Misconduct and code violation by advocate r venkataraman
mala
(Querist) 01 February 2014
This query is : Resolved
The above named lawyer code violation is being admitted and findings of the trial court in a criminal case the entire judgement is placed below by mentioning the enrolment no. of this advocate herebelow . Since an appeal is pending before the High Court I am not disclosing the names of convicted persons.
IN THE COURT OF DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI 01,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 06/12
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0287222010
CBI Vs. 1. C. Perumal
2. K.M. Singh
3.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 8 of 7
RC No. : 9(A)/2009
u/Ss : 120(B) IPC r/w 7,8,13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988
and substantive offence u/S 7, 8 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.
Date of Institution : 01.09.2010
Received by transfer on : 22.03.2012
Arguments Concluded on :25.11.2013
Date of Decision : 30.11.2013
COPY
1.0 Facts in brief as stated in the chargesheet are that Dr. Kunal Saha (NRI), Professor & Specialist in HIV AIDS, in the Deptt. Of Infectious Disease, Columbus State College in Columbus Ohio (USA) filed a complaint dated 09.02.2009, Ex.PW2/A, stating therein that in 1998, his wife Mrs. Anuradha Saha died due to medical negligence on part of several doctors in Calcutta. Aggrieved of this, Dr. Saha filed a criminal case against the doctors which resulted into conviction of the said doctors in the year 2002, by the trial court. In the appeal filed by the convicted persons, Hon'ble High court of Calcutta set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the said persons.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 9 of 7
In the year 2004, Dr. Saha moved to Hon'ble Supreme Court and filed SLP.
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant the SLP and converted the same into a criminal appeal No.1191 of 2005. Dr. Kunal Saha was disturbed over non listing of his appeal for final hearing and therefore, came to India on 29.01.2009 and threatened to sit on hunger strike. The complainant alleged that his Advocate Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) informed that one Sh. A3A3, Asstt. and C. Perumal, staff of Supreme court registry have asked that Criminal Appeal No.1191 of 2005 can be listed for final hearing in Supreme Court, if a bribe of Rs.75,000/ is paid to them. Pursuant to this information, the complainant alongwith Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), Advocate visited the Supreme Court registry on 05.02.2009 and met said Sh. A3A3 and Perumal. The discussion took place regarding listing of his case for final hearing within 3 4 weeks and accused persons demanded a bribe of Rs.75,000/ and asked the complainant to pay bribe to them by 09.2.2009 otherwise, the listing of the criminal appeal would be delayed.
Complaint was verified by PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal in the presence of an independent witness i.e. PW8 Sh. AK Jain. During verification process, the conversation between the complainant and the accused persons was recorded. During the conversation, A1 C. Perumal agreed to accept Rs.25,000/ as first installment out of the total demanded bribe of Rs.75,000/ for listing the matter for final hearing within 3 4 weeks.
A1 C. Perumal asked the complainant to pay the said bribe to A2 KM Singh
on 09.02.2009 after 5 pm. The recorded conversation was transferred in an
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 10 of 7
audio cassette and upon verification, FIR Ex.PW2/N was lodged u/S.7 of POC Act, 1988 and Sec. 120B IPC. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO), Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW13), Insp. Raj Singh, Insp. Sanjay Dhall, Insp. Hitender
Adlakha, Insp. Prem Nath, Insp. Vikas Pathak and SI Nikhil Malhotra assembled, after being trap team constituted, at about 1:30 pm on 09.02.2009. The independent witnesses AK Jain (PW8), AK Yadav (PW9),the complainant (PW2) and the CBI officials were formally introduced to each other and the purpose of assembly was explained to the members of the team. Complaint, Ex.PW2/A was read over to the members of the trap team.
The members of the team satisfied themselves by interacting with the complainant. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.25,000/comprising of
GC notes of Rs.1,000/and Rs.500/denomination. The number of the currency notes were duly noted down and Insp. Prem Nath gave the demonstration regarding the phenolphthalein powder. Personal search of Dr. Kunal Saha was taken and he was not allowed to keep any incriminating article except his mobile bearing No.9910044319. The bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/was put in the inner left side coat pocket of complainant by PW9 AK Yadav and complainant was directed not to touch the tainted bribe amount and to hand over the same to A1 C. Perumal on his specific demand or to A2 KM Singh. PW8 AK Jain, an independent witness was asked to act as a shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation and see the transaction of bribe amount. The independent witness was further directed to indicate by rubbing his face by his both
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 11 of 7
hands, after the transaction is over. Similarly, the complainant was also directed to give a call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone carried by PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO). PW9 AK Yadav was directed to remain with the trap party.
The chargesheet reveals that the complainant made a phone call from his mobile No.9910044319 to the mobile phone No. 9910090030 of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) to know the exact time of transaction. Handing over memo Ex.PW2/C was prepared. After completion of pre trap proceedings CBI trap team alongwith complainant Dr. Kunal Saha and independent witnesses AK Jain (PW8) and AK Yadav (PW9) proceeded towards the spot at about 5:35 pm in Govt. vehicles as well as in the vehicle of the complainant.
Thereafter, on telephonic confirmation from Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), complainant alongwith shadow witness PW8 AK Jain went to the room No.F414 and CBI team took suitable position in the same premises in scattered manner. At about 5:58 pm, complainant gave pre decided signal to PW3 Insp. RC Sharma on his mobile No.9818238484. Insp. RC Sharma rushed towards the room No.F414 alongwith PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal and knocked the doors of the said room. The door was opened by the complainant and on entering the said room, it was found that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was sitting on the single sofa, shadow witness on the other single sofa and another person who was identified as KM Singh, was sitting on three seater sofa. The complainant identified Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh and informed about acceptance of bribe by A2 KM Singh. The shadow witness PW8 AK Jain
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 12 of 7
also corroborated the version of the complainant. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma after disclosing his identity and identity of the other team members, who had also arrived by that time, challenged A2 KM Singh for accepting illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/as first installment out of the total demanded bribe of Rs.75,000/from the complainant for listing his matter for final hearing. PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal and PW3 Insp. RC Sharma apprehended A2 KM Singh. The digital recorder was taken back from the complainant by Insp. Prem Nath.
The chargesheet further reveals that A3 turned pale and did not utter anything. PW8 AK Jain was asked to explain the transaction, who stated that when he alongwith the complainant reached 3rd floor, Sh. R.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and other Advocate, A2 KM Singh were already waiting in the corridor and they all went inside the said room and took seats. PW8 AK Jain further informed that after some discussion, on the matter of listing as well the arrangement of bribe of Rs.25,000/, the complainant took out the tainted bribe money from his right hand from the left inner side coat pocket and extended towards A2 KM Singh, who accepted the same and kept it inside right side inner pocket of his black coat after counting from both hands. The wash of right and left hand and of right side inner pocket of coat of A2 KM Singh was taken on which the colour of the solution turned pink. PW9 AK Yadav affected the recovery and tallied the tainted money with the handing over memo. The chargesheet further reveals that A2 KM Singh was unable to contact and call co accused persons to come and collect the bribe money
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 13 of 7
and therefore, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) who was stated to be in fear informed that the bribe amount was taken on behalf of A3 K. A3A3 and A1 C. Perumal. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) contacted from his mobile No.9910044319 to the mobile No.9891970491 of A3 K. A3A3 at about 6:35 pm which
was simultaneously recorded with the help of digital recorder in the presence of both the witnesses. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) informed A3 K. A3A3 about the acceptance of bribe and asked him to collect the same from them near the New Lawyer's Chamber, Supreme Court. PW9 AK Yadav was asked to put the tainted money in the right inner pocket of black coat of A2 KM Singh and thereafter, complainant (PW2), Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), A2 KM Singh and both the independent witnesses proceeded towards the Supreme Court in vehicle of the complainant.
Upon reaching at the predecided venue, the digital recorder was put inside the upper coat pocket of A2 KM Singh after witching it in “ON” position. PW8 AK Jain was directed to remain with A2 KM Singh and to overhear the conversation with A3 K. A3A3. PW8 AK Jain was also directed to give the signal to the CBI team by rubbing his face with both his hands, after the transaction is over. A2 KM Singh, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and PW8 AK Jain reached near the paan kiosk opposite Supreme Court at about 6:55 pm. After about 5 minutes, A3 K. A3A3 approached Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh and started talking to them. This was seen by other members of the trap team who were standing in the close proximity.
After some conversation A2 KM Singh took out the bribe money from his
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 14 of 7
inner coat pocket and extended towards A3 K. A3A3, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept inside the right side pant pocket. Upon giving the pre appointed signal by PW8 AK Jain, CBI team members rushed towards A3 K. A3A3 and caught him after being challenged by PW3 Insp. RC Sharma and PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal. The recording in digital recorder was heard by the team members and confirmed by PW8 AK Jain. A3 K. A3A3 accepted his guilt on being challenged and informed that money was to be shared with A1 C. Perumal. The washes of right hand, left hand and right side pant pocket was taken. Money was recovered by PW9 AK Yadav from the right side pant pocket of A3 K. A3A3. The wash of handkerchief found in the right side pant pocket was also taken.
Chargesheet further reveals that telephone calls from A1 C. Perumal was continuously coming at the mobile of A1 C. Perumal. A3 K. A3A3 was asked to contact A1 C. Perumal on his mobile No.9968421985 and inform him about the transaction of bribe. A3 K. A3A3 contacted A1 C. Perumal on his mobile at about 7:30 pm and informed him about transaction of bribe. A1 C. Perumal asked A3 K. A3A3 to reach at his residence at 15/306, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi with bribe money. The bribe amount was against put inside the shirt pocket of A3 A3A3 in the presence of independent witnesses and then the entire team left for Perumal's house.
On reaching near the residence of A1 C. Perumal, A3 K. A3A3 was asked to contact on his mobile. A2 contacted A1 at about 8:15 pm and A1 asked A2 to wait outside his house. After sometime, A1 came and started CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 15 of 7
talking to A2 in presence of shadow witness and other team members were
also standing in close proximity. After some conversation A2 took out the bribe money from his shirt pocket and extended it towards A1 who accepted it with his right hand and kept the same inside his right side pant pocket. Immediately, the CBI team rushed towards A1 and apprehended him. On being challenged, A1 admitted his guilt. The digital recorder was taken back from A2 and replayed which confirmed the transaction of bribe. Right hand wash of A1 C. Perumal was taken. PW9 AK Yadav recovered the bribe amount and wash of right side pant pocket was also taken.
The specimen voice of all the three accused persons was recorded and specimen voice recording memo Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C were taken.
The conversation between the complainant and accused persons and also between the accused persons at the time of transaction of bribe were transferred in blank audio cassette which was marked as Q2, Ex.P34. Copy of cassette Q2 was also prepared for investigation. Rough sketches of places of occurrences Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW3/E was prepared.
Accused persons were arrested vide arrest cum personal search memo Ex.PW3/F, Ex.PW3/G and Ex.PW3/H. Recovery memo Ex.PW2/D was prepared.
The colour wash and cassettes were sent to CFSL for expert opinion. After examination, reports Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW10/A were submitted.
Transcripts of recordings Ex.PW2/E to Ex.PW2/M were prepared in the presence of independent witnesses, complainant and Insp. Sanjay Dhall.
The call detail records of mobile No.989170491 pertaining to A3 A3A3 and of 996842985
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 16 of 7
pertaining to A1 C.Perumal were collected. Sanction for prosecution against A1 C. Perumal and A3 K. A3A3, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/B, respectively was accorded. After investigation, charge sheet u/S. 120B IPC
r/w S.7, 8, 13(2) r/w S.13(1) of POC Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof, was filed.
2.0 Chargesheet in this case was filed on 01/09/2010 and cognizance of the offence was taken on the same day and being a prima facie case charge u/S. 120B IPC r/w Sec. 7, 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) POC Act, 1988 against all the accused persons and substantive charge against A1 C. Perumal and A3 KS A3A3 u/S 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988 and against A2 KM Singh u/S 8 of the POC Act, 1988 was ordered to be framed against the accused persons on 17/8/2011. Charge against the accused persons was framed on 7/9/2011 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It is pertinent to mention here that vide detailed order on charge dated 7/9/2011 A4 Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was discharged by my Ld. Predecessor on the ground that there is no evidence available on record to connect A4 with the commission of offence. Rather he was trying to help the complainant in his fight against corruption and not witness has alleged anything against A4 R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). It is also pertinent to mention here that this order on charge has not been challenged by the CBI.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 17 of 7
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3.0 Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. The witnesses examined by the prosecution can broadly be divided into following categories :
(a)Complainant is Dr. Kunal Saha PW2.
