanretardforensicefficiencythenswearing by traditional oral evidence only thereby discouragingtheliberaluseofscientificresearch toproveguilt.

101

InRaghbirSinghVsStateofPunjab(1976)1SCC

145 whilediscardingtheoralanddocumentaryevidence laidon behalfoftheprosecutionisnotsuchastoinspireconfidenceinthe mindoftheCourt,theSupremeCourtobservedinparaNo.11as follows:


Wemaytakethisopportunityofpointing outthatitwouldbedesirableifincasesofthis kindwhereatrapislaidforapublicservant,the marked current notes, which are used for the purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthaleinpowersothatthehandlingof such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is something of a dubious characterforthepurposeofdecidingthefateof thepublicservant.

CCNo.49/04 64/104

102

Itisarguedonbehalfofaccusedthatnowashofthe

sofa was taken which proves his defence that GC notes were forciblythrustinhishandsandhehadnotdemandedthebribe. 103 It is correct that no wash of sofa was taken, PW6

ShiromaniKumarinhiscrossexaminationonbehalfofaccusedhas specificallydeposedthatsofawashavingclothcoveringRelevant portionofhiscrossexaminationinthisregard,isasunder:


The sofa set on which we sat in the house of accused was having cloth covering BribemoneywasnotkeptonthesofabyAjesh Mittal. Itwasgiveninthehandsof accused whokeptthesameonthesofa.Nowashofthe sofawastaken.

104

Dy.SPRKJoshi,TLOofthiscase,whohadtakenthe

handwashesandhasnottakenthewashofsofahasappearedinthe witness box as PW8. He has been cross examined at length. Relevantportionofhiscrossexamination,inthisregardisasunder:
Idonotrememberwhetherthesofawas havingclothcoveringorrexincovering.Idonot rememberiftheseatofthesofaweredetachable ornot.Itiscorrectthatnowashofsofaseatwas taken.

105

Notevenasuggestionhasbeengiventothiswitness

thathehasnottakenwashofsofabecausetaintedmoneywasnot

CCNo.49/04 65/104

keptonthesofabytheaccusedafteracceptingthesamefromthe complainant. 107 Sh.R K Joshi has specifically deposed that he saw

accusedpickingupthetaintedmoneyfromthesofaandrushingto thebathroom.Relevantportionofhisstatementduringhiscross examinationisasunder:


WhenIenteredIsawShGulabiTulsiyani picking up the tainted money from the sofa and rushing to the bathroom, which was near to drawingroom.Idonotrememberthelocationof thedoorinthedrawingroomandthebathroom. However we followed accused to the bathroom whowastearingofthetaintedmoneyandwasable totearofsomeofthem.

108

This version of TLO has been corroborated by

complainant,ShiromaniKumarandboththeindependentwitnesses.

109

FromtheabovequotedcrossexaminationofTLOitis

clearthatnothingsuchhascomeonthejudicialfiletodisbelieve theprosecutionversionwithregardtonottakingofwashofsofa. Asthesofawashavingclothcoveringandwasabigarticlethus takingofitswashwasnotpossibleinthesefactsandcircumstances of this case, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution,onthiscount.

CCNo.49/04 66/104

110

It is argued on behalf of accused by Ld. Defence

Counsel that thebottlescontaininghandwashesExP26&P27 werenotthecleanbottles.Thebottleswere havinglabelofSura which shows tampering with of the wash bottles. Ld. Defence Counsel has cross examined the TLO, in this regard, in detail. Relevant portion of his cross examination, in this regard, is as under:
Ienteredhouseofaccusedthroughhisdrawing roomasfarasIremember.WhenIenteredIsaw ShGulabiTulsiyanipickingupthetaintedmoney fromthesofaandrushingtothebathroom,which wasneartodrawingroom.Idonotrememberthe locationofthedoorinthedrawingroomandthe bathroom.Howeverwefollowedaccusedtothe bathroomwhowastearingofthetaintedmoney andwasabletotearofsomeofthem. The hand wash is always duly tightly packedintrapcases.Theneatandcleanbottles without wrapper pasted thereon were used initially. On seeing the bottles which are markedwiththecaseNo.RC40/86whichisEx P.27andP.26itisseenthatsomelabelofSURA isthereononebottle,sinceitismatterrelating to 25 years old I do not exactly remember whetherthelabelswereasitis. CourtObservation: Ononesideofboththebottlesthereis printedlabelhavingprintedmaterial.Onthe other side white paper on which RC No. and other particular of this case are mentioned is CCNo.49/04 67/104

affixedonsomelabel. I do not remember whether the sofa was havingclothcoveringorrexincovering.Idonot rememberiftheseatofthesofaweredetachableor not. Itiscorrectthatnowashofsofaseatwas taken.

111

AccusedGulabTulsiyani hasnotdeniedthehandling

ofthetaintedmoneywhichisclearfromhisstatementrecordedU/s 313 Cr PC wherein he has categorically stated that Rather he forciblytriedtothrustthemoneyinmyhandandintheprocess somecurrencynotesweretornoff. 112 Fromtheabovedefenceoftheaccusedhehastriedto

explainthepresenceofphenolphthaleinonhishands,thus,heisnot denyingthepresenceofphenolphthaleinonhishands Inthese circumstancesthereisnomeritintheargumentthatwashbottles havinglabelofsuraaretampered. 113 Fromtheabovediscussion,itisagainprovedthat

accused had voluntarily and consciously accepted the bribed moneyfromthecomplainantAjeshMittalwasrecoveredfrom hisconsciouspossession. 114 When it is proved that there was voluntary and

conscious acceptance of the money by the accused, there is no


CCNo.49/04 68/104

furtherburdencastontheprosecutiontoprovebydirectevidence thedemandormotive,inviewofSection4PCAct,1947whichis akintoSection20ofPCAct,1988.IthasbeenheldsobyHon'ble SupremeCourtinB.NohaVs.stateofKerala,2006IVAD465.

115

Hon'bleSupremeCourtinStateofAndhraPradesh

Vs.RJeevaratnam,2004(2)JCC1161hasheldasfollowsinthis regard:
PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988Sec. 20 (1) Presumption under Respondent caught redhandedwiththemarkedmoneyinabriefcase carried by him Presumption that he accepted illegalgratificationarose.

116

Hon'bleSupremeCourtinMadhukarBhaskarraoJosi

Vs.StateofMaharashtra(2000(8)SCC571)hasheldasfollowsin thisregard:
Thepremisetobeestablishedonthefacts for drawing the presumption is that there was paymentoracceptanceofgratification. Oncethe said premise is established the inference to be drawnisthatthesaidgratificationwasaccepted'as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do anyofficialact. Sotheword'gratification'need notbestretchedtomeanrewardbecauserewardis theoutcomeofthepresumptionwhichthecourt hastodrawonthefactualpremisesthattherewas CCNo.49/04 69/104

payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratificationoranyvaluablething'.Ifacceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doingor forbearing to doan official act,theword'gratification'mustbetreatedinthe context to mean any payment for giving satisfactiontothepublicservantwhoreceivedit.