(b)Trap team members – PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO), PW11 DySP
Dheeraj Khetrapal and PW13 the then Insp. Rajesh Chahal (Verifying
Officer)
(c) Expert witnesses – PW1 Sh. DK Tanwar and PW10 Sh. VB Ramteke.
(d)Witnesses of call detail record – PW4 Sh. Pawan Singh and PW12 Sh.
Ashok Kumar Sharma.
(e) Independent witnesses – PW8 AK Jain and PW9 AK Yadav
(f) Witnesses from Supreme Court regarding procedure – PW5 Sh. GK Sharma and PW7 Sh. Narayan Singh Bora.
(g)Witness regarding sanction – PW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar
(a) Complainant
3.1 PW2 Dr. Kunal Saha, complainant deposed on oath that after having completed his MBBS from Kolkata University in 1985, he migrated to United States for his post graduate studies and cleared naturalized citizenship. PW2 was also founder President of People for Better Treatment
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 18 of 7
(PBT), a registered Humanitarian Organization based at Kolkata which is dedicated to fighting corruption in health care and judiciary and helping the victims of medical negligence in India. Dr. Kunal Saha visited India in 1998 alongwith his wife Anuradha Saha, who unfortunately died on 29.05.98 on account of alleged gross medical negligence against which the complainant
filed a criminal complaint before the Kolkata court and also approached National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission for compensation. In the criminal complaint, the doctors were convicted by the trial court, however, Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata set aside the conviction against which the complainant filed a SLP in the year 2004 which was allowed and same was ordered to be converted into criminal appeal No.1191 1194 of 2005. Said criminal appeals were not listed before Hon'ble Supreme Court for years together until January 2009. The complainant came to India in January 2009 to lodge his protest for inordinate delay in listing of his appeal and sat on indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. The complainant engaged several counsels including Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) from time to time.
He was desperate to get the matter listed before the Hon'ble Supreme court and his counsel Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was concerned about his indefinite hunger strike. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told the complainant that official in Supreme Court registry may list his case if some bribe is paid. In order to verify this fact, on 05.02.2009, complainant went to Supreme Court registry with Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) who introduced him with A1 C. Perumal and A3 A3A3. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) talked to accused persons in Tamil in the presence of complainant and at the end of conversation in Tamil among them, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told the complainant in presence of A1 and A2 that accused persons would get his matter listed if the complainant agrees to pay Rs.75,000/as bribe to them. Admittedly, the complainant did not know and understand Tamil language. The complainant asked certain questions to A1 and A2 as to when the matter would be listed, to which they replied that the matter would be listed soon. Complainant was not agreeable to pay money unless he sees his matter listed in the list. The hunger strike of the complainant was to start from 06.02.2009 and it was widely covered in the Media. In the evening of 06.02.2009, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) alongwith all three accused persons came in car to Jantar Mantar where the complainant was sitting on hunger strike. A1 C. Perumal was carrying a list in his hand which was shown to the complainant. In the weekly list, the matter of the complainant was appearing. The accused persons wanted the complainant to pay money i.e. Rs.75,000/but complainant refused to pay on the ground that his matter was shown in the weekly list and he would not pay unless the matter is shown in the daily cause list. Accused persons told the complainant that the matter would come in daily cause list within three weeks.
Complainant was not interested in paying the bribe and he thought the accused persons to get in trap. Accused persons kept on insisting on the ground that his matter would be listed in the daily cause list soon. On the insistence of the accused persons, complainant agreed to pay part payment of Rs.25,000/ but did not pay this amount then and there, as the complainant was actually not interested in paying the money.
On 07.02.2009, complainant contacted CBI officials on telephone through one of his friend. Complainant was advised to visit CBI office on Monday morning i.e. 09.02.2009. Complainant visited CBI office on 09.02.2009, met the SP and filed a complaint, Ex.PW2/A. Complaint was assigned to PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal. PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal called PW8 AK Jain and explained the things to him. As instructed by PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal, complainant called Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) on mobile from his mobile phone and discussed regarding the payment and told Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) to come to his place of stay at Hostel at KG Marg, New Delhi between 1:00 to 2:00pm on 09.02.2009, the entire conversation was duly recorded. It was decided that complainant would go to his room at 3rd floor and meet these persons to record further conversation. Complainant further stated that around 12 noon, he alongwith PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal, shadow witness PW8 AK Jain and few other CBI officials left CBI office and firstly went to Jantar Mantar and from there to his hostel room at KG Marg. Complainant alone went to his room where after sometime Sh. R.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) alongwith A1 C. Perumal and A2 KM Singh came and all of them had conversation for about 15 20 minutes regarding payment of Rs. 25,000/.
The complainant stated that he would make the payment after 5pm. A1 C. Perumal told that he might not be able to come after 5pm and therefore, A2 KM Singh would come to collect the payment of bribe. The conversation was recorded and thereafter, the complainant alongwith CBI team came back to CBI office and the recording device was handed over to PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal. The recording was heard and copied to a blank audio cassette. Complainant stated that verification memo Ex.PW2/B was prepared. Complainant further stated that another witness PW9 AK Yadav was also called by PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahl and was explained the background of the case. The team of CBI officials was constituted and introductory voice of independent witnesses were recorded. The complainant handed over currency notes of Rs.25,000/which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and demonstration of the same was given. The distinctive serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down and tainted currency notes were put inside left side coat pocket of the complainant. Complainant stated that he was not allowed to carry anything except currency notes and his mobile phone and he was further directed to hand over the money to accused on his specific demand of bribe and thereafter, to give signal by giving a missed call on the mobile phone of CBI official. PW8 AK Jain was directed to act as a shadow witness. Complainant proved the handing over memo Ex.PW1/C. Complainant called Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and it was decided that they would meet in his hostel room after 5pm. The complainant alongwith entire trap team including the independent witnesses left for the spot. After reaching hostel building, the entire CBI team took their position and complainant alongwith PW8 AK Jain went upstairs where Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh were already waiting outside the Complainant, PW8 AK Jain, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh entered the room. Complainant stated that A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) asked for the money on which he took out the money with his right hand from his left inside coat pocket and handed over the same to A2 KM Singh, who took the money and counted the same with his both hands. Complainant stated that he gave pre decided signal from his mobile phone and then the entire team entered the hostel room. The complainant told the CBI officials about the identity of Mr. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh and that A2 KM Singh had taken money from him. A2 KM Singh was apprehended and he admitted the guilt that money was with him but the said money was for A1 C. Perumal and A3 A3A3. Recovery of money was affected and hand wash of A2 KM Singh was taken. Complainant stated that the digital recorder was handed over to CBI officials which was played and heard by CBI officials in the presence of independent witnesses. The contents of the said voice recorder were copied in blank cassette and the cassette was sealed and signed. Complainant further stated that on the instructions of CBI officials Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) made a phone call from his mobile to A3 A3A3 and during telephone call it was decided that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) alongwith A2 KM Singh would meet A3 A3A3 opposite Supreme Court near New Lawyers Chamber to handover the money. Complainant corroborated the case of the prosecution that he saw A3 A3A3 approaching the paan kiosk from the supreme Court side. A3 A3A3 was seeing talking to A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), however, the complainant could not see while the money was being given because there are lot of people obstructing his view. Remaining story of the prosecution regarding the recovery and other formalities / proceedings were duly corroborated by the complainant. Complainant further stated that thereafter, A3 A3A3 was instructed to call A1 C. Perumal for transfer of money and during said call, A1 C. Perumal instructed A3 A3A3 to come to his house in Lodhi Colony. The recording device was fixed on the person of A3 A3A3 for recording of conversation. PW8 AK Jain was again directed to act as a shadow witness. Complainant stated that he saw C. Perumal approaching A3A3 and after little talk between the two, A3 A3A3 took out the money and handed over the same to A1.
Complainant corroborated and confirmed the case of the CBI regarding recovery of money and other proceedings. Complainant stated that the recorder was taken back from A3 A3A3 and after being heard by the CBI official, the contents of the said recorder were copied in blank cassette and the recorder was seized. Complainant further deposed that thereafter, they all alongwith accused persons went to CBI office where all the proceedings were reduced in writing in the form of memos. The proceedings continued for the entire night. Recovery memo was proved as Ex.PW1/D.
Currency notes were proved as Ex.P6 to P33. Cassette Ex.P1 of pre verification stage containing four conversations was duly proved. First conversation was recorded in CBI office when complainant called Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) in the morning hours on 09.02.2009. Second and third calls were also made by the complainant to Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) regarding meeting at 1pm in his hostel room alongwith Supreme Court employees and fourth conversation is recording of direct conversation of about 15 minutes or so which was recorded with the help of a device which was fixed on the person of the complainant. This conversation was stated to be recorded in the hostel room of the complainant after around 1pm on 09.02.2009 and participants in the said conversation were complainant, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), A1 C. Perumal and A2 KM Singh. The transcript of the said conversation were duly proved by the complainant as Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H. Another cassette Q2 was also produced in sealed condition which was found containing introductory voice of independent witnesses in the beginning. Complainant identified that first conversation containing in this cassette had taken place little before 5pm between him and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) when the complainant had called Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) about reaching to his hostel room for transfer of money and also asked as to whether Supreme Court employees were with him or not. Complainant stated that transcript of the first call is not there. Further conversation recorded in second call was made by the complainant to Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) when complainant along with CBI officials and witness was about to reach his hostel room. The transcription of the same is proved as Ex.PW2/J. Upon cassette being played, the complainant identified this conversation as that of recording done in his hostel room at about 5pm when R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh came there to collect the bribe money. The transcription of this conversation has been proved as Ex.PW2/K. However, the complainant pointed out certain disparity in the conversation. Cassette was further played which found containing conversation after CBI entered the hostel room and complainant is being heard introducing Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh. The further conversation being heard was stated to be after recovery of money from A2 KM Singh. CBI officials instructed Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) to call from his mobile phone to the mobile phone of A3 A3A3. The transcript of this conversation was proved as Ex.PW2/L. However, the complainant stated that at certain portions Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A3 A3A3 talked in Tamil and the transcript of this conversation is not on record. Further telephonic conversation between the Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A3 A3A3 which took place on the way to Supreme Court and the transcript of the same has been proved as Ex.PW2/M. In the cassette there
were further conversations regarding further trap laid down by the CBI, the complainant clarified that he had wrongly stated that sealing and seizing of cassette took place after every conversation, actually he heard the part of the recorded conversation in CBI officer where the entire recordings were played and only thereafter, the sealing and seizing of the cassette took place.
Cassette Q2 has been proved as Ex.P34. In the cross examination, the complainant stated that during conversation with him, A1 C. Perumal and A3 A3A3 had told him that they will list his matter on priority before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Complainant admitted that he had never any telephonic conversation on mobile with A1 C. Perumal. Complainant stated that his intention was to expose the corruption in Supreme court. Complainant reiterated that on 06.02.2009, A1 C. Perumal and others asked for bribe amount of Rs.75,000/for listing his matter on priority before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Complainant admitted that on 07.02.2009 his friend Dr. Srikar Reddy called the CBI office and he had not talked with the CBI officials on 07.02.2009.
Complainant admitted that in the afternoon at the time of verification just after 1pm on 09.02.2009 A3 A3A3 had not come to his hostel room. Complainant admitted that in his complainant, Ex.PW2/A he has not mentioned about the visit of accused persons and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar. He also admitted that there is no mention of demand of bribe in his complaint Ex.PW2/A on 06.02.2009. The complainant volunteered that complaint Ex.PW2/A was a brief synopsis in which demand of bribe was mentioned but each and every incident was not
elaborated in detail. In respect of the negotiation of the bribe amount, complainant stated that this took place only on 09.02.2009 during pre verification and only at that time, accused persons agreed to reduce the bribe amount to Rs.25,000/.
Complainant admitted to have sent fax Ex.PW2/DA dated 30.12.2008 to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India threatening to start indefinite hunger strike from 06.02.2009 till his matters were not listed.
Complainant also admitted that he had sent various fax messages to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and Hon'ble President in respect of cases of other people. The complainant stated that he believed that his appeals pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the cases related to his departed wife were being delayed because of corrupt and highly influential medical body in India. Complainant also stated in the cross examination that NGO “People for Better Treatment (PBT)” also runs a website at www.pbtindia.com and anybody can access this website. The complainant stated that his huger strike was covered by some print and electronic media. It came on the record that Dr. K. Srikar Reddy was an IFS
officer and in the year 2009, he was posted in External Affairs, Ministry, New Delhi. It also came on the record wife and unborn child of Dr. Srikar Reddy had died during delivery in Hyderabad because of alleged medical negligence several years ago and he came in contact with PW2 through PBT.
The complainant stated that he used to regularly check online about the status of his case. However, he was not aware if status of his case was updated at 3:12 pm on 05.02.2009. The complainant also stated that nobody informed him that weekly cause list beginning on 10.02.2009 containing his case was published at 5:30 hrs on 05.02.2009. The complainant stated that he had no knowledge if C. Perumal and K. A3A3 were not related to the case of listing of matter as well as its publication. The complainant stated that he knew Mr. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) from 1999 onwards or sometime around that as he was a journalist with Telegraph Newspaper. The complainant stated that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was an old friend and he was not even an Advocate and only later on, he became an Advocate. The complainant would say that he had not paid him fees as such but used to sent him money from USA as and when Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) needed it. The complainant stated that earlier he did not know KM Singh but later on came to know that KM Singh used to work for Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) from time to time. Complainant was confronted with his statement made in the departmental proceeding before Supreme Court wherein the complainant had stated that he had seen KM Singh on 06.02.2009. However, the complainant stated that it was a typing error. Complainant stated that his hunger strike continued for more than a week but did not remember the exact date when it was called off.
Complainant admitted that he did not have any documentary evidence to show that he had visited Hon'ble Supreme court on 05.02.2009. It also came in his evidence that Dr. K. Srikar Reddy booked room No.414 in hostel at KG Marg for his stay. In respect of alleged meeting between Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), A1 C. Perumal and complainant during verification proceedings, the complainant admitted that during telephonic conversation
initially, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told that he would be going with Supreme Court staff at around 1pm and in the second recorded conversation time was not mentioned. In the third conversation which took place when the complainant alongwith verification team was at Jantar Mantar, the time was
mentioned at around 2pm. The complainant stated that this conversation was not recorded. The complainant also admitted that in the transcript Ex.PW2/E (wrongly mentioned as Ex.PW2/B), the time is not mentioned. However, in transcript Ex.PW2/G conversation time 2 to 2:30 is mentioned. It came in the cross examination of the complainant that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) had no prior knowledge that complainant had contacted CBI and a trap was laid by CBI and when KM Singh was apprehended by CBI officials in his hostel room in the presence of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), at that time Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was schocked and expressed his anguish that complainant had betrayed him. It also came on record that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told that bribe amount was takenon behalf of A1 Perumal and A3 A3A3.
(b) Trap Team Members:
3.2 In the category of CBI witnesses, prosecution has examined three witnesses viz., Inspt. RC Sharma (TLO) as PW3, Inspt. Dhiraj Khetrapal (IO) as PW11 and DSP Rajesh Chahal (IO) as PW13. PW3 Inspt. RC Sharma being the TLO is the star witness of the prosecution and he deposed that on 12/2/09, FIR relating to the case RC No. 9(A)/09 was marked to him by SP CBI for laying a trap against the accused persons. Accordingly a team consisting of 02 independent witnesses PW8 Sh. AK Jain and PW9 Sh. AK Yadav, both Administrative Officers, LIC of India, New Delhi as well as DSP Rajesh Chahal PW13, Inspt. Raj Singh, Inspt. Sanjay Dhall, Inspt. Hitendra Adlakha, Inspt. Premnath, SI Nikhil Malhotra, SI Pathak alongwith subordinate staff was constituted by him. The trap team members assembled in the office of SP, CBI at about 3:30pm and was introduced to PW2 Sh. Kunal Saha. The members of the trap team were explained the complaint. The FIR and verification report conducted by PW13 DSP Rajesh Chahal was shown to the trap team members including the independent witnesses. The conversation which took place during the verification proceedings was converted into a cassette, which was sealed and marked as Q1 and thereafter the introductory voice of both the independent witnesses were recorded. The complainant produced the GC notes which were treated by Inspt. Premnath and demonstration was given. The complainant was directed to hand over the bribe amount to accused KM Singh or some other person on his specific directions and not otherwise. PW8 Sh. AK Jain was directed to act as a shadow witness. During the proceedings of handing over memo, the complainant made a phone from his mobile to the mobile of R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), to know his exact location. The conversation was recorded in the DVR. The handing over proceedings concluded in CBI office at 5:25pm. The handing over memo Ex.PW2/C was concluded at about 5:25pm. While on the way to the spot the complainant again called R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) to know his location and this conversation was also recorded in the DVR. PW3 stated that the trap team reached at the spot at about 5:35pm. The complainant and PW8 AK Jain were directed to contact the accused and remaining trap team members took the suitable positions. Inspt. RC Sharma stated that after sometime he got a call from the mobile of the complainant on his mobile regarding transaction of bribe, upon which he informed the other trap team members and then they rushed to the said hostel room. On reaching there, the door was knocked and it was opened by the complainant. On being indicated and identified by the complainant, accused KM Singh, who stated to have demanded and accepted the bribe, was challenged. Accused KM Singh turned pale and did not utter anything. Accused KM Singh was caught hold and his handwash was taken. TLO stated that complainant had told him that accused KM Singh had demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000/ out of Rs.75,000/ as first instalment and then accepted the said bribe amount with his right hand and counted the same with both of his hands and kept the same in the right side inner pocket of the coat. PW9 AK Yadav recovered the tainted bribe amount from the inner coat pocket of accused KM Singh. The currency notes were tallied with the handing over memo and were found to be same. The wash of the inner side pocket of the coat was taken. Inspt. RC Sharma stated that on being questioned Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) informed that bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/ has been taken for C. Perumal and KS A3A3. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was asked to contact accused KS A3A3 in regard to the transaction of bribe and accordingly he contacted KS A3A3. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) called and informed him regarding the transaction of bribe and for collection of the same. Accused KS A3A3 was informed to meet opposite side of New Lawyers Chambers of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/ was kept in the right side pocket of accused KM Singh and was directed to handover the same to accused KS A3A3 on the spot. The DVR was also given to accused KM Singh and thereafter both the independent witnesses, R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), KM Singh left for the spot alongwith other trap team members. On the way, R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was directed to contact accused KS A3A3 and to inform him to meet him opposite the paan shop in front of the Supreme Court of India. PW8 Sh. AK Jain was directed to accompany accused KM Singh and R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). PW3 R C Sharma stated that it was seen that one person lateron identified as KS A3A3 came to the spot and entered into conversation with accused KM Singh and R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). It was further seen that accused KM Singh took out the sum of Rs. 25,000/and extended the same to accused KS A3A3. On receipt of the pre appointed signal, accused KS A3A3 was challenged to have accepted the bribe from accused KM Singh for listing the matter of the complainant. A3 KS A3A3 accepted his guilt. The handwash of A3 KS A3A3 was taken. The recorded conversation in the DVR confirmed the demand and acceptance of bribe. PW8 Sh. AK Jain recovered the tainted bribe amount from the right side pocket of accused KS A3A3. The handkerchief wash of accused KS A3A3 was taken which turned pink. The wash of the right side inner pocket pant of KS A3A3 was also taken. KS A3A3 informed that the bribe amount was to be shared with accused
C. Perumal. It was seen that C. Perumal had been constantly calling accused KS A3A3. KS A3A3 was directed to call accused C. Perumal regarding the transaction of bribe. The conversation between accused C Perumal and KS A3A3 was recorded. The bribe money was kept in the pocket of accused KS A3A3 and then the trap team proceeded further with all concerned. On reaching there, accused C. Perumal met accused KS A3A3 and it was seen that after some conversation KS A3A3 took out the bribe amount from his shirt pocket and handed over the same to C. Perumal who accepted the same and kept it in the right side pant pocket. On being challenged C. Perumal admitted his guilt. The handwashes were taken and wash of pant pocket of accused Perumal was also taken. The recovery of money was effected. The DVR was taken back from KS A3A3. The accused persons were arrested. The glass bottles containing the colour washes were duly proved as Ex.P50 to P57. The two pants and one coat of A1, A2 and A3 respectively were proved as Ex.P58 to P60. The currency notes were identified as Ex.P6 to P33. The handkerchief has been proved as Ex.P69. The specimen voice recording memo was proved as Ex.PW3/A to PW3/C. The site plan of paan shop situated opposite Supreme Court at Tilak Marg near Pakistan Embassy was proved as Ex.PW3/D. The siteplan of Room No F414, KG Marg, Civil Officer, Hostel, 3rd floor was proved as Ex.PW3/E. The arrest memo of accused KS A3A3 and C. Perumal and KM Singh respectively has been proved as Ex.PW3/F, PW3/G and PW3/H. In the cross examination, IO admitted that after verification only name of KM Singh and C. Perumal had appeared and even the designation of Perumal was not clear at that time. Witness admitted that in formal FIR, Ex.PW2/N, he was directed to make the investigation only against Perumal, staff of registry section and KM Singh, Advocate, whereas the name of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A3A3 was mentioned in the FIR. TLO admitted that before laying the trap, he did not ensure that whether the file of Dr. Saha was dealt by the accused persons in any manner nor did he inquire that the supreme court employees named in the complaint were competent or not, to do any favour to the complainant. TLO admitted that in the rough site plan, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW12/DB, the presence of members, part of the trap team and proceedings have not been shown. TLO admitted that recovery memo Ex.PW2/D was prepared in the CBI office. It also came in the testimony of TLO that at about 5:58pm, they reached the hostel and took suitable position and at that very moment i.e. 5:58pm, he received a signal from the complainant. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma stated that transcript Ex.PW2/E to Ex.PW2/L were not prepared in his presence. PW3 admitted that he did not ask the complainant to contact C. Perumal and asked him to come to a definite place to receive the bribe amount. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence regarding the fact that Dr. Saha visited the Supreme
Court registry on 05.02.2009 nor could the TLO recollect that whether the complainant had informed him that accused persons had already met him on 06.02.2009 and had handed over the weekly list to him. TLO was confronted with the transcript of the said conversation, Ex.PW2/K where no demand on part of KM Singh was mentioned. TLO admitted that according to this transcript, A2 KM Singh was asked to count the money and after counting he stated that it was Rs.25,000/.
TLO admitted that this fact is not mentioned in the transcript that KM Singh had demanded Rs.25,000/as first installment.
In respect of certificate, Ex.PW1/DB and certificate attached with Ex.PW4/A, TLO stated that RC No.0006(A)2009DLI seems to have been a
typographical mistake. Insp. RC Sharma also admitted that he had not sent
the original device to CFSL and original is always in the recording device and when the data is transferred to new blank cassette it cannot be sent in original. TLO did not recall if he sent any transcript of conversation to CFSL. TLO was confronted with the recorded conversation in cassette Q2 and it was noticed that certain portion were not appearing in the transcript. It is pertinent to mention here that it was observed by the court that there were many conversations / portions in the audio cassette, which were not part of the transcript including the transcript in language other than Hindi. CBI was directed to prepare the transcript of the entire recording including the conversation in language other than Hindi. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma admitted that he had asked for police remand of accused on the point that larger conspiracy is to be unearthed and had written in his application for police remand that accused persons are influential persons being staff of supreme court. However, he did not recall that in whose statement it had come that there is larger conspiracy required to be unearthed. TLO also could not recall whether he had visited the registry section of Supreme court to verify / investigate any conspiracy amongst the staff of supreme Court and Advocates.
Cassette Q2 was again played and it was noted by the court that despite directions, CBI did not file the complete transaction. Therefore, the court took the assistance of Sh. M. Ravi Kumar, LDC, Emp. Code 14067 posted in Evening Court (South East). It was informed by the IO and admitted by the defence that the language other than Hindi is Tamil / Telugu Mr. M. Ravi Kumar who belongs to Tamil Nadu and was conversant with Tamil, English and Hindi languages was thought appropriate for rendering the assistance. Statement of Sh. M. Ravi Kumar was recorded separately on oath regarding true and correct translation of the recorded conversation.
Accused A3A3 submitted that broadly the conversation is in Tamil. However, there are words in language other than Tamil also. It was noted that there was conversation following the conversation recorded in transcript Ex.PW2/K which was not part of the transcript. TLO admitted that there was certain conversations subsequent to the recorded conversation as appearing in transcript Ex.PW2/K. TLO stated that he cannot identify that whose voice is this as there were many team members. TLO was not able to identify the speaker of conversation in cassette Q2. In the recorded conversation, translated from Tamil by Sh. M. Ravi Kumar inter alia it came
that A3 A3A3 had replied “AAP KE PAAS RAKH LO MEIN AAKE LE
LENGE”. TLO denied that entire recording has been manipulated in CBI office and the case has been falsely registered.
PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal had primarily conducted the verification. He deposed that he was called by SP, CBI in his chamber at about 10:45am on 09.01.2009 (seems to have been inadvertently stated), where he was introduced to the complainant and was explained about the complaint. SP handed over the complaint for verification. The presence of PW8 AK Jain was arranged. PW13 arranged the DVR and thereafter, the complainant telephonically contacted Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) in the presence of PW8 wherein it was fixed that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) would visit the complainant alongwith Perumal at about 1pm at Jantar Mantar where complainant was staging a Dharna. The subsequent telephonic conversation were also recorded. As per plan, Insp. Rajesh Chahal alongwith complainant and PW8 AK Jain reached the hostel, where it was observed that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) alongwith two persons had already reached and waiting in the corridor.
PW13 stated that as per his memory, PW8 also accompanied Dr. Kunal Saha. PW13 also stated that as far as he recollects Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was accompanied only by C. Perumal. PW13 stated that PW8 AK Jain and complainant informed that Perumal had demanded Rs.75,000/as bribe and agreed to accept Rs.25,000/as first installment for earlier listing of the said criminal appeal before the Supreme Court and he also stated that first installment will be paid to KM Singh at about 5pm. Verification memo Ex.PW2/B was prepared. After the conclusion of verification proceeding at about 2:45pm, FIR was registered and investigation was entrusted to PW3 Insp. RC Sharma. PW13 stated that during verification, it had also come to light that A3 A3A3 is working as Asstt. in the registry section of supreme court. PW3 Insp. RC Sharma constituted the trap team and proceedings of handing over memo Ex.PW2/C were conducted. Witness stated that at about 6pm, Dr. Kunal Saha informed about bribe transaction and accordingly he himself alongwith PW3 Insp. RC Sharma reached the said hostel room. Complainant opened the door, DVR was taken back from him. A2 KM Singh and Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) were found sitting on the sofa. Dr. Kunal Saha and PW8 AK Jain explained the sequence of transaction and informed that A2 KM Singh demanded the illegal gratification and on his specific demand, complainant handed over the tainted bribe amount of Rs. 25,000/ to A2 KM Singh. PW9 recovered the bribe amount. On being challenged, A2 KM Singh turned pale and did not utter anything. Then he informed that money was to be shared with A3 A3A3, an Assistant posted in the registry section of Supreme Court. The hand wash and coat pocket wash were taken. PW13 stated that initially A2 KM Singh was asked
to contact A3 A3A3 regarding transaction but since A2 KM Singh expressed his inability as he was not having telephone number of A3A3, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was asked to contact A3A3. Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) contacted A3A3 and informed him about acceptance of said bribe amount. A3A3 asked him to come in front of New Lawyers Chamber block. Black coat of A2 KM Singh was returned to him and tainted money was put in the right side inner pocket of coat. PW8 was asked to accompany KM Singh and Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). On the way, meeting place was shifted to paan kiosk opposite Supreme Court near New Lawyers Chamber Block. PW13 stated that it was seen that A3 A3A3 joined A2 KM Singh, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and PW8 AK Jain and it was further seen that KM Singh extended the said bribe amount towards A3 A3A3, who accepted the same and kept the same in his right side pant pocket. Then A3 A3nathnan was apprehended. The money was recovered. The hand wash of the accused and other wash were taken. Thereafter, the trap in respect of A1 C. Perumal was conducted. Here also, A1 C. Perumal was seen accepting the bribe amount. On every trap, the recorded conversation was played and heard and washes were taken and recovery was conducted. Recovery memo Ex.PW2/D was prepared on the spot. Specimen voice of accused persons were taken.
In the cross examination, PW13 admitted that DVR and mini cassette recorder has not been produced and shown him in the court. The witness was cross examined largely on the similar lines as of PW3 Insp. RC Sharma and nothing material came out in his lengthy cross examination. However, in the cross examination, PW13 submitted that when they reached hostel, they found that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was present alongwith A1 C. Perumal and A2 KM Singh. He also admitted that PW8 AK Jain had not accompanied Dr. Kunal Saha in the room of hostel during verification proceedings. Witness was confronted with recorded conversation Q1 and it was found that there was no transcript of certain part of recorded conversation. PW13 stated that he had told Insp. Dheeraj Khetrpal that this entire show was managed by Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). The contradiction in respect of site plan were also put to PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal.
PW11 DySP Dhiraj Khetrapal was handed over the investigation after Insp. Sanjay Dhall. He collected the forensic report, sanction for prosecution, recorded statement of certain witnesses and filed the chargesheet. In the cross examination, PW11 submitted that though he had chargesheeted Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) but did not arrest him. It also came in the cross examination of this witness that though Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was interrogated but interrogation report was not placed on record. PW11 also admitted that he did not verify that whether the complainant had visit the supreme court registry on 05.02.2009. DySP Dhiraj Khetrapal stated that he examined both the independent witnesses on the aspect that the circumstances indicated that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was actually pushing the deal and had doubt that A2 KM Singh was implicated. PW11 also conducted inquiry on the point that when demand was from A1 C. Perumal and A3 A3A3, from where A2 KM Singh came into the episode. The independent witnesses had told PW11 that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) abused the complainant over the raid and stated that they came into picture because of him. PW11 stated that PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal had told him that it was learnt from the conversation that A2 KM Singh had accepted the money on behalf of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). Witness stated that he came to know that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) by financing the deal was pushing the same on the premises
that he will get his share back.
(c) Expert Witnesses:
3.3 In the category of expert witnesses, prosecution has examined PW1 Sh. DK Tanwar. PW1 Sh. DK Tanwar, Expert in the field of Forensic Voice Identification submitted that exhibits of this case were received on 13/02/09 with five sealed parcels which were marked as Q1, Q2 and S1 to S3. Sh. DK Tanwar, submitted that in the cassette Q1 and Q2 , there were certain telephonic conversations and the directly recorded conversations.
The witness stated that the questioned voice of accused C. Perumal was compared with the specimen voice by auditory and voice spectrography techniques and it was found that the questioned voice tallied with the specimen voice in respect of their linguistic, phonetics and other general spectrographical parameters. Similarly, the questioned voice and specimen voice of accused KS A3A3 also tallied in respect of their linguistic, phonetics and other general spectrographical parameters. A similar opinion was given in respect of accused KM Singh. In respect of the authenticity of the cassettes the witness stated that the same might not have been tampered.
The detailed transcript was proved as Ex.PW1/A. The cassette Q1 was proved as Ex.P1 and Q2 as Ex.P34. Similarly, the cassette S1, S2 & S3 were proved as Ex.P34, P42 and P46. In the cross examination, the witness stated that specimen voice of R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was not sent to him. The witness also stated that he was not conversant with Tamil language and as such he cannot say what conversation took place in Tamil. The expert voluntarily stated that most of the dialogues were in English and Hindi and as such he did not call any person conversant with Tamil language to know as to what was spoken in Tamil. The witness also admitted that all the transcripts were not sent to him and thus, he did not consider the said transcript /conversation for consideration and examination was done on the basis of the contents of the cassette. The witness admitted that he had not prepared any transcript of the questioned cassette. It came in the cross examination that the cassettes were received on 13.02.09 and the examination was started by him on 17.02.09. It also came in the cross examination that the certificate of authorisation is issued by the forwarding authority and it is an essential certificate for examination to be done by the CFSL expert. The witness stated that if no such certificate is sent alongwith the forwarding letter, such letter is demanded from the forwarding officer. The expert stated that he received certificate Ex.PW1/DB alongwith forwarding letter Ex.PW1/DA. The witness admitted that the certificate Ex.PW1/DB pertains to RC No.0006(A)2009DIL dtd. 2/2/09. The expert stated that it may be clerical mistake. The expert did not remember whether he had examined the exhibits of RC No. 0006(A)2009DIL of 2/2/09. The witness admitted that he had neither seen nor examined nor called the instrument with which the said telephonic conversation was recorded. The digital voice recorder also admittedly was not produced before the witness and therefore, he did not compare or examine the same. The witness admitted that in the forwarding letter Ex.PW1/DA it has been mentioned that cassette Q2 contains telephonic conversation between the complainant and the accused persons recorded through digital voice recorder in the CBI office. The expert stated that he had conducted Wave Form Analysis, Noise Pattern Analysis in Spectro grams and Auditory analysis to rule out any tampering. However, the witness admitted that he has not mentioned in his report about the above said tests. It also came in the evidence of this witness that complete tampering examination can be done only when the original cassette was sent.
PW10 Sh. VB Ramteke, an expert in Forensic Chemistry including Toxicology deposed on oath that he chemically analysed the exhibited bottles and found the same containing phenolphthalein. The report was proved as Ex.Pw10/A. The witness admitted that alongwith the forwarding letter he also received the certificate relating to FIR No. 0006(A)2009DLI.
(d) Call Detail Records:
3.4 In respect of the call detail records, the prosecution has examined PW4 Sh. Pawan Singh and PW12 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma. PW4 Sh. Pawan Singh proved the call detail record of mobile No. 9891970491 of A3 KS A3A3. The certified copy of application form and photocopy of photo identity card has been proved as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. The call detail record for the period 15/1/09 to 10/2/09 is Ex.PW4/C. The witness admitted that the documents are not certified u/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act nor did the witness produce any proof that he was the Nodal Officer at the relevant time nor he had anything to say that he was authorised to furnish the record.
PW12 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma proved the call detail record of mobile No. 9968421985 of accused C. Perumal and the call details had been proved has Ex.PW12/B. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the document Ex.PW12/B neither had stamp of his department nor did bear the signature. PW12 stated that the information was generated by Sh.Rakesh Soni, however, the certificate of Sh. Rakesh Soni was not annexed to the document. The witness has also not proved any certificate regarding storage of data in a particular system nor any certificate was placed on record to show that during the said period in the computer the information was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of said activity.
The witness also admitted that he had not given any certificate that throughout the said period the computer was working properly. The records were also not certified as per Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The witness admitted that the call records are recorded normally in the series of
the time at which the call is made or received and there is rare possibility of
breaking of such seriatum. The witness admitted that in the call detail record Ex.PW12/B, some of the call details are not in seriatum of time and such calls are encircled at point A & B. The witness also admitted that at point C, there are two calls of 32 seconds each between the same numbers. The witness admitted that at point C, two calls of 32 seconds each at the same time 7:29:29 between the same numbers i.e., 9891970491 and 9968421985 is recorded. The witness was also confronted that at point D the calls are recorded from 8:11:51 am till 1:22:10 pm and thereafter, the calls of 11:02:30am and 11:40:25am is recorded. It was also noted that two calls had precisely the same time i.e., 1:22:10 of 1.05 seconds between the same numbers 9891970491 and 9968421985. Similarly, in page 194 of the call record in the calls of 7/2/09, the call at 1:00:38 pm of 24 second duration has been shown twice. It was also observed in the call detail record Ex.PW12/B (Page 194) that after call of 2:51:31pm there is call of 10:39:26am onwards till it breaks down at 6:43:01pm and further also, it was noted that the calls are not in seriatum.
(e) Independent Witnesses:
3.5 PW8 A.K. Jain, shadow witness made a detailed statement corroborating and confirming the case of the prosecution. The deposition made by this witness in confirmation to the complaint's testimony has not been discussed to avoid repetition. PW8 stated that during pre verification proceedings, PW2 made a call at about 11:30am to the mobile of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). PW8 stated that he heard the conversation that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) would be coming with supreme court staff to meet the complainant at about 2pm in the afternoon at the hostel. Witness stated that during verification, complainant went alone to his room and after about 30 minutes he came out and handed over the DVR to CBI and informed that two persons one Advocate and another employee would come to the hostel room in the evening at about 5pm. The witness proved the verification memo Ex.PW2/B and handing over memo Ex.PW2/C. In regard to the trap, witness stated that he himself alongwith the complainant went to the third floor and other CBI Officers took their suitable positions. While the complainant and witness proceeded towards third floor, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and one another person who came to be known as A2 KM Singh met them in the corridor. Then, all of them entered the room and took
their respective seats. Thereafter, some discussion between the complainant and Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) regarding listing of the matter took place. Witness stated that at that time there was no mention about the demand of bribe and Dr. Saha handed over the money to A2 KM Singh who took the money in both his hands and kept the same in his right side inner pocket of black coat.