117

ThisdecisionwasfollowedbyHon'bleSupremeCourt

in M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1) SCCC 691). whereinithasbeenheldthatThereisnocaseoftheaccusedthat thesaidamountwasreceivedbyhimastheamountwhichhewas legallyentitledtoreceiveorcollectfromPW1.Itwasheldinthe decisioninStateof APVs.KommarajuGopalaKrishnaMurthy (2000 (9) SCC 752), that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establishthatitwasnotbywayofillegalgratification.Thatburden wasnotdischargedbytheaccused. 118 A Full Bench of three Judges of Hon'ble Supreme

Courtin RaghubirSinghVs.StateofPunjabAIR1974,677has heldthattheveryfactthataccusedwasinpossessionofmarked currencynotesagainstanallegationthathehaddemandedand

CCNo.49/04 70/104

receivedtheamountisresipsaloquitur. 119 Inparano.11ofthisauthorityitisheldasfollows,by

Hon'bleSupremeCourt:
Evenifthestatutory presumptionunder Section4isunavailablewhenthechargeisunder Section5(1)(d)readwithsection5(2)Courtsmay presumewhatmayintheordinary coursebethe most probable inference. That an Assistant Station Master had in his hand a marked currencynotemadeovertohimbyapassenger whose bedding had been detained by him for whichnocredibleexplanationwasforthcoming, andhewascaughtredhandedwiththenoteisa caseofresipsaloquitur. Theverythingspeaks foritselfinthecircumstances.

120

A Full Bench of Three Judge of Hon'ble Supreme

CourtinVDJhinganVs.StateofUPAIR1966SupremeCourt 1762hasheldthatmerereceiptofmoneyissufficienttoraisethe presumption u/s 4 of P C Act 1947 which is similar to that of Section20ofPCAct,1988.Therelevantportionofthisjudgment isasunder:
To raise the presumption u/s 4 (1) of PreventionofCorruptionAct,theprosecutionhas to prove that the accused has received gratification other than legal remuneration. Whenitisshownthattheaccusedhasreceiveda certain sum of money which was not his legal remuneration, the condition prescribed by the section is satisfied and the presumption must be CCNo.49/04 71/104

raised. Furtherthemerereceiptofmoneyis sufficienttoraisethepresumption.

121

In similar facts and circumstances Hon'bleSupreme

CourtinTShankerPrashadVs.StateofVPAIR2004Supreme Court1242hasheldasfollows:
Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988),S.7,S.13BriberyTrapcaseAllegations that accused officer and his junior assistant workingincommercialtaxdepartmentdemanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.300/ from complainant,adealerofgroceryarticlesforway billsEvidenceofcomplainantandtrapwitnesses established recovery of money from accused Junior Assistant Involvement of both accused established by prosecution evidence Presumption can beraised that accused persons accepted illegal gratification Defence plea that amount was paid towards tax Not tenable as therewasnotaxdueandoncontrarycomplainant was entitled to some refund Conviction of accusedpersons,proper.

122

WithregardtopresumptionU/s20ofPCActof1988

and with regard to standard of proof of explanation , in this authorityHon'bleSupremeCourthasheldasfollows:


PresumptionofCorruptionAct(49of1988),S.20 Illegal gratification, acceptance of by public servantPresumptionunderS.20Isapresumption oflawandcastanobligationonCourttooperateit ineverycasebroughtinItisrebuttedbyproofand CCNo.49/04 72/104

not by explanation which may seem to be plausible. Presumptionisaninferenceofacertainfactdrawn from other proved facts. While inferring the existenceofafactfromanother,theCourtisonly applyingaprocessofintelligentreasoningwhich themindofaprudentmanwoulddoundersimilar circumstances. Presumption is not the final conclusion to be drawn from other facts. But it could as well be final if it remains undisturbed later. Presumption in law of evidence is a rule indicatingthestageofshiftingtheburdenofproof. FromacertainfactorfactstheCourtcandrawan inference and that would remain until such inferenceiseitherdisprovedordispelled.Unless the presumption is disproved or dispelled or rebutted the Court can treat the presumption as tantamountingtoproof.Thus,presumptionunder S.20isarebuttablepresumptionanditisrebutted byproofandnotbyexplanationwhichmayseem tobeplausible.

123

Itisarguedonbehalfofaccusedthatbanksnormally

closeat5PMthusthereisnopossibilityofinformingtheGeneral ManagerofBankafter9.15PMandissuingdirectionbyGMtohis subordinatesinwritingtoreachCBIofficeonthenextmorningat5 AMwhichprovesthatTLOisanimpulsiveliarandcangotoany extentwhiletellinglies.InthiscaseFIRwasregisteredat9.30PM on6.6.86.Time9.00PMismentionedonthetopofFIR.Itisalso mentionedintheFIRthatcasewasentrustedtoSh.RKJoshi,Dy.

CCNo.49/04 73/104

SPforinvestigation. TLORKJoshihasdeposedthatrequisition for two independent witnesses was sent to Oriental Bank of Commerce. Relevant portion of his examination in chief isas under:
Atabout9.15pm,Ireceivedacopyofthe FIRandthecomplaint. TheFIRisEx.PW8/A. ThesamebearsthesignaturesofSh.V.N.Dixit,the thenSPatpointA.Itwasdecidedtolayatrapon the next morning. Accordingly, requisition for twoindependentwitnesseswassenttotheOriental BankofCommerce.

124

Dy.RKJoshiwasthebestpersontoexplainthefacts

howthepresenceofthesewitnesseswassecured.Thiswitnesshas beencrossexaminedatlengthhowevernoquestionhasbeenasked inthisregard. 125 PW3Sh.MRAggarwalhasspecificallydeposedinhis

examinationinchiefthathewasdirectedinwritingbyhisseniorto join the investigation in this case. Relevant portion of his examinationinchief,inthisregard,isasunder:
IwasworkingasDy.ChiefManagerin Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place since1cx985.On6.6.86IwasadvisedbyBank's General Manager Planning to associate CBI officials on a secret mission on 7.6.86 at 5.30 AM.AsperadviceIvisitedCBIofficeatabout6 PMon7.6.86andreportedtoDy.Superintended ofPoliceMr.RKJoshi. CCNo.49/04 74/104

126

This witness has been cross examined on behalf of

accused. In his cross examination with regard to receiving of ordershehasdeposedasfollows:


On06.06.86,Ireceivedordersfrommy officetoappearbeforeCBIofficeonnextdayin themorningat5.30a.m.Ihadreceivedthisorder inwriting.NowIdonotrememberwhetherIam inpossessionofthosewrittenordersornotasitis anoldmatter.Ihadnotreturnedthoseordersto anyonei.e.CBI.Iusedtositonthefirstfloorin myofficewhilemyGeneralManagerusedtosit on.thesecondfloor. Otherofficersalsousedto sitonthesecondfloor. I had received order from my department on 6.6.86 with the directions to reachCBIon7.6.86at5.30AM.Accordingly IhadreachedCBIofficeat5.30AMon7.6.86 IwasprovidedvehiclebyCBItoreachCBI officeinthemorningon7.6.86.priortothatI hadnevergonetoCBIoffice.After7.6.86I hadnotgonetoCBIoffice.On7.6.86inthe officeofCBIImetDy.SPMr.Joshiperhaps onthefourthfloorasfarasIremember.