Witness stated that CBI team members challenged A2 KM Singh for accepting illegal gratification and caught hold of both his hands by the wrist.
Witness stated that after taking hand washes the currency notes were recovered from right inner side pocket of coat of KM Singh and same were tallied with the document earlier prepared. PW8 stated that thereafter, CBI team asked KM Singh to contact A3 A3A3 and requested him to come near paan Shop at Supreme Court and the money was again kept in the coat pocket of A2 KM Singh. He also stated that on the way A2 KM Singh was asked to call A3A3 and informed that work has been done. PW8 AK Jain stated that on reaching at the scheduled place, A2 KM Singh identified A3A3 and told that work has been done and offered him the money. A3A3 accepted the money from his right hand and put the same in to right side pocket of his pant. PW8 gave the pre scheduled signal on which PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal and other officials rushed there and caught A3A3 with wrist of both hands. After taking the hand washes money was recovered. However, witness did not remember that who took out the money from the pocket of A3A3. Witness stated that thereafter, accused A3A3 told that he has to meet C. Perumal at Lodhi Garden for delivery of the bribe amount as bribe amount was to be paid to Perumal also.
On this, the CBI team left for Lodhi Garden in two vehicles. On the way, Insp. RC Sharma (PW3) asked A3 A3A3 to call Perumal from the digital phone to enquire the place of meeting and it was decided that PW8 would accompany A3A3 and would give indication on handing over the bribe amount to C. Perumal by A3A3. PW8 stated that Perumal came at the decided place and A3 A3A3 handed over the bribe amount to Perumal. Perumal accepted it and put the same into right hand pocket of his pant. On indication being given, the CBI team reached there and Perumal was caught with wrist of both hands. The hand washes were taken and PW9 AK Yadav recovered the currency notes from Perumal. The
cassettes Q1 and Q2 were played and the transcripts were duly proved and
voice of the complainant, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), A1 C. Perumal and A2 KM Singh were duly identified. It was observed by the court that the recorded conversation as per transcript Ex.PW2/G has not been part of cassette Q1. It was noted that transcript Ex.PW2/G is part of cassette Q2, Ex.P34. It has also been observed by the court that there was no transcript of certain recording in the cassette played. The rough sketches prepared by the IO was proved by the witness.
In the cross examination witness admitted that in the rough site plan Ex.PW2/DB of Lodhi Road Colony, neither the name of the complainant is appearing nor his position has been shown. PW8 stated that he had signed the complaint. However, it has been seen that complaint Ex.PW2/A is not signed by the witness. The witness admitted in the cross examination that the complainant had not told him about listing of his matter in the weekly list. PW8 admitted that his wife was also a victim of medical negligence and he had also discussed his case with Dr. Saha. However, the witness stated that he had not lodged any case in this regard. PW8 Sh. AK Jain stated that when the transcript was prepared, they were sitting outside and was called inside the room and then signed the same after going through.
PW8 stated that Nokia mobile phone of A3 A3A3 was taken into possession by PW3 Insp. R.C. Sharma. Though the witness did not remember the exact time, however, he stated that same was sealed in his presence on 09.02.2009 and could not be used after 06:00 a.m. on 10.02.2009. In the further cross examination, witness stated that on 09.02.2009 his statement was recorded by CBI officers in CBI office in nglish. However, in the cross examination recorded on 26.08.2013 witness stated that he had stated to the IO that in the transaction, he inferred that A2 KM Singh did not had prior previous understanding with A1 and A2 regarding the transaction of bribe money. Witness had also observed that A2 KM Singh did not have even the telephone numbers of A1 and A2. Witness had also stated to IO that A2 KM Singh had accepted the money at the
instance and direction of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). PW8 stated that Sh.
VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told Dr. Kunal Saha that he i.e. complainant has not done the
right thing and the persons had come into picture because of him. Pw8 also
stated to the IO that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), Advocate was in the key position to influence the acceptance of bribe money by A3 and Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) had cleverly introduced A2 KM Singh into the scene. Witness stated that infact, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) made A2 KM Singh to accept the money. PW8 stated that after A2 KM Singh was apprehended, as per his statement to the IO, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), on being questioned, informed that bribe amount was taken for A3A3 and Perumal and he has also informed the IO that A2 KM Singh became pale and did not utter anything. He also stated that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) informed A3A3 about the transaction of bribe money and asked him to collect the same from them near the new lawyers' chamber, Supreme Court, and this conversation took place in the presence of this witness. PW8 stated in the cross examination that during the trap proceedings, he reached the room of Dr. Saha at 6 pm and was sitting outside of that room alongwith A2 KM Singh. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and Dr. Saha were discussing inside the room and came out after around 7 8 minutes and told that everything will be done effectively. Thereafter, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) asked the complainant to give money to A2 KM Singh.
Witness was confronted with the tape recorded conversation and transcript
as recorded in transcript Ex.PW2/K regarding certain discrepancies. It also
came in the testimony that there was no transcript of certain tape recorded
conversations.
PW9 A.K. Yadav, another independent witness also broadly corroborated the complainant conversation and story of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to mention here that this witness was also from LIC as PW8.
PW9 stated that after pre verification, the team left for the spot and after receiving the message from the complainant, they all rushed and entered the room. A2 KM Singh was identified and he was caught by Insp. RC Sharma (PW3). PW9 stated that A2 KM Singh was challenged and he admitted that he had taken the bribe. Upon which bribe money was taken out from the right inner side of his black coat. The currency notes were recovered and confirmed with the handing over memo. The hand wash and wash of inner pocket of the coat were taken. PW9 stated that thereafter, A2 KM Singh told that the money was supposed to be handed over to one Supreme Court employee namely A3A3. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was asked to contact A3A3 and thereafter, they all proceeded towards Supreme Court.
Witness stated that he saw A2 KM Singh having conversation with A3A3 and money was handed over to him. PW9 stated that PW8 AK Jain gave a pre appointed signal on which all of them rushed towards the paan kiosk and CBI officers caught A3A3. On being challenged, A3A3 accepted to have received the money. PW9 recovered the money from pant pocket of A3A3 and hand wash and pant wash was
taken. Currency notes were tallied with handing over memo. Wash of handkerchief was also taken. PW9 stated that A3A3 told on being asked that he has collected the money on behalf of A1 C. Perumal and it does not belong to him. On this, A3 A3A3 was asked to call A1 C. Perumal. A3A3 called Perumal and told repeatedly that he has accepted the money and Perumal may take the entire money. Perumal asked A3A3 to come to him and to handover the money at his address. The entire team went there and at the decided place, it was seen that A3A3 handed over the money, subsequent to which, Perumal was caught and on being challenged, he accepted to have received the bribe. The hand wash and pocket wash was taken. PW9 stated that accused persons were brought to CBI headquarter where their specimen voice was recorded. The conversation recorded amongst the accused persons were transferred and their transcriptions were prepared. PW9 was confronted with his earlier statement wherein he had admitted that he had taken the money. In his earlier statement before the IO, the witness had stated that on being challenged, A2 KM Singh turned pale and did not utter anything.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 52 of 7
In the cross examination, PW9 admitted that he had told the IO
that throughout the transaction, he understood that Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) cleverly made A2 KM Singh to accept the money and KM Singh was basically an Assistant to Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). He also admitted to have stated
that KM Singh did not had any previous understanding with Sh. Perumal and A3A3 to transact the bribe money and K.M.Singh even did not had phone numbers of these persons. PW9 admitted that it was evident that A2 KM Singh accepted the money at the instance and direction of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). Witness admitted that there was some part of conversation in Tamil but he did not know the Tamil language. PW9 was not able to recall that whether he or PW8 AK Jain have signed the complaint of Dr. Kunal Saha, Ex.PW2/A. It is pertinent to mention here that complaint Ex.PW2/A does not bear the signatures of either PW8 or PW9. Witness stated that recovery memo Ex.PW2/D was prepared in the CBI office only after conclusion of the proceedings. During the cross examination, cassette Q1 was played and it was observed that despite disturbance, the conversation was understandable. It also came in the record that after conversation, transcript of which is Ex.PW2/F, there is directly the conversation as recorded in transcription Ex.PW2/J and the conversation as recorded in Ex.PW2/G, was not available in the recording played in the court. Witness also admitted that in the transcription Ex.PW2/H, the date mentioned by Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) is 08.02.2009. PW9 denied the suggestion that no money was recovered from the possession of A2 KM Singh. The witness was also confronted with the recorded conversation, transcription Ex.PW2/K. It was noted that there was no transcription of certain portion.
(f ) Supreme Court Witnesses Regarding Procedure ; and
(g) Witness regarding sanction
3.6 Prosecution has examined 03 witnesses from Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the sanction for prosecution of the accused persons and the procedure.
PW5 Sh. GK Sharma was Incharge Listing Branch at the relevant time. He stated that the jurisdiction, administrative set up, practice and procedure are duly laid down and available in “practice & procedure handbook”. The witness stated that the rules practice and procedure are strictly followed. There is no chance of bench hunting or manipulation. The witness deposed that SLP 501114 of 2004 was filed by Sh. VK Monga, Adv on 2/9/04 and was listed on 11/10/04 before the bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice BN Aggarwal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice AK Mathur. On 12/9/05 the leave was granted and it was converted into criminal appeal No. 11911194 of 2004. It also came on the record that the early application dtd. 2006 and 2008 were dismissed. The witness proved certain documents on record including the photocopies of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. Perusal of the documents indicate that matter came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14/4/09, 15/4/09 and 14/5/09 and finally the matter was fixed for 14/7/09. Sh. GK Sharma, retired Addl. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India proved office notice Ex.PW5/B relating to the priority in listing the matter which was duly approved by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. The note dtd. 4/9/09 regarding listing of the criminal appeal No. 1191 – 94/05 (concerned criminal appeal) in which the permission was sought to list the same in the next weekly list. This note was also duly proved by Hon'ble Chief Justice of
India on 4/9/09. The witness stated that the status of any matter pending in
the Hon'ble Supreme Court is always verifiable on the website. The password for the purpose of updating the data is given to all the employees, who are meant to update the same and the password is given to the Supreme Court registry by the NIC and the NIC duly assures the Supreme Court registry that the password given is kept confidential and is not leaked. In the cross examination that A1 and A2 were not posted in the listing branch at the relevant time. He was not aware if any password or User ID to operate the computer system in the Hon'ble Supreme Court was given to accused KS A3A3 or C.Perumal.
PW7 Sh. Narayan Singh Bora, Court Assistant had been dealing with the criminal appeals pertaining to West Bengal at the relevant time. He had dealt with the file pertaining to this case. The witness stated that accused KS A3A3 would usually come to the section officially for queries regarding files for official purpose. The witness stated that there was no understanding between him and the accused persons regarding any monetary transaction against sharing of information of files. He voluntarily stated that he was on leave from 4/9/09 to 11/2/09 and had no information about this case.
PW6 Sh. Ashok Kumar, retired Registrar, Supreme Court of India, proved the sanction for prosecution against accused KS A3natan, Sr. Court Assistant by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Justice SH Kapadia dtd. 26/8/2010 as Ex.PW6/B. The witness stated that under Article 146 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court officers and servants (conditions of service and conduct) Rules 1961. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India is the competent authority for appointment/removal and disciplinary
action against the officers and servants of the Supreme Court of India. The
witness was not cross examined. Sh. Ashok Kumar, Retired Registrar proved the sanction for prosecution against accused C. Perumal, Court Assistant, accorded by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice SH Kapadia as Ex.PW6/C.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
4.0 In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., A1 C. Perumal stated that he had never met Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and complainant on 05.02.2009. He also denied about any demand of bribe or any kind of assurance. A1 C. Perumal
also denied to have gone to Jantar Mantar and met the complainant on 06.02.2009. He also denied the fact of showing weekly cause list to the complainant. Accused stated that a false complaint was lodged. A1 C.Perumal also denied his visit to complainant on 09.02.2009 alongwith A2KM Singh. A1 also denied that A3 A3A3 contacted him same day He stated that while he was at his home, two people came and asked him to come downstairs and from there he was taken to CBI office. Accused stated that when he was brought downstairs he started shivering and got confused.
In respect of tape recorded conversation, accused stated that he was made to read written script repeatedly by the CBI officials and the recording was manufactured and transcript was prepared as per the convenience of CBI.Accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.A2 KM Singh in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. denied the entire incriminating evidence and stated that he never went to thecomplainant alongwith A1 C. Perumal. He also denied to have raised anydemand of bribe. He stated that he was taken by Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) as hisused to remain with him being his Junior. On that day, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030)called him and asked to come to Supreme Court and from there, healongwith Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) went to hostel at 5pm. There both of them metDr. Kunal Saha who was already in the room and at that time, only three ofthem were present in the room. A2 KM Singh stated that Dr. Kunal Sahahanded over the money to him and he counted the same and handed over thesame to Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). Accused stated that he was told that it wasprofessional fees. Accused further stated that he never put the money in thispocket. He also stated that after Sh.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) took the money from him, he alongwith Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) came to Supreme Court where he wasdropped and while he was going to Patiala House Courts, CBI officialsapprehended him. A2 KM Singh denied that he was apprehended from thehostel. Accused KM Singh also stated that he was made to read the writtenscripts repeatedly by the CBI officials and the recording was manufacturedand transcript was prepared as per the convenience of CBI. Accused statedthat he was falsely implicated and wrongfully arrested. Accused stated that he did not know about intentions of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) but many times, it used to happen that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) used to take the accused alongwith himfor receiving the money. In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C., A3 KS A3A3 alsodenied all the allegations and denied to have met Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) andcomplainant on 05.02.2009. Accused refused to have demanded any bribe.
Accused stated that he has been falsely implicated and the complainant haslodged a false case. He also refused to have received any call from Sh.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). The conversation was also denied by A3 KS A3A3.
Accused stated that his duty hours were from 10am to 7pm and on09.02.2009 after finishing his duty while he was waiting for the bus at busstop near Supreme Court, at that time, he was apprehended by certainpersons who were later on came to be known as CBI officials. A3A3A3 stated that even he did not know A2 KM Singh prior to that andhad never accepted any money nor did he met him on that day prior to hewas apprehended by the CBI. Accused KS A3A3 also denied any
conversation or meeting between him and A1 C. Perumal. Accused also
stated that he was made to read the written scripts repeatedly by the CBI
officials and the recording was manufactured and transcript was prepared asper the convenience of CBI. Accused stated that experts have given a falsereport. Accused stated that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) dishonestly used his name andimplicated him falsely. Accused KS A3A3 also stated that witnesseshave made baseless statements and there is no truth in it. Accused stated thathe was even beaten up by the CBI officials.
ARGUMENTS
5.0 Sh. DK Singh, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that this is a strangecase where one practising Advocate with Media background, claiminghimself to be friend of the appellant / petitioner, is appearing to be activelypersuading the complainant to pay the bribe to Supreme Court registryofficials for listing of the matter. It may be recalled that complainant wasdesperate to get his matter listed for which he had sent in advance a faxmessage to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and had also decided to sit onhunger strike. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per record, on04.02.2009 itself, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India had approved (as pernotesheet Ex.PW5/B(colly)) that matter be listed in the next weekly listpursuant to which on 05.02.2009, the matter was ordered to be listed on10 2.2009. The judicial notice can also be taken of the fact that in 2009 also, the status of the case in Supreme Court was available online as has been admitted by PW5 GK Sharma, thus, it cannot be believed that Sh.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), Advocate was not aware about the procedure of listing of the cases and status of the criminal appeal No.119194 of 2005. The entire record produced before the court (including the chargesheet and prosecution evidence) makes it abundantly clear that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was a pivot of the entire case. Since Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) is not on trial before this court, therefore, it would not be proper to give any findings against him but it would not be out of the context to say that, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), Advocate was a kingpin of the entire episode. The court noticed certain strange things about the handling of the case by the CBI. Despite the fact that PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO) and Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW13), the verification officer, had a serious doubt over the conduct of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), but they did not arrest him and subsequently Insp. Dheeraj Khetrapal (PW11), who again had serious doubt over the conduct of Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), did interrogate him but did not arrest him. This court has no device to ascertain the intention of Sh.VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), nor as stated earlier, unable to hold him liable, but one thing is certain, that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was treated preferentially and differently, for the reasons best known to the CBI. PW11 Insp. Dheeraj Khetrapal chargesheeted Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). Ld. Spl. Judge took note of the fact that after filing of the chargesheet, the complainant has sent a communication dated 21.02.2011 to the Director, CBI stating therein that accused No.4 was personal friend of the complainant who actually helped him in nabbing corruption in Supreme Court registry. Ld. Spl. Judge noted that neither any voice sample of the Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was taken nor any further investigation was conducted regarding his role and as there was no evidence available on the record to connect Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) with the commission of the offence, he was discharged. It is pertinent to mention here that this order has not been challenged by the CBI till date at any forum.
The case has a strange history, wherein earlier an Advocate was treated preferentially and differently and then after the trial when Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI, whose sincerity and dedication has always been appreciated by this court, stood up and started his arguments on a very strange footing. Ld. PP for CBI started demolishing the case of the prosecution itself qua A2 KM Singh and sought strength from the God to stand for the truth. Whatever be the outcome of the trial against A2 KM Singh, but it was strange to hear such submissions from Ld. PP. Sh. D.K. Singh. Ld. PP also filed written submissions which I find to be very interesting.
The court does not want to comment any further on this and leave it for the senior officers of CBI to take the call. The duty of the court is to decide the case on the basis of material available on the record and undoubtedly it is the duty of the Ld. Members of Bar to assist the court in arriving at the truth. Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP for CBI also placed on record the Bar Council of India Rules and in particular Chapter 2 which deals with the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette and invited the attention of the court towards Rule 16 which reads as under :
“An Advocate appearing for the prosecution of a criminal trial shall so
conduct the prosecution that it does not lead to conviction of the innocent.
The suppression of material capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused shall be scrupulously avoided.”
Sh. D.K. Singh, Ld. PP has also raised doubts towards the credential of Dr. Kunal Saha. He pointed out that Dr. Saha was given return fare and his stay arrangements was also made by CBI.
5.1 Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. Counsel for accused C. Perumal and KS A3A3 submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. The case of the prosecution is full of material contradictions. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) who was the main accused in
this case has been let off by the CBI and the witness appeared on behalf of
prosecution are contradicting each other. Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. Counsel
submitted that the complainant was publicity hungry and wanted to become
popular and sensational by targeting the image of Supreme court registry.
Ld. Counsel submitted that in criminal Appeal No.119194 of 2005, accused
persons were duly acquitted. It was submitted that FIR was registered under the influence of Sr. IFS officer Dr. K. Srikar Reddy as appearing in para 16 of the chargesheet. Sh. Khanna submitted that the fact of A1 C. Perumal and A2 KM Singh visiting the complainant on 06.02.2009 alongwith weekly list has not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW2/A and this fact came for the first time in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW2/DA recorded on 03.03.2009. It was pointed out that Insp. Sanjay Dhall who has recorded the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. has not been examined by the prosecution.
Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the complainant stated that his statement was recorded on the intervening night of 9/10 February 2009 but this statement has been withheld by the prosecution. Ld. Counsel submitted that the complainant admitted during his cross examination recorded on 21.12.2011 that his statement was recorded by the CBI officers in the intervening night of 9/10 February 2009. Ld. Defence counsel invited the attention of this court that PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO) in his cross examination dated 17.09.2013 admitted that he had not produced the statement of the complainant, shadow witness, recovery witness and members of the raid party before the Ld. Spl. Judge on 10.02.2009 when the accused persons were produced for the remand.
Similarly, the attention was invited to the cross examination of this witness recorded on 24.02.2013 wherein Insp. RC Sharma was not able to recall that whether he recorded the statement of complainant or any other witness in the intervening night of 9/10 February 2009. Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. Counsel submitted that PW8 AK Jain also in the cross examination conducted on 26.08.2013 had stated that his statement was recorded by the CBI officer Insp. RC Sharma in CBI office on 09.02.2009. It was also pointed out that one call at the stage of preverification/ verification stage is mysteriously appearing in the cassette Q2 which itself shows the manipulation in recording.
Ld. Counsel submitted that the complainant is not at all reliable witness and his statement is liable to be discarded. In respect of the tape recorded conversation, Ld. counsel submitted that DVR is a primary evidence which has not been produced in the court. In this regard, the cross examination of PW1 dated 24.07.2012 was referred to. Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. counsel also pointed out the contradictions regarding timing. It has been submitted that as per the case of the prosecution itself, the verification proceedings continued after 2pm whereas, the process of handing over memo started at 1:30pm. Ld. counsel submitted that even as per the testimony of PW8 AK Jain verification memo was got typed in CBI office after they come back. It has been submitted that even as per the prosecution witnesses A2 KM Singh had no role.
Ld. Counsel also invited the attention of the court that as per recovery memo Ex.PW2/D, complainant and independent witnesses reached on the spot at 5:50pm and prescheduled signal was received at 5:58pm, whereas the recording is of only 15 minutes. Therefore, the recording which is shown to be related to on spot conversation at the time of trap has actually not taken place at that time. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the call details record of complainant and TLO have not been produced which amount to withholding of material evidence. Ld. Counsel also assailed the CDR of A1 C. Perumal and A3 KS A3A3 produced in the court.
LAW POINTS:
6.0 Section 7 of POC Act, provides punishment to public servant
taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of official act. The necessary ingredients of Section 7 PC Act, 1988 are as follows :
(1) the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be a public
servant;
(2) that he accepted, or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to
obtain from some person a gratification;
(3) that such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; and,
(4) that he accepted the gratification in question as a motive or reward, for:
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or
(b) showing, or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to some one
in the exercise of his official functions; or
(c) rendering or attempting to render, any service or disservice to
some one, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament
or the Legislature of any State or with any public servant.
The prosecution is required to prove the above ingredients by
way of acceptable and clinching evidence.
Recently in State Vs. Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
Crl. Appeal No.2052 of 2010, decided on 12.08.2013, it was inter alia held
by the Apex Court as under :
“The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is
sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Act 1988. Mere recovery
of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive
evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 65 of 7
payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a
bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten
guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and
acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests
on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section
20 of the Act 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or
circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money
was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in
Section 7 of the Act 1988. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of
the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the
accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability
and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However,
before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question
was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by
the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness
concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in
the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the
court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the
accused person. (Vide: Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab AIR
1973 SC 498; T. Subramanian v. The State of T.N., AIR 2006 SC 836;
State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450; and Mukut Bihari
& Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642).
Similarly, in KS Panduranga Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013
Vol.III SCC 721, it was inter alia held as under:
“39. Keeping in view that the demand and acceptance of the amount as
illegal gratification is a condition precedent for constituting an offence
under the Act, it is to be noted that there is a statutory presumption under
Section 20 of the Act which can be dislodged by the accused by bringing
on record some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that money was
accepted other than for the motive or the reward as stipulated under
Section 7 of the Act. When some explanation is offered, the court is
obliged to consider the explanation under Section 20 of the Act and the
consideration of the explanation has to be on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. It is not to be proven beyond all reasonable
doubt. In the case at hand, we are disposed to think that the explanation
offered by the accused does not deserve any acceptance and, accordingly,
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 66 of 7
we find that the finding recorded on that score by the learned trial Judge
and the stamp of approval given to the same by the High Court cannot be
faulted.”
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
7.0 In regard to the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases, it
has been repeatedly held by the superior courts that, embellishment in the
statement of witnesses which do not disturb the core of the prosecution, can
be ignored. If the prosecution has succeeded to prove the facts from which a
reasonable inference can be drawn, the case cannot be thrown out merely on
the basis of whims and fancy of the accused. It has to be understood that
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts and not
beyond all doubts. It is also a settle proposition that “falsus in uno falsus in
omnibus” is not an acceptable proposition in Indian Jurisprudence.