127

PW5 S.T. Mukkawar has also deposed in his

examinationinchiefthaton6.6.86hewasadvisedbyhisGMto associate the CBI officials for a secret office work on 7.6.86. Relevant portionofhisexaminationinchiefinthisregardisas
CCNo.49/04 75/104

under:
In June, 1986 I was working as Law Officer, at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office,NewDelhi.On6.6.1986Iwasadvisedby ourGMtoassociateCBIofficialforsecretofficial workforthenextdatei.e.7.6.86andtoreportCBI officeon7.6.86forthispurpose.Onthenextday i.e.7.6.86IreportedCBIofficeatabout6AM.I hadreportedSh.RKJoshi,Dy.SP,CBIattheCBI officelocatedatCGOComplex,NewDelhi.Some other officials/members of CBI including other personswerealsopresent.

128 asfollows:

Inhiscrossexaminationinthisregard,hehasdeposed

I remained posted in Vigilance Departmentofthebankfrom1984to1998.Iused tovisitCBIofficeduringmypostinginVigilance department of the bank off and on, on the instructionofmyseniorofficer.IusedtovisitCBI office rarely since my posting in the vigilance departmentofbankasIwasaJuniorOfficer. I was given written instruction to join CBI investigation in this case by G.M. but I am not having the same as it is 25 years old matter. I cannotproducethesamenowasitisnottraceable. PriortothiscaseIhadnotmetMrJoshi. On7.6.86IhadgonetoCBIofficemyself.Imet RKJoshiintheCBIofficeonthatday.

129

Noquestionhasbeenputtothesewitnessastohow

andatwhattimetheyhadreceivedthewrittenordersfromtheir

CCNo.49/04 76/104

seniorsforjoiningtheinvestigationinthiscase. 130 Evenotherwiseaccusedhasadmittedthepresenceof

independentwitnessesinthemorningof7.6.86,intheCBIoffice, which is clear from the cross examination of PW3. In cross examinationasuggestionhasbeenputtoPW3MRAggarwalthat on7.6.86heattendedtheCBIofficeongroundfloorwhichisas follows;
Itiswrongtosuggestthat on7.6.86Iattended CBI office on ground floor only. It is wrong to suggestthat thereafterIwasmadetositonthe secondfloor.

131

Inviewofabovediscussion thereisnomeritinthe

argumentofaccusedthatthesewitnessescouldnotbeservedwith thenoticetoappearintheCBIofficeat5.30PMon7.6.86. 132 ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthataccusedhas

beenfalselyimplicatedinthiscaseattheinstanceofMr.SCMalik Advocatewhonurturedsomegrudgeagainsthimandwhowasalso acomplainantincaseCBIVs.DNKadiyan,thethenMM,Delhi. 133 AsuggestionhasbeengiventoPW6ShiromaniKumar

thatMr.YadavadvocatehadtakenAjeshMittalalongwithhimto Dy.SPMr.RKJoshiofCBIwhichisasunder:
CCNo.49/04 77/104

ItiswrongtosuggestthatMr.YadavAdvocate hadtakenAjeshMittalandmyselftoDy.SPMr.R KJoshiofCBI.

134

However, complainant Ajesh Mittal in his cross

examinationonbehalfofaccusedhasdeposedthatSh.SCMalik advocatehadtakenhimtoDy.SPRKJoshi.Relevantportionof hiscrossexaminationisasunder:


It is correct that Sh. S C Malik, the then AdvocatehadtakenmetoDy.SPRKJoshiasI had informed Mr. Malik with regard to the demandofillegalgratificationmadebySh.Gulab Tulsiyani.

135

Independent witnesses M R Aggarwal and S T

Mukkawar were the employees of Oriental Bank of Commerce. PW3MRAggarwalwasthethenworkingasDy.ChiefManagerin OBCasdisclosedbyhiminhisexaminationinchiefwhichisas follows:
IwasworkingasDy.ChiefManagerinOriental Bank of Commerce , Connaught Place since 1985.

136

PW5 S T Mukkawar was the then working as Law

officerinheadofficeofOrientalBankofCommerce,asdisclosed byhiminhisexaminationinchiefwhichisasfollows:
CCNo.49/04 78/104

In June, 1986 I was working as Law Officer, at Oriental Bank of Commerce , Head Office,NewDelhi

137

Theyweredirectedbytheirseniorofficerstojointhe

investigationofCBIinthiscase,hencetheycannotbetermedas witness of the choice ofCBI. Theywere neitherknowingthe complainant nor the accused prior to this case. They have no affinitywiththecomplainantandnoenmitywiththeaccused.Both thesewitnesseshavebeencrossexaminedonbehalfofaccusedat lengthevennotasinglesuggestionhasbeengiventoboththese witnessesthattheywerehavinganysortofenmitywithaccusedor anyillwillagainsthim.Inthesecircumstances,nomotivecanbe imputedtothemtodeposefalselyagainstaccused.

138

Accordingtoaccusedhehasbeenfalselyimplicatedin

thiscasebyCBIattheinstanceofSCMalikadvocate.CBIisthe Prime Investigating Agency of this country. Accused in his statementU/s313CrPChasnotdisclosedastowhatgrudgeMr.S CMalikwashavingagainsthimandwhyhewillgethimfalsely implicated. 139 Sh.RKJoshi,inhiscrossexamination,onbehalfof

accused,hasdeposed,inthisregard,asfollows:

CCNo.49/04 79/104

IdonotrememberifanyAdvocatenamelyShS C Malik had accompanied the complainant and introducedhimtome.AtthispointoftimeIdo notrememberthatwhowasthecomplainantinthe case of Sh D N Kadiyan and whether the complainantofthesaidcaseaccompaniedShSC Malikornot.Idonotremembertheproceedings completedbymeinthecaseofShDNKadiyan.I donotrememberifanybedsheetwasrecovered inthecaseofShDNKadiyanoranywashthereof was taken. It is incorrect that no demand was there as per the conversation recorded by the complainant in this case. It is incorrect that accused had never accepted any money from complainant.Itisincorrectthatnorecoverywas affected from the accused . It is incorrect to suggest that I had foisted a false case upon the accusedatthebehestofShSCMalikAdocate.

140

FromtheabovequotedcrossexaminationofTLORK

Joshi,itisclearthathehasdeniedhisacquaintancewithSh.SC MalikAdvocate. 141 AccusedhasnotexplainedastowhatinfluenceMr.S

C Malik was having on CBI. Accused has not produced any evidence to show as to how Mr. SC Malik, advocate was in a position to influence CBI to falsely implicate him in this case. AjeshMittalcomplainantinthiscasewasapersonrunningasmall factory who was challaned by a Factory Inspector of MCD and facingdifficultyevengettingthatchallandisposedoffromcourt.In
CCNo.49/04 80/104

suchcircumstanceshowcanhebeinthepositiontoinfluencethe CBI.Inanymannerheisnotsuchapersonalitysoastoinfluencea primeinvestigatingagencylikeCBI.Thereisnoreasontobelieve thatCBIwouldfalselyimplicatetheaccusedeitherattheinstance ofSCMalik,Advocateorcomplainant.