7.1 Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Ld. Defence counsel has argued
vehemently and invited the attention of the court towards the defective
investigation by the IO. It has been submitted that the IO merely acted as an
agent of the complainant and failed to conduct fair and impartial
investigation. Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) who was the anchor of the entire show
was let off leniently and no effort was made to collect the evidence against
him. The defective investigation in context of preparation of transcript, seal
and seizure has also been pointed out. The over view of the case
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 67 of 7
undoubtedly lead to an inference that IO failed on certain aspects in
conducting the investigation fairly. There has been certain defects in the
investigation, however, the question would be whether on the basis of such
defects in the investigation, can premium be given to the accused. Recently,
the issue regarding defective investigation came before Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Hema Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 31 of 2013, wherein it was
reiterated that for certain defects in the investigation, the accused cannot be
acquitted. Thus, the court is required to evaluate the case in its entirety,
excluding the aspects which seems to be part and parcel of defective
investigation. I consider that the basic test in such cases should be whether
defective investigation has prejudiced the accused in any manner. The
allegation regarding the defective investigation to the effect that the suspect
has been let off would not be of much consequence as the accused persons
cannot claim negative equality. If a suspect has been let off it would not be
licence to other suspects to claim the immunity. As I have said earlier, the
role of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) was quite suspicious but it seems that CBI only
half heartedly chargesheeted him and failed to collect any evidence, as
reflected in the order of charge dated 17.08.2011. The intentions of the CBI
are clear from the fact that they did not challenge the order on charge. It is
also surprising that the disciplinary authorities of Bar Associations / Bar
Councils also did not even initiate any inquiry against Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030),
whose role was quite suspicious in this case. However, leaving aside this,
since Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) has been discharged and this court has no
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 68 of 7
jurisdiction to review its own order, the court can confine itself to return the
findings against the accused persons who have faced trial before this court.
7.2 The testimony of the complainant has been assailed by the
defence and to some extent by the prosecution also. The court has very
difficult task of appreciating the evidence and making a way to find out the
truth. The court can neither act as a mouthpiece of prosecution nor can
ignore the right and interest of accused. The ultimate quest of the criminal
trial is justice. The complainant cannot be branded unreliable only because
Ld. PP has tried to paint him gray. The facts have to be understood in its
entirety. The complainant herein is a highly qualified person, who is settled
in USA, and looses his wife on account of alleged medical negligence. It is
pertinent to mention here that as informed to the court by the prosecution
and defence both, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded a
substantial compensation to the complainant in the same very case. The
complainant approached the Apex court as he was not satisfied with the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata and he was anguished over the
fact that his criminal appeals are not being heard. Dr. Kunal Saha like any
other outsider or common man may not be knowing the procedure followed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding listing of the matters and as any
other petitioner was very anxious regarding disposal of his petition. The pain
of a person who lost his wife should be tried to be understood and the
anguish of such mind should not be underestimated. Dr. Kunal Saha being
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 69 of 7
exasperated over non listing of his case, sends communications to Hon'ble
the Chief Justice of India and then visits India with a plan to sit on hunger
strike. Nothing can be read against the complainant merely because he
threatened to sit on hunger strike. In a democratic setup, every individual has
a right to raise his voice against the system. Merely because one decides to
sit on hunger strike, he cannot be held to be publicity hungry or a rebellion.
It has to be understood that Dr. Kunal Saha was NRI and he was totally
dependent upon his Advocates. Here again, the role of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030)
is very crucial and he is again seems to be the Director of the entire show.
Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030), being an Advocate, must be knowing the system of listing
of cases and therefore, he being an Advocate of the complainant was in the
best position to guide or misguide him. The court can take judicial notice of
the fact that status of the cases pending in Supreme Court are available
online and therefore, after the case was ordered to be listed by Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of India on 04.02.2009 in the next weekly list, it is quite
possible that on 05.02.2009, his lawyer might have come to know about
listing of such case. Here there is a possibility that the complainant was
relying heavily upon his lawyer and he might have being in cahoots with
certain persons in registry and scripted a drama to extort the money from
the complainant. It cannot be said with certainty but it might have been a
possibility. Unfortunately, CBI did not investigate this aspect. Dr. Kunal
Saha seems to have remained under the bonafide impression. The fact that
Dr. Kunal Saha demanded his return airfare and arrangement for stay during
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 70 of 7
the recording of his evidence, would not make him unreliable in any manner.
Certainly, there are some contradictions in the testimony of the complainant
which are very clear and does not go to the root of the case. The testimony of
the complainant as a whole, do inspire the confidence of the court and seems
to have a ring of truth in it. But at the same time, while appreciating the
evidence of the complainant in trap case, the court would apply all the test
required. The duty of the court as has been repeatedly held is to separate the
grain from chaff and to take into consideration what seems to be reliable,
cogent and creditworthy.
7.3 Section 19 of the POC Act, 1988 provides sanction for
prosecution. The bare perusal of the section makes it clear that the Court
cannot take cognizance against the accused unless the sanction has been
granted by the competent authority. It is a settled proposition that grant of
sanction is not a mechanical process. The sanction in this case has been
granted by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Justice Sh. SH Kapadia.
The bare perusal of the sanction order against accused C. Perumal and
accused KS A3A3 indicates that the sanction has been granted only if
the competent authority was duly satisfied. There is no material on record to
even suggest that there is any defect or irregularity in the sanction. It is
pertinent to mention here that in the cross examination, the sanction order
was not assailed but in the statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, the accused persons
stated that the sanction was granted mechanically. This plea of the accused
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 71 of 7
persons seem to be an after thought and without any substance and is liable
to be dismissed. Therefore, it is held that sanction has been granted in
accordance with the law.
TAPE RECORDED CONVERSATION
8.0 I have heard cassette Ex.P1. It has been found that initially the
name and other particulars of independent witness is not heard and only it
has been heard “NAI DILLI SE BOL RAHA HOON”. The conversation as
per transcript Ex.PW2/E, does not reflect that at what time Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030)
had promised to come and meet the complainant during the first
conversation.
In the second conversation, the transcript of which is
Ex.PW2/F, Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) has been heard saying that he would come and
meet the complainant alongwith another person at around 2:30pm. It has
been observed that in the cassette Ex.P1,
after recording as appearing in
transcript Ex.PW2/F, there is straight recording as appearing in transcript
Ex.PW2/H and the recording as appearing in transcript Ex.PW2/G is
missing.
I have heard the remaining tape recorded conversation in
Ex.P1.
It has been noted that during the conversation as recorded in
Ex.PW2/H, it seems to have been recorded on 08.02.2009 whereas, the case
of the prosecution is that it is recorded on 09.02.2009. Besides this, there is
some other conversation also of which the transcript was not on the record
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 72 of 7
and at the end, the audio cassette is blank. It is also pertinent to mention here
that in the beginning, the complainant is asking about the introduction of KM
Singh and another person who is introduced as supreme court employee. It
has also been noted that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) is saying about Perumal that he is
very reluctant and shy. He is supreme court employee. If this recorded
conversation is believed, it seems that the complainant has not met C.
Perumal and A3A3 on 05.02.2009 or 06.02.2009. The recorded
conversation also indicates that Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) has told the complainant
that KM Singh and Perumal were not willing to come and he has pressurized
them to come. There is also mention of other two persons. Then KM Singh,
Perumal and Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) is heard saying that it was not desirable to
bring all four persons. Rather, the complainant is heard asking KM Singh
“AAP SUPREME COURT MEI HAIN” and KM Singh replied “SAATH
MEIN HAIN”. However, the conversation is clear regarding some deal of
Rs.75,000/for
listing of the matter.
The cassette Q2, Ex.P34 has also been played and heard. In the
cassette at the beginning, there is introductory voice of PW8 and PW9 and
thereafter, there is recording, transcript of which is Ex.PW2/G. It is pertinent
to mention here that this conversation (3rd call) during verification process
has apparently taken place before the conversation, the transcript of which is
Ex.PW2/H. Subsequent to this, there is conversation which is recorded in
transcript Ex.PW2/J. It is pertinent to mention here that conversation
Ex.PW2/H which is after Ex.PW2/G, is in cassette Q1.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 73 of 7
I have heard the further recorded conversation in cassette Q2
also. The transcript of which has been proved as Ex.PW2/K and Ex.PW2/L.
It has been observed that there is no transcript of certain portions of the tape
recorded conversation. However, it has been noted that the dialogue which
are appearing in the transcript are certainly there in the recorded
conversation and there is no material variation in that. Recently, in Nilesh
Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143 the entire
law regarding voice identification was revisited by the Apex Court, and it
was inter alia held as under:
“31. In our opinion, the evidence of voice identification is at best
suspect, if not, wholly unreliable. Accurate voice identification is
much more difficult than visual identification. It is prone to such
extensive and sophisticated tampering, doctoring and editing that
the reality can be completely replaced by fiction. Therefore, the
courts have to be extremely cautious in basing a conviction purely
on the evidence of voice identification. This Court, in a number of
judgments emphasised the importance of the precautions, which
are necessary to be taken in placing any reliance on the evidence
of voice identification.
32. [Ed.: Para 32 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.
3/Ed.B.J./18/2011 dated 542011.]
. In Ziyauddin Burhanuddin
Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra [(1976) 2 SCC 17] this
Court made following observations: (SCC p. 26, para 19)
“19. We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that
the taperecords
of speeches were ‘documents’, as defined by
Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing
than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on
satisfying the following conditions:
(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly
identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 74 of 7
(b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by
the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or
circumstantial, had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of
tampering with the record.
(c) The subjectmatter
recorded had to be shown to be relevant
according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.”
33. In Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh [1985 Supp SCC 611] , again
this Court stated some of the conditions necessary for admissibility
of taperecorded
statements, as follows: (SCC p. 623, para 32)
“(1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the maker
of the record or by others who recognise his voice. In other words,
it manifestly follows as a logical corollary that the first condition
for the admissibility of such a statement is to identify the voice of
the speaker. Where the voice has been denied by the maker it will
require very strict proof to determine whether or not it was really
the voice of the speaker.
(2) The accuracy of the taperecorded
statement has to be proved
by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence—direct or
circumstantial.
(3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part of a
taperecorded
statement must be ruled out otherwise it may render
the said statement out of context and, therefore, inadmissible.
(4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of the
Evidence Act.
(5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept in safe
or official custody.
(6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and not lost
or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.”
....
39. This apart, in Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur
[(1982) 2 SCC 258] , this Court has laid down that taperecorded
evidence can only be used as corroboration evidence. In SCC para
22, it is observed as follows: (SCC p. 269)
“22. … Taperecorded
conversation can only be relied upon as
corroborative evidence of conversation deposed by any of the
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 75 of 7
parties to the conversation and in the absence of evidence of any
such conversation, the taperecorded
conversation is indeed no
proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. In the instant case,
there was no evidence of any such conversation between the tenant
and the husband of the landlady; and in the absence of any such
conversation, the taperecorded
conversation could be no proper
evidence.”
8.1 Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that the entire tape
recorded conversation should be removed from realm of consideration as
there has been several discrepancies. It has also been pointed out that
complete transcription has also not been produced before the court.
There cannot be any doubt to the proposition that tape recorded
conversation can at the best be corroborative piece of evidence. In the
present case, the accused persons have not disputed their voice in the
recorded conversation, they have taken a plea in statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C.
that they were given a written script by the IO in the CBI office and were
made to read over the same. This plea of the accused persons on the face of
it does not seem to be plausible and reliable.
I have heard the tape recorded conversation repeatedly during
the trial and at the time of final arguments. The overall hearing of the tape
recorded conversation do inspire the confidence of the court and rule out any
possibility that it was recorded in the CBI office with the written script given
to the complainant, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and the accused persons. If it could
have been so, CBI cannot be so naive that they had permitted Sh. R.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 76 of 7
VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) to speak certain dialogues which goes against the case of the
prosecution.
It is not the case where there is only a single conversation.
There are number of conversations recorded either directly or through
telephone. The expert witness has duly proved on oath that the possibility of
tampering out has been ruled out. It is correct that the entire transcript of the
tape recorded conversation has not been produced by the CBI, but that does
not mean to reject the entire piece of evidence. It has been noted that though,
there is no transcript of certain portions of tape recorded conversation, but at
the same time, the conversation of which the transcript has been prepared, is
correctly appearing in the transcript. The court has to take a pragmatic and
practical approach while appreciating the evidence. It has to be understood
that investigating agency had a very difficult task of collection of evidence
and in particularly the trap cases. In such cases, the complainant would also
be in a different state of mind, having some fear, some anxiety and some
confusion. At the same time, the accused persons in such cases would also
be in a typical state of mind and therefore, the court cannot expect the tape
recorded conversation, which goes exactly according to the script. Some
disturbances, some out of context discussions are bound to be there. It would
have been better, if the CBI would have produced the entire transcript but
possibly the IO produced the transcript which he thought relevant for the
case. It is not the case of the defence that the transcript which has not been
produced would have exonerated the accused. Had it been so, the copies of
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 77 of 7
the cassettes were duly supplied to the accused persons and they were well in
a position to demolish the case of the prosecution. We must bear in mind that
investigating agency conduct the investigation in a very different situation
and there terrain is also very uneven. Therefore, the court has to pick the
threads and to see whether as a whole it can be weaved into some
presentable piece of evidence. Thus, I reject the plea of the defence that the
entire tape recorded conversation be removed from the area of consideration
of the court. I consider that the tape recorded conversation can very well be
used as a corroborative piece of evidence.