142

TLODy.SPRKJoshiwasalsothethen a public

servants unknown to accused and complainant, accused has not disclosedanyreasonwhyhewilldeposefalselyagainsthim.He wasnotaloneinthetrapteam.ThereweremanyotherCBIofficers inthetrapteamwhowerealsopublicservant.AlltheCBIofficers were unknown to complainant as well as accused. There is no reasonwhytheTLOandothertrapteammemberswhowerealso public servants will falsely implicate accused who is a Judicial Officerinthiscase. Noenmity/illwill hasbeenallegedagainst theTLOevenbyaccused,thereforehewashavingnomotiveto falselyimplicatetheaccusedinthiscase. Inthesecircumstances theargumentthat accusedwasfalselyimplicated,attheinstance ofSCMalikdoesnotappealeventocommonsense.

143

ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatPW1Durga

CCNo.49/04 81/104

ParsadhasdeposedinhiscrossexaminationthatIOhadthreatened himthathewouldimplicatehim(PW1)incasehe(PW1)wouldnot deposeaspertheversiongivenbyhim(IO). 144 DurgaPrasadhasgiventheallegedversionatthetime

ofrecordingofhisstatementU/s161CrPCduringtheinvestigation ofthiscase.DurgaPrasadhasappearedasPW1inthiscourt.He haspartlysupportedthecaseofprosecutionanddeclaredhostileon therequestofLd.Sr.PPforCBI,thusitisclearthatinspiteofthe allegedthreatgivenbytheIOithasnoeffectonthemindofPW1 Durga Prasad that is why he has not supported the case of prosecutionintoto,thusthereisnomeritinthisargumentthatthis witnesswasunderthethreatofprosecution. 145 Ld.DefenceCounselarguedthatasperstatementof

PW5STMukkawarhewasdirectedtoactasashadowwitnessand toremainalongthecomplainantasnearaspossibletowitnessthe transactionofcomplainantbuthewassittinginthecomplainant's carwhichwasparkedatsomedistancefromthehouseofaccused. AccordingtothecaseofprosecutionaswellasaccordingtoTLO ShrimoniKumarwasdirectedtoactasashadowwitnessandto remainclosewiththecomplainantasfaraspossible.Itiscorrect that TLO in his examination in chief has stated that PW5 S T

CCNo.49/04 82/104

Mukkawarwasdirectedtoactasashadowwitnessbutheremained sitting in the car outside the house of accused while Shiromani Kumarhadaccompaniedthecomplainantinthehouseofaccused. Fromtheabovediscussionitisclearthatthereisnoinfirmityinthe depositionofShiromaniKumarmadeinthiscourtonoath.Inthese circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecutiononthiscount. 146 Itisarguedby Ld.DefenceCounsel thatPws3,5,6

and8aretellinglieswithregardtotheamountallowedtobekept bytheTLOatthetimeofleavingtheCBIofficeforthespot.In thisregard Ld.DefenceCounsel hasreferredthepersonalsearch memo, after thetrap. AccordingtoTLOasumofRs.84/was foundonthepersonofShiromaniKumarandRs.50/werefound withthecomplainant.Ithascomeintheevidencethatduringthe wayfromtheCBIofficetothehouseofaccusedtrappartyhad stoppedatapetrolpump.Complainanthadtakenpetrol.Theyhad alsotakentea/snacks.Inthesecircumstancestheymusthavespent someamountwhichmaynotbecorrectlyaccountedfor. Inany caseitisnotsuchacontradictionwhichisaffectingthemeritofthe casei.e.withregardtodemand,acceptanceandrecoveryoftainted moneyfromtheaccused.

CCNo.49/04 83/104

147

Accordingtoaccusedhehadnotgoneinhischamber

afterfinishinghiscourtworkon6.6.86.PW1Sh.DurgaPrasad, whowasthethenworkingasReadercumAhlmadintheCourtof accusedGulabTulsiyanihasspecificallydeposedthataccusedafter finishinghisworkon6.6.86hadgonetohischamber. Relevant portionofhisstatementinthisregardisasunder:


ThereafterLd.POhadgivenme56morefilesto writetheordersheets.Aftergivingmeabovesaid directionLd.POhadleftthecourtandwenttohis retiringroom.......... .......On6.6.86PresidingOfficerhadleft his retiringroomaftergivingmedirectiontorecord orderonhisbehalfontheordersheetdt.6.6.86, forChildrenCourt. Mr.Tulsianihadnotsigned theordersheeton6.6.86ashehadleft.

148

This witness has been cross examined on behalf of

accusedatlengthbutnotevenasuggestionhasbeengiventothis witnessthaton6.6.86accusedhadnotgonetohischamber. In thesecircumstancesthereisnoreasontodisbelievethisversionof PW1 that accused Gulab Tulsiyani had gone to his chamber on 6.6.86afterfinishinghiscourtwork.Nocrossexaminationona substantivepointamountstoadmissionofthesame. 149 ItisarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselthatcomplainant

AjeshMittalisabadcharacterwhoisinvolvedincriminalcases.
CCNo.49/04 84/104

Inthisregard, Ld.DefenceCounsel haspointedout23criminal cases which are of the year 1987 or thereafter. This case was registeredon6.6.86. Ld.DefenceCounsel couldnotpointedout that in the year 1986 accused was facing any criminal case or convictedinanycriminalcase.Thus,itisclearthattillthedateof this trap complainant was not involved in any criminal activity. Even otherwise, statement of a witness cannot be disbelieved merelybecauseheisinvolvedinanycriminalcaseuntilandunless his evidence is having some material or substantive infirmity, hencenoadverseinferencecanbedrawnagainstthecomplainant. 150 Ld.DefenceCounselarguedthatonlyRs,.650/were

recoveredinthepersonalsearch/housesearchofaccused.Nothing wasfoundinhislockerinspiteofthefactthathewasworkingas Magistrate for last 15 years which certifies his innocence. No adverseinferencecanbedrawnagainsttheprosecutiononlyonthis countwhenthereissubstantiveevidenceonthejudicialfilethathe haddemandedillegalgratificationandwascaughtredhandedwhile acceptingillegalgratificationwhichwasalsorecoveredfromhis conscious possession. It is correct that according to prosecution nothingwasfoundinhislocker.Ifaccusedwashavingnothingto keepinthelockerwhyhewasmaintainingthelocker?Itinitself

CCNo.49/04 85/104

raisesdoubt. 151 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there are many

additions,alterations,cuttingsandoverwritinginrecoverymemo Ex.PW3/B.IhavecarefullygonethroughtherecoverymemoEx PW3/B. Itiscorrectthattherearecutting,overwritingandsome additionsinit.Everycutting,overwritingandadditionsitselfdoes notmeanalterationormanipulationinsuchdocuments.Acopyof ExPW3/Bwasgiventoaccusedonthespotwhichhehasreceived videhisendorsementatpointNunderhissignaturemadebyhimin hisownhandwriting. Accusedcouldhaveproducedthecopyof thisdocumentgiventohimforcomparingwithExPW3/Btoprove anysuchmanipulationinthisdocumentbutforthereasonsbest known to him, he has notproducedthecopy ofthisdocument giventohimonthespot.Anysubsequentaddition,alterationmade inthisdocumentcanbeverifiedaftercomparingitwiththecopy giventohimonthespot.WitnessesaswellasTLOhavestatedthat they have signed these additions on the spot itself. They have denied tampering of document. Relevant portion of PW5 S T Mukkawarinthisregard,isasunder:
IdonotrecollectastowhenIhadputmyinitialat pointXonExPW3/A.ItisincorrecttosuggestthatIwas notpresentinthehouseofaccused.Itisalsoincorrectto suggestthatIhadsignedthedocumentsunderinstructions CCNo.49/04 86/104

ofMrRKJoshi.ItisalsoincorrecttosuggestthatIhad deposedfalselyunderthethreatofdepartmentalaction.

152

Relevant portion of PW3 M R Aggarwal in this

regard,isasunder:
Therecoverymemowaspreparedatthe spot but I cannot say whether any addition or alteration were made on it. It is correct that portionXtoXananadditionbutitwasmadeat thattimeonly.Itiscorrectthatthereislessgapin writinginportionYtoY,XtoXandAtoAin Ex.PW3/D.

153

This witness has further deposed in his cross

examinationasfollows:
Itisalsoincorrect tosuggestthat norecoverymemowaspreparedinmypresence.It isalsoincorrecttosuggestthatmysignatureswere obtainedonthememolateron.

154

Relevant portion of PW6 Shiromani Kumar in this

regard,isasunder:
ItiscorrectthatportionmarkXtoXwas addedlateronandIhadsignedthesameagainat the same time. It is incorrect to suggest that portionXtoXwasaddedlateroninExPW3/B.

155

Inviewofabovediscussionthereisnomeritinthe

argumentthatrecoverymemoExPW3/Bwastamperedwith.
CCNo.49/04 87/104

156

It is argued that investigation in this case is not

conductedproperlyhencethesameisbad. Defencecannottake advantageofbadinvestigationwherethereisevidenceavailable on the record against the accused. In this regard Hon'ble SupremeCourtinalatestjudgmenttitledZindarAliVs.Stateof WestBengal&Anr.,2009IIIAD(SC)7heldasfollows:
IndianPenal Code,1860Secs.376and417 Immediatedisclosureofrapebytheprosecutrix VersionofprosecutrixunchallengedAdmission by the accused in village panchayat Medical evidencealsoanotherproofAccusedbehindbar forfiveyearsSCheld Defencecannottake advantageofbad investigation where there is clinching evidence available to the Prosecution.

157

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Vs. State of

Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 382 has held that that defective investigationwouldnotleadtototalrejectionofprosecutioncase.

158

Hon'bleSupremeCourtinStateofMPVsManSingh

(2007)2SCC390inthisregardhasheldasfollows:
CriminalTrialInvestigationDeficiencies ininvestigationEffectHeld,cannotbeagroundto discardtheprosecutionversionwhichisauthentic, credible and cogent Criminal Procedure Code, CCNo.49/04 88/104

1973S.157.

159

InKarnailSinghVs.StateofMP1995SCC977ithas

been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of defective investigationitwouldnotbeproperto acquittheaccusedifthe caseisotherwiseestablishedconclusivelybecauseinthateventit would tantamount to be falling in the hands of an erring InvestigatingOfficer. 160 Consideringthecasefromall theangles thereisno

meritintheseargumentofLd.Defencecounsel. 161 Ld.DefenceCounselarguedthatwheretwoviewsare

possibleviewfavorabletoaccusedistobetaken.Hon'bleSupreme Court in a latest authority Dr. Subramanium Swami Vs. Dr. ManmohanSingh,JT2012a(2)SC203,inthisregard,inparano. 45hasheldasfollows:
Today, corruption in our court not only posses a grave danger to the concept of constitutionalgovernance,italsothreatensthevery foundationofIndianDemocracyandtheRuleof Law. TheMagnitudeofcorruptioninourpublic lifeisincompatiblewiththeconceptofsocialist, seculardemocraticrepublic.Itcannotbedisputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes developments and undermines justice, liberty, equality,fraternitywhicharethecorevaluesinour CCNo.49/04 89/104

preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the courtisthatanyanticorruptionlawhastobe interpretedandworkedoutinsuchafasionas tostrengthenthefightagainstcorruption.That istosayinasituationwheretwoconstructions are eminently reasonable the Court has to accepttheonethatseekstoeradicatecorruption toonewhichseekstoperpetuateit.

162

IhavegonethroughtheauthoritiesrelieduponbyLd.

DefenceCounselinsupportofhisarguments.PKGuptaVs.CBI 2011(4)JCC2352,SureshKr.SrivastavaVs.StateofMP1994 Crl.LJ3738,ASubbairVs.StateofKeralaV2009SLT272,itis held that mere recovery of tainted money from accused is not sufficienttoholdhimguiltyfortheoffencepunishableU/s161IPC andSection5(2)r/w5(1)(d)ofPCAct,1947.

163

InSitaRamVs.StateofRajasthan1975,CR.LJ1244

itisheldbyHon'bleSupremeCourtthat:
That when demand of bribe by accused fromthecomplainantnotprovedandprosecution failed to establish its version beyondreasonable doubtspresumptionU/s4(1)cannotbedrawnfor convictingtheaccused.

164

InGVNanjundiahVs.State(DelhiAdministration)

AIR 1987 Supreme Court2402,ithasbeenheldthat factumof


CCNo.49/04 90/104

acceptanceofbribewasnotproperlyestablishedbecausetestimony of complainant was not found trustworthy, hence accused was acquitted. 165 There is no disputewiththeprepositionoflawlaid

downintheseauthoritieshowevereverycasehasitsownfactsand circumstances.Ratiooflawlaiddowninacaseaccordingtothe peculiarfactsandcircumstancesofthatparticularcase.Itistobe appliedinthesimilarfactsandcircumstancesonly.Asdiscussed above facts and circumstances of the present case are entirely differentfromthefactsandcircumstancesoftheseauthorities.In the present case initial demand of illegal gratification made by accusedandthereafterdemandofillegalgratificationmadeonthe spotatthetimeoftrapiswellproved. Voluntaryacceptanceof tainted money by accused at the time of trap is also proved. Recovery of tainted money from the conscious possession of accusedisalsoprovedasdiscussedabove,thustheratiooflawlaid down in these authorities is not applicable to the facts and circumstancesofthepresentcase. 166 InMCDVs.GangaRamDLTVol.II,P6,1967ithas

been held that for seizing sample witness of same locality is necessary.