ROLE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
9.0 Accused KM Singh has been charged for the offence u/S.8 of
POC Act and S.120B IPC r/w S.7, 8, 13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act. The
offence of conspiracy has been defined u/S.120A IPC, which reads as
under :
“120A.
Definition of criminal conspiracy – When two or more
persons agree to do, or cause to be done, 1.
an illegal act, or
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy ;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 78 of 7
The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be :
a) an object to be accomplished ;
b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object ;
c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the
accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate
for the accomplishment of the object by the means
embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means ; and
d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.
In order to convict a person for the offence u/S.120B IPC, there
has to be some material direct or indirect which could infer meeting of
minds amongst the accused persons. The recorded conversation between
accused KM Singh and KS A3A3 cannot be relied upon as this
conversation took place after KM Singh had been in the custody of CBI
officers. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that accused KM Singh spoke
under the instructions of CBI officers.
Section 8 of POC Act reads as under :
“8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to
influence public servant. Whoever
accepts or obtains, or agrees to
accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person, for himself or for any
other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for
including, by corrupt or illegal means, any public servant, whether
named or otherwise, to do or to forbear to do any official act, or in
the exercise of the official functions of such public servant to show
favour or disfavour to any person, or to render or attempt to render
any service or disservice to any person with the Central Government
or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any
State or with any local authority, corporation or Government
company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public
servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 79 of 7
imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but
which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.”
The ingredients of Section 8 of the POC Act, 1988 are as
follows:
(a) the accused should accept or agree to accept (or even
attempt to obtain) gratification from someone;
(b) the gratification is for himself or someone else; and,
(c) it is a motive or reward to induce a public servant by
corrupt or illegal means to do or to forbear to do any official act
or to show favour or disfavour to some person etc.
(Reference can be made to Devan Vs. State, 1988 CrLJ 1005)
The case of the prosecution against A2 KM Singh is that he met
the complainant for the first time on 06.02.2009 when he visited alongwith
other accused persons at Jantar Mantar and second time he met the
complainant on 09.02.2009 at the time of verification and eventually
accepted the bribe on behalf of A1 and A3. A2 was caught red handed while
accepting the bribe from the complainant. However, I consider that
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused KM Singh.
There is no mention of accused KM Singh in the initial complaint filed on
09.02.2009, Ex.PW2/A. The name of accused KM Singh appeared for the
first time during the verification proceedings conducted on 09.02.2009. It
was alleged that accused KM Singh had come to the hostel room alongwith
C. Perumal and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) on 09.02.2009 during pre verification
proceedings, as appearing in the transcript Ex.PW2/H of the recorded
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 80 of 7
conversation. If we peruse the transcript Ex.PW2/H it would be clear that
mainly the conversation is between the complainant, accused C. Perumal and
Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030). Accused KM Singh had hardly spoken anything in the
entire recorded conversation. The factum of visit of accused KM Singh and
demand of bribe on 06.02.2009 becomes doubtful in view of the fact that it
does not find mention in the complaint Ex.PW2/A. This fact finds place for
the first time in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant recorded
on 03.03.2009.
In respect of acceptance of bribe also, the evidence against
accused KM Singh is quite weak in nature. If we peruse the transcript of on
spot conversation, it indicates that even at that time, the complainant was not
knowing accused KM Singh. At one point, complainant is asking KM Singh
that whether he works in Supreme court registry.
The relevant portion of the evidence of PW3 Insp. RC Sharma,
PW11 DySP Dhiraj Khetrapal and PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal has not been
produced herein for the sake of brevity as the same have been discussed
earlier. The bare perusal of the cross examination of these three witnesses
would make it clear that infact, it was Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) who insisted
accused KM Singh to accept the money on his behalf. I consider that there is
no evidence of demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe on behalf of accused
KM Singh. A2 KM Singh seems to have been gone merely at the request of
Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and he seems to have accepted the money at the
directions of Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) which is being reflected from the
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 81 of 7
testimony of prosecution witnesses itself. Thus, I consider that there is no
evidence on the record regarding conspiracy i.e. S.120B IPC or
regarding offence u/S.7, 8, 13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act against
accused KM Singh.
9.1 The case against accused KS A3A3 is that he alongwith
A1 C. Perumal met Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and complainant on 05.02.2009 in
the Supreme Court itself and there a demand of Rs.75,000/was
raised for
early listing of the matter. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 C.
Perumal, A3 KS A3A3, A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) visited
the complainant on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar and again raised a demand
of Rs.75,000/for
showing favour to the complainant relating to the listing
of the case. Thereafter, as per the case of the prosecution, KS A3A3
comes into scene after KM Singh had accepted the bribe and the bribe
money was to be delivered to A3 A3A3 outside Supreme Court. The
complainant believed what Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) told him. Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) is
not before this court neither as an accused nor as a witness. Anything comes,
without it becomes a hearsay evidence which is not admissible on the face of
it. Secondly, the alleged fact of visit of A3 A3A3 alongwith A1 C.
Perumal, Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh on 06.02.2009 at Jantar
Mantar has also not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint
Ex.PW2/A lodged on 09.02.2009. It is a matter of record that this version of
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 82 of 7
the complainant came for the first time in his statement recorded on
03.03.2009. Thus, conspicuous absence of this plea in complaint Ex.PW2/A
and existence of the same in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of the
complainant, Ex.PW2/DA dated 03.03.2009, makes this plea unbelievable
and unreliable. Thus, I consider that as far as demand is concerned, there is
no admissible evidence against accused KS A3A3 on record.
Accused KS A3A3 has also been charged for the offence
u/S.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act r/w S.120B IPC. The prosecution
has proved on record that after accused KM Singh being apprehended,
further trap was laid in pursuant to which Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) called A3
A3A3 and a meeting was fixed outside Supreme court at Pan kiosk.
The tape recorded conversation, transcript of which has been proved on
record indicates that accused KS A3A3 was in full knowledge of the
transaction of bribe. He also knew the purpose of making of payment by the
complainant. Accused KS A3A3 also talked to C. Perumal on
telephone. This telephonic conversation also indicates that there was meeting
of mind between accused KS A3A3 and C. Perumal. In the case of
conspiracy it is not always possible to have direct evidence. The court has to
look around all the circumstances so as to find out that whether there was
meeting of mind between the persons. Accused KS A3A3 and C.
Perumal were admittedly the employees of Supreme court. It does not matter
whether they were posted in the listing branch or not. It is also not material
that whether they were in a position to get the matter listed or not. However,
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 83 of 7
they were certainly in conspiracy with each other alongwith third persons so
as to show that in the exercise of their official function, they can favour the
complainant. There is no reason for the complainant to falsely name C.
Perumal and KS A3A3. There are thousands of employees in the
Supreme court. It is highly improbable that out of those, the complainant
would name only C. Perumal and KS A3A3 without any reason. The
defence has not brought forward any material to show that the complainant
had ill will or grudge against C. Perumal and KS A3A3. The material
on record do indicate that KS A3A3 accepted the money from KM
Singh, here the presumption arises against KS A3A3. He has not been
able to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted
by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of POC
Act, 1988. If we peruse Section 7 of POC Act, here the initiative rest with
the receiver of the bribe. Therefore, Section 7 of POC Act can be attributed
even if the prosecution has not been able to attribute the demand of bribe on
part of the accused. However, in order to bring Section 13(1)(d) of POC Act,
the prosecution is duty bound to prove the demand as well as acceptance of
bribe, because in order to fasten the guilt u/S.13(1)(d), the initiative rest with
the giver of the bribe. Hence, there has to be demand on part of the accused.
The testimonies of PW8 AK Jain and PW3 Insp. RC Sharma (TLO) and
Insp. Rajesh Chahal (PW13) have duly proved that money was accepted by
KS A3A3. There is no reason for the CBI officials to depose falsely
against KS A3A3. The evidence has duly been corroborated by tape
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 84 of 7
recorded conversation. Hence, I consider that though the prosecution has not
been able to prove the offence u/S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act,
however, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused
KS A3A3 u/S.7 POC Act and S.120B IPC r/w S.7 of POC Act,
1988.
9.2 The allegations against accused C. Perumal is that he firstly
met the complainant alongwith KS A3A3 and Sh. R. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) on
05.02.2009 in the Supreme Court itself where the demand of bribe was
raised and thereafter, on 06.02.2009 he alongwith other accused persons
visited Jantar Mantar and demanded the bribe. As I have discussed above,
the prosecution has not been able to prove both of these incidents, however,
that could not mean that the case of the prosecution as a whole, becomes
doubtful. The prosecution places the entire evidence on record including
various circumstances so as to prove their case. It may be possible that the
entire evidence is not proved but that would not mean that the case of the
prosecution as a whole, should be thrown out. The case may be of direct
evidence and the circumstantial evidence. In the case of direct evidence, as
of the present case, where the CBI has alleged that accused persons have
demanded and accepted bribe, there may be certain circumstances other than
the direct evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, it is not necessary
that all those circumstances also, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 85 of 7
by the prosecution. It would be sufficient if the evidence of demand and
acceptance is proved in accordance with the number of evidence and if one
or two circumstances does not stand proved, it should not be held fatal for
the entire case of the prosecution. The position may be different in the case
of circumstantial evidence, where all the circumstances alleged by the
prosecution should form a complete chain of events and there should not be
any circumstances which proves the innocence of the accused or excludes
the guilt of the accused. Even if the meeting of 5th / 6th February 2009 is
excluded, the complainant has specifically stated on oath that A1 C. Perumal
came to him at his hostel alongwith Sh. VENKATARAMAN (ENROL NO. 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM GHAZIABAD MOB. 9910090030) and A2 KM Singh and
demanded bribe from him. As I have discussed above, there is no reason to
disbelieve the complainant on this account. The complainant has duly
withstand the cross examination and the defence has not been able to shatter
his testimony. The tape recorded conversation has also lent corroboration to
the testimony of the complainant. Therefore, the demand on behalf of C.
Perumal has duly been proved on record. Subsequent to it, as far as
acceptance is concerned, that has also been proved by the complainant as
well as PW3 Insp. RC Sharma and PW13 Insp. Rajesh Chahal. Both have
made a consistent and corroborative statement on oath that the money was
accepted by accused C. Perumal. The forensic evidence has also lent
corroboration to the acceptance of money by accused C. Perumal and
accused KS A3A3. The tape recorded conversation duly proved on
record also proves the meeting of mind between accused C. Perumal and
CBI Vs. C. Perumal & Ors. CC No.06/12 Page 86 of 7
accused KS A3A3 as well as the acceptance of money on behalf of
accused C. Perumal. I consider that in the facts and circumstances, the
prosecution has successfully proved its case against accused C. Perumal
u/S.7, S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act 1988 as well as S.120B IPC r/w
S.7 and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988.
CONCLUSION
10.0 In view of the above findings, accused C. Perumal is
convicted for the charge u/S.120B IPC r/w S.7 and S.13(1) (d) r/w 13(2)
of the POC Act, 1988 and substantive charge u/S.7 and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.
13(2) of POC Act, 1988 in RC No.9(A)/2009.
Accused KM Singh is acquitted for the charge u/S.120B IPC
r/w S.7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988 and substantive charge
u/S.8 of POC Act, 1988 in RC No.9(A)/2009.
Accused KS A3A3 is convicted for the charge u/S.
120B IPC r/w S.7 of POC Act, 1988 and Sec. 7 of the POC Act 1988 in
RC No.9(A)/2009.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 01 February 2014
what is the query ? you have posted such a long judgement on this site . learn to smrraise your query in brief . psot only relevant extracts of judgement in respect of which you want experts to reply
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 01 February 2014
Specify the query and mention the facts in brief.
mala
(Querist) 01 February 2014
Query No.
1. Whether based on hearsay evidence the CBI can take up any investigation Register an FIR
2. While framing charges sang in a tone and while advancing arguments different tone
3. Whether charges framed u/s 7 r/w 120b is evidenced from the judgement
4. Why the Bar Assn does not take any action against this advocate suo motto
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 01 February 2014
QUERY TOO LONG TO REPLY.