CCNo.49/04 91/104

167

InKharaitiLalVs.ThestateDLTVol.I,page362,

1965ithasbeenheldthatinordertoavoidcriticismpolicewhile arrangingaraidshouldalwaysmadeanearnestefforttoassociate withthemoutsidershavingsomestatueinlife. 168 InthisauthorityHon'bleHighCourthasdirectedthe

trialcourtforlookingsomecorroborativeevidenceofindependent characterbeforerelyingonthestatementsofthemembersofthe raidparty.Inthiscasecourthasalreadyvisualisedtheevidenceof independent character like complaint submitted by complainant AjeshMittal,transcriptionoftaperecordedconversation,handing overmemoandrecoverymemoalongwithCFSLreportwhichare supportedbythewitnessesintheiroraltestimony. Insuchway direction of High Court is a rather ethical which every court normallyadheredtometiculouslywhileanalysingtheevidence. 169 Presentcaseisatrapcase.Inatrapcasemaintaining

ofsecrecyisthebasicelement.Aspernormalpracticewitnesses are arranged to associate with the investigation where the information of crime is received afresh. In this case when complainant submitted his complaint to CBI, for the purpose of verificationandlayingatraptherewasimmediateandurgentneed ofwitnesseswhichwasarrangedthroughtheircontrollingofficers

CCNo.49/04 92/104

evenforassociatingwiththepreparationofHandingOverMemo and prior to it emerging with recording conversation. In these circumstancesassociatingofwitnessesfromthelocalityofaccused was not practically feasible. In the case in hand investigating agencyhadtakentheservicesoftwoseniorbankofficerswhowere notevenchoiceoftheCBIbutdeputedbytheircontrollingofficers, thusnodoubtcanberaisedontheirintegrityandcredibility,hence not calling of witnesses from localityisnot fatal tothecase of prosecution.

170

In Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra

AIR1979SupremeCourt1191,ithasbeenheldthatcomplainantis nobetterpositionthanaccompliceafterintroductionofS.165A. Itisarguedthatinthesecircumstancesnoreliancecanbeplacedon theevidenceofcomplainant. 171 AccordingtoSection8ofPCAct,1947astatement

madebyapersoninanyproceedingagainstapublicservantthathe offered or agreed to offer any gratification, (other than legal remuneration)oranyvaluablethingtothepublicservant,shallnot subjectsuchpersontoaprosecution,hencehecannotbetreatedat parwithaccomplice.

CCNo.49/04 93/104

172

Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinStateVs. PKJain

2007Crl.LJ4137withregardtoevidenceofcomplainanthasheld asfollows:
PreventionofCorruptionAct(49of1988), S. 5 (2) Bribe Demand and acceptance EvidenceofcomplainantandhissonRejectedby SpecialJudgeongroundthattheirstatuswasthat of accomplice and they are interested witness erroneous. An accomplice is a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence., meaning thereby a partner in the crime and associate in the crime. When the witness sustainssucharelationtothecriminalactthat hecouldbejointlyinductedwiththeaccused, he is an accomplice. The observations of SpecialJudgebrandishingtheComplainantin a trap case as accomplice amounts to discrediting the criminal justice system itself and portrays that the criminal justice system cannot respect the witnesses. Similarly, the observationofthetrialcourtthatcomplainantand his son are interested witnesses and not trustworthy, is unfortunate. In a case of a legitimatetrap,thepersonandpoliceofficials takingpartintrap,innosensecanbesaidtobe accompliceoruncreditworthywitnessessothat their evidence would require underlaw tobe corroboratedbyindependentwitness.Therule ofcorroborationisnotaruleoflaw.Itisonly aruleofprudenceandthesolepurposeofthis rule is to see that innocent persons are not unnecessarilymadevictim.Therulecannotbe CCNo.49/04 94/104

allowedtobeashieldforcorrupt. Moreover, the corroboration need not be by direct oral evidenceandcanbegatheredfromcircumstantial evidence. The sole evidence of complainant is sufficient to convict a person, if it is reliable, acceptable and trustworthy. The witness who reported the demand of bribe so as to trap the culpritscannotbeconsideredasanaccompliceor non trustworthy or interested witness. The necessity for court to search for independent witnessincaseofchargesforcorruptioncannotbe insisted upon. Such crimes are committed in secrecyandnormallybribearenottakenopenly. Theabsenceofindependentwitnessestosupport theversionoftheComplainantcannotbeaground toacquittheaccused.

173

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Prakash Vs.State of

DelhiAIR1974SC989withregardtocredibilityofatrapwitness andnecessityofitscorroborationhasheldasfollows:
EvidenceAct(1of1872),s.133bribery casetrapwitnessCredibilityCorroboration Necessityof BriefNote: (b)Thedemandingdecreeofproof traditionally required in a criminal case and the devaluationsufferedbyawitnesswhoisnaturally involvedinthefruitsofhisinvestigativeefforts, suggest the legitimate search for corroboration from an independent or unfaltering source human or circumstantial to make judicial certitudedoublysure.Notthatthisapproachcasts anyprerogativereflectiononthepoliceofficer's integrity, but that the hazard of holding a man guiltyoninterested,evenifhonest,evidencemay impairconfidenceinthesystemofjustice.Today, CCNo.49/04 95/104

trust begets trust and the higher officers of the Indian Police, especially in the Special Police Establishment,deservebettercredence. Intheinstantcaseoralevidenceofthebribe giver coupled with that of other trap witness a gazettedofficerinanotherdepartmentitselfproved the passing of money to the accused and its productionbyhimwhenchallengedbythepolice official. No mortal attack on the integrity or probabilityofthetestimonyoftrapwitnesses none that will warrant the subversion of the conclusion reached by the courts below has beensuccessfullymade.

174

InStateofUPVs.ZakullahAIR1998SupremeCourt

1474ithasbeenheldthat:
Prevention of Corruption Act (21 of 1947), S.5 (2) Bribery Proof Delinquent official caught red handed in trap laid by trap officerComplainant'sevidencecorroboratedby evidence of trap officer Complainant's evidencecannotberejectedmerelybecausehe wasaggrievedagainstthebribetakerFactthat trapofficersuccessfullytrappeddelinquentisno ground to conclude his animosity against the delinquent Order of High Court acquitting delinquent on patently wrong and tenuous considerationsnotpropersetaside.

175

Itisarguedthatitisacriminalcase.Inacriminal

caseburdenofproofisveryheavyontheprosecutionforthe convictionofaccused.Prosecutionhastoproveitscasebeyond
CCNo.49/04 96/104

reasonabledoubts.Thereisnodisputewiththisprepositionof law 176 Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of

probabilityofitshavingexisted.thestandardrequiredforreaching thesuppositionisthatofaprudentmanactinginanyimportant matter concerning him. Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible, it must meansuchevidenceaswouldinduceareasonablemantocometoa particular conclusion. Thesaid observation has stoodthe test of timeandcannowbefollowedasthestandardofproof.Inreaching theconclusion the court canusetheprocessofinferencestobe drawnfromfactsproducedorproved.Suchinferencesareakinto presumptionsinlaw.LawgivesabsolutediscretiontotheCourtto presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. InthatprocesstheCourtmayhaveregardtocommon courseofnaturalevents,humanconduct,publicorprivatebusiness visavisthefactsoftheparticularcase. 177 Hon'bleSupremeCourtinInderSinghVsState(Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1091 has held as follows:
Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial dependsconsiderably onajudicial CCNo.49/04 97/104

evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. Whileitisnecessarythatproofbeyondreasonable doubtshouldbeadducedinallcriminalcases,itis notnecessarythatitshouldbeperfect,Ifacaseis proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable becausehumanbeingsarepronetoerr,itisargued thatitistooimperfect. Onewonderswhetherin themeticuloushypersensitivitytoeliminatearare innocent from being punished, many guilty men mustbecallouslyallowedtoescape.Proofbeyond reasonabledoubtisaguideline,notafetishand guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentationoffoolproofconcoction.Whyfake up? BecausetheCourtasksformanufacture to maketruthlooktrue?No,wemustberealistic.

178 Hon'bleSupremeCourtinKrishnaMochi&Orsvs StateofBihar(2002)6SupremeCourtCases81hasheldas follows:


Itisamatterofcommonexperiencethat inrecenttimestherehasbeenasharpdeclineof ethical values in public life even in developed countries muchlessadevelopingone,likeours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to deposeortheirevidenceisnotfoundtobecredible bycourtsformanifoldreasons.Oneofthereasons maybethattheydonothavecouragetodeposed againstanaccusedbecauseofthreatstotheirlife, moresowhentheoffendersarehabitualcriminals CCNo.49/04 98/104

or high ups in the Government or to close to powers,whichmaybepolitical,economicorother powersincludingmusclepower. Thus, in a criminaltrialaProsecutorisfacedwithsomany odds. The court while appreciating the evidence shouldnotlosesightoftheserealitiesoflifeand cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sittinginanivorytower.Ifindthatinrecenttime the tendency to acquit an accused easily is gallopingfast.Itisveryeasytopassanorderof acquittalonthebasisofminorpointsraisedinthe case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstickofdisposal.Somediscrepancyisbound tobethereineachandeverycasewhichshould not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles,thecourtshouldtreaduponit,butifthe sameareboulders,thecourtshouldnotmakean attempttojumpoverthesame.Thesedayswhen when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts havebecomemuchmore. NowthemaximLet hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted is, in practice, changing the world over and Courts have been compelled to accept that society suffers by wrongconvictionsandisequallysuffersbywrong acquittals. IfindthatthisCourtinrecenttimes has conscientiously taken notice of these facts fromtimetotime.

179 Hon'bleSupremeCourtinStateofU.PVsAnilSingh hasobservedasfollows:


It is also our experience that invariably the CCNo.49/04 99/104

witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps forthefearofbeingdisbelieved.Butthatisnogroundto throwthecaseoverboard,iftrue,inthemain.Ifthereisa ringoftruthinthemain,thecaseshouldnotberejected.It isthedutyoftheCourttoculloutthenuggetsoftruth fromtheevidenceunlessthereisreasontobelievethatthe inconsistencies orfalsehoodaresoglaring asutterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to rememberthataJudgedoesnotpresideoveracriminal trialmerelytoseethatnoinnocentmanispunished.A Judge also preside to see that a guilty man does not escape.Oneisasimportantastheother.Butarepublic dutieswhichthejudgehastoperform.

180

InthecaseofStateofW.B.VsOrilalJaswalitwas

heldthatjusticecannotbemadesterileonthepleathatitisbetterto let a hundred guilty escapethanpunishaninnocent.Lettingthe guiltyescapeisnotdoingjustice,accordingtolaw.Inthecaseof MohanSinghVsStateofM.PitwasheldthatCourtshavebeen removing chaff from thegrain. It has todisperse the suspicious cloudanddustoutthesmearofdustasallthesethingsclogthevery truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothedwiththeprotectivelayertoreceivethebenefitofdoubt.So itisasolemndutyoftheCourts,nottomerelyconcludeandleave thecasethemomentsuspiciousarecreated.Itistheonerousdutyof theCourt,withinpermissiblelimittofindoutthetruth.Itmeans, ononehandnoinnocentmanshouldbepunishedbutontheother
CCNo.49/04 100/104

handtoseenopersoncommittinganoffenceshouldbegetscot free.Ifinspiteofsucheffortsuspicionisnotdissolved,itremains writatlarge,benefitofdoubthastobecreditedtotheaccused.

181

Prevention of Corruption Act is a social legislation

enactedwiththeobjecttocurbillegalactivitiesofpublicservants, in these circumstances according to the law of interpretation of Statute, its provision should be interpreted so as to achieve its object.OurHon'bleSupremeCourtinRamSinghVs.StateofMP (2000)5SupremeCourtCases88hasheldasfollows:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Nature and interpretation of Held is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servantandshouldbeliberallyconstruedsoasto advanceitsobjectandnotliberallyinfavourofthe accused interpretation of Statutes Particular statutes or provisions Penal statute Social LegislationInterpretationof.

182

Thepostofjudicialofficer is averysensitivepost,

wheredecentbehaviour,honestapproachtowardspracticaldealings isexpectedirrespectiveofthefactwhetherheisfunctioningina court or attending his daily routine at home. Society has deep rootedfaithinfairdealings withregardtoworkingofajudicial

CCNo.49/04 101/104

officer,justiceinwidesenseisconsideredaspiousactfreefrom unblemishedstigmaandnopersoncanbeexpectedtobeovertact feeling superior to normal human being. In the case in hand entertaining the complainant who was accusedina challan case pendinginthecourtofaccused,athishome,assuchhisactof entertaining with complainant raises a big question against the decorum of judicial officer rather all these circumstances taken togethersupportstheprosecutionversion.

183

Hon'bleSupremeCourtinStateofPunjabVs.Pohla

Singh,2003(3)CCC75hasheldasfollows: Appreciation of evidence The prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical question raised by the defenceIfcrimeistobepunishedinaglossemewayniceties mustyieldtorealisticappraisal.

184

IncaseU/S13(1)(d)ofPCAct1988prosecutionhas

toprovethat:

i) Thataccusedshouldbeapublicservant. ii) That he should used some corrupt or illegal means or otherwiseabusedhispositionasapublicservant,
CCNo.49/04 102/104

iii)Thattheaccusedshouldhavetherebyobtainedavaluable thingorpecuniaryadvantage. iv)Suchbenefitforhimselforforanyotherperson.

185

InStaterepresentedbyInspectorofPolice,Pudukottal,

T.N.v.AParthiban[(2006)11SCC473]Hon'bleSupremeCourt has held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether precededbyademandornot,wouldbecoveredbySection7ofthe Act.But,iftheacceptanceofanillegalgratificationisinpursuance ofademandbythepublicservantthenitwouldalsofallunder Section13(1)(d)oftheP.C.Act.

186

Inviewofabovediscussionitiswellprovedfromthe

evidenceproducedbytheprosecutionthataccusedGulabTulsiyani whowasthenworkingasMetropolitanMagistrateatPatialaHouse Court, asapublicservant,haddemandedillegalgratificationfor disposaloffactorychallancaseNo.1244/CH/86andobtainedRs. 2,000/fromcomplainantAjeshMittalbycorruptorillegalmeans whichwasrecoveredfromhisconsciouspossession,thusaccused hasabusedhisofficialposition.Inthesecircumstancesthiscourtis ofopinionthatprosecutionhasproveditscasebeyondreasonable

CCNo.49/04 103/104

doubts against accused, hence I hold accused Gulab Tulsiyani guiltyfortheoffencespunishableU/s161IPCandU/s5(2)r/w5 (1(d)ofPCAct,1947.

ANNOUNCEDINOPENCOURT(VKMAHESHWARI) TODAYOn25.4.2012 SPECIALJUDGE;DELHI

CCNo.49/04 104/104

INTHECOURTOFV.K.MAHESHWARISPECIAL JUDGE:(PCAct)03CBI)DELHI CorruptionCaseNo.49/2004

CBI

Vs.

GulabTulsyani,MMPatiala House,NewDelhi,r/oC75 DoubleStorey,RameshNagar,N Delhi.

R.CNo.

40(A)/86/CBI/ACB/N.D

ORDERONSENTENCE: Videmyseparate judgmentdated25.4.2012 accused wasconvictedfortheoffencepunishableU/s161IPCandU/s5 (2)r/w5(1(d)ofPCAct,1947. Argumentsonsentenceheard. It is argued on behalf ofconvictthatheis74yearsofage.Heisnotapreviousconvict. Hehasundergonesurgery45timesforbrainhemorrhageandstill goingmedicaltreatment. Hehasfacedtheprolongedtrial since 1986.Hehaslosthissoninanaccidentintheyear1990.Hiswifeis alsoaheartpatientandhasundergonebyepasssurgery,thereisno onetolookafterherexceptthedeponent.Itisarguedthatinthese
CCNo.49/04 105/104

circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him. He has placedreliancethefollowingauthorities: RajeshKumarVsState2004(1)JCC322 DSrinivasanVsDelhiSpecialPoliceEstetc1993Cri.LJ 54. Barindra Ram Khaund Vs CBI 2008 Crl L J (NOC) 536(GAU.) It is argued on behalf of CBI by Ld Senior PP Sh BrajeshShukla thatconvictisinvolvedinaseriouscorruption casewhowasthenworkingasMetropolitanMagistrateatPatiala HouseCourt,asapublicservant,haddemandedillegalgratification fordisposaloffactorychallancaseNo.1244/CH/86 andobtained Rs. 2,000/ from complainant Ajesh Mittal by corrupt or illegal means which was recoveredfromhisconsciouspossession,thus accusedhasabusedhisofficialposition.Keepinginviewdeterrent theoryofpunishmentheshouldbeawardedseverepunishmentand heavyfinemayalsobeimposedonhim,sothatsocietymaytake lession. It isfurthersubmittedbyLdSeniorPPthat incriminal appealNo.299of1997,titledStateofRajasthanVsDhoolSingh, Hon'bleSupremeCourt,onDecember18th,2003hasheldthatthe Courtsshouldbearinmindthatthereisarequirementinlaw

CCNo.49/04 106/104

that every conviction should be followed by an appropriate sentencewithintheperiodstipulatedinlaw.Discretioninthis regardisnotabsoluteorwhimsical.Itiscontrolledbylawand tosomeextentbyjudicialdiscretionapplicabletothefactsof thecase.Therefore,thereisneedfortheCourtstoapplyits mind,whileimposingsentence,astowhyitshouldbelessthen maximumsentenceprescribedunderlaw.Convictbeawarded consecutivesentence. Thiscourthascarefullyconsideredallthearguments addressedonbehalfofboththepartiesandhavegonethroughthe record.Inthiscase,convictGulabTulsiyaniwhowasworkingas MetropolitanMagistrateatPatialaHouseCourt,asapublicservant, haddemandedillegalgratificationfordisposaloffactorychallan case and obtained Rs. 2,000/fromcomplainant bycorruptor illegalmeanswhichwasrecoveredfromhisconsciouspossession, thushasabusedhisofficialposition. Ihavealsogonethroughtheauthoritiesrelieduponby LdDefencecounselinsupportofhisargument. In Rajesh Kumar Vs State, 2004 (1) JCC 322 , the

HighCourtofDelhihasobservedasfollows: Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 Sec.


CCNo.49/04 107/104

16(1)(1A)r/wSec.7ConvictionunderQuestionofsentence Although minimum sentence is prescribed under the Act A sentencebelowtheminimumprescribedcanalsobepassedinthe factsandcircumstancesofacasePetitionerhasalreadysuffered therigorsoftrialfornearly13yearsandhasalreadyundergone imprisonmentfornearlytwomonthsNotaprevious convict Sentenceofimprisonmentofthepetitionerreducedtotheperiod alreadyundergone.

InDSrinivasanVsDelhiSpecialPoliceEstetc1993 Cri.LJ54,Hon'bleSupremeCourthasobservedasfollows: Prevention of Corruption Act ( 1947), S. 5(2) SentenceOccurrencetookplacenearly23yearsbeforeOneof the accused died Accused also lost their jobs Having large familydependentuponhimAccusedwereinjailforsometime Sentencealreadyreducedtoundergone.

InBarindraRamKhaundVsCBI2008CrlLJ(NOC) 536(GAU.),ithasbeenobservedasfollows: PreventionofCorruptionAct(49of1988).S.13(2) Criminal misconductbyapublicservantSentencePetitioner

CCNo.49/04 108/104

allegedtohavemisappropriatedamountadvancedtohimtomeet officeexpensesConsideringfactofdismissalofpetitionerfrom serviceandhisageHighCourtreducedsentencefromoneyear tosixmonththoughnotprovidedintheActandamountoffineand defaultprovisiondirectedtoremainunchanged. Judicialofficeisanofficeofpublictrustthereforehigh integrity, honesty, ethical firmness is the requirement of society fromtheJudge. AJudge'sconductisexpectedtobejudgedby higherstandardthenthestandardexpectedfromanyotherpublic servant.Theconfidenceinjudiciaryisgettingshattereddaybyday. Todayjudiciaryissufferingfromselfinflictedwounds.Judiciary musttakeutmost caretoseethatthetempleofjusticedoesnot crackfrominsidewhichwillleadtoacatastropheinthejustice deliverysystemresultinginthefailureofthepublicconfidencein thesystem.Tokeepthestreamofjusticecleanandpurethejudge mustbeendowedwithsterlingcharacter,unimpeachableintegrity anduprightbehavior.Woodpackersinsideposealargerthreatthen thestormoutside. Consideringthefactthatconvictis74yearsofage,has alreadyundergonesurgery45timesforbrainhemorrhage,facing trialsince1986,hissonhasexpired,hiswifehasalsoundergone

CCNo.49/04 109/104

byepasssurgeryandthereisnoneinthefamilytolookafterher exceptherhusband,andtheauthoritiesrelieduponbyLdDefence counsel in support of his arguments, convict is sentenced to undergo three years RI alongwithafine of Rs.25,000/ (Rs. TwentyFiveThousand)IDthree monthsSI U/S161andto undergothreeyearsRIalongwithafineofRs.25,000/(Rs.Twenty Fivethousand)IDthreemonthsSIU/S5(2)R/wSection5(1) (d)ofPCAct1947. Boththesentenceswillrunconcurrently. BenefitofSection428CrPCbealsogiventoaccused. Acopyofjudgmentandthisorderonsentencebe giventoconvictfreeofcost.FilebeconsignedtoRR.

ANNOUNCEDINOPENCOURT (VKMAHESHWARI) TODAYON28stApril.2012SPECIALJUDGE:DELHI

CCNo.49/04 110/104

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi