Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 19, 2019
+ CRL. A. 1256/2014 & CRL.M.A. 13992/2014
S K BHATIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Mr. Sermon
Rawat, Mr. Parikshit Goyal and
Ms. Aastha Vishwakarma,
Advocates
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Special Public
Prosecutor with Mr. Indranil
Mohan, Advocate
+ CRL. A. 1136/2014
AJAY KUMAR GOEL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.A. Hashmi, Mr. Zeeshan
Hashmi & Mr. I.A. Alwi,
Advocates
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mridul Jain, Special Public
Prosecutor
+ CRL. A. 1193/2014
S. S. SANAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Gagan Manocha,
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 1 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
Mr. Kushdeep Gaur, Mr. Nikhil
Ahuja & Mr. R. Tyagi, Advocates
Versus
THE STATE (through C B I) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mridul Jain, Special Public
Prosecutor
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R
In the above captioned three appeals, challenge is to impugned
st
judgment of 31 July, 2014 vide which appellants have been held guilty
for the offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read
with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth
referred to as the “PC Act‟) . In addition, appellants- Ajay Kumar Goel
and S.S.Sanan have been also held guilty for the offence under Section 12
th
of PC Act. Vide impugned order on sentence of 5 August, 2014, all the
three appellants have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one
year and fine of ₹25,000/- with default clause for committing offence
under Section 120-B read with Sections 7, 12 and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act . In
addition, appellant- S.K. Bhatia has been also sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment of one year and fine with default clause for the offence
under Section 7 of PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for three years and
fine with default clause for offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 2 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the above
captioned appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this
common order.
Appellant- S.K. Bhatia was working as Junior Engineer (JE) in the
Appropriate Authority, Department of Income Tax and at the relevant
time was a member of the inspection team and was supposed to inspect
the property for grant of ‘NOC’. The allegations levelled against him by
respondent-CBI are that he along with co-appellants – Ajay Kumar Goel
and S.S. Sanan entered into a criminal conspiracy and demanded bribe in
lieu of issuance of NOC for the transfer of property. The case set up by
respondent-CBI is that on receipt of secret information, S.B.Sinha, Trap
Laying Officer (PW-6), constituted a raiding team consisting of DSP S.K.
Peshin, (PW-8), Inspector Rajesh Kumar (PW-9), DSP Ramnish (PW-10)
and SI Shobha Dutta and took along two independent witnesses- Baldev
Khera (PW-2) and B.K. Agnihotri to join the raiding team.
The factual background of this case, as noticed in the impugned
judgment, are as under:-
“The prosecution case is that S.K. Bhatia arrived at
the spot at 5.45 pm. He was carrying a plastic bag with him
containing number of flies including file no. 4433 of the
subject property being maintained in the office of Income Tax
Department for issuing of „NOC‟ in the matter. As per
prosecution case A3 A.K. Goel and A4 S.S. Sanan also arrived
after ten minutes of arrival of S.K. Bhatia with a cloth check
bag being carried by S.S.Sanan having bribe amount of Rs.3
lac in it. As per prosecution case A1 showed them one file and
thereafter the money bag was handed over by A3 A.K. Goel to
A1 S.K. Bhatia and on the asking of A1 chain of the bag was
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 3 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
opened by A3 A.K.Goel and S.K.Bhatia also took out one
bundle of Rs.500/- from his pocket and mixed it with the bribe
amount of Rs.3 lac handed over to him by A3 A.K.Goel and A4
S.S.Sanan.”
It is the case of prosecution that on search of polythene bag, many
files of the Appropriate Authority including file pertaining to property in
question were recovered from appellant- S.K. Bhatia . Prosecution had got
examined fifteen witnesses in support of its case. Ravinder Kumar (PW-
1) is the Sanctioning Authority; Baldev Khera (PW-2) is an independent
witness; S.L. Kanojia (PW-4) , Dharma Pal Satya (PW-5) , Rajiv Sajai
(PW-12) & Sunil Gupta (PW-14) are Officers from Income Tax
Department; S.B.Sinha (PW-6) is Trap Laying Officer; Kailash Chand
(PW-13) is an independent witness joined by the CBI. Appellants in their
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, had claimed
that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and had got four
witnesses examined in their defence. Trial court has relied upon evidence
of afore-referred material prosecution witnesses to convict and sentence
the appellants as noted hereinabove.
Learned counsel for appellants assailed the impugned conviction
and sentence on the ground that the evidence led by respondent-CBI is
contradictory and trial court has erred in relying upon it and in discarding
the evidence led by the appellants. It was submitted by learned counsel
for appellants that the alleged bribe money was not recovered from
appellant- S.K.Bhatia and that he was not competent to issue the ‘NOC’
and so, there was no occasion for him to have demanded any bribe. It
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 4 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
was submitted that ‘NOC’ was issued in the instant case without fresh
Verification Report, because the Old Verification Report (Ex.D-4) was
already on record. It was further submitted that appellant- S.K. Bhatia
was carrying various files pertaining to fifteen different properties and
was going to his office and was apprehended just outside his office. It
was next submitted that the case set up against appellants is highly
improbable on the face of it and the independent witness- Baldev Khera
(PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case on merits. It was pointed
out by appellants’ counsel that the Trap Laying Officer (PW-6) has also
not testified that he had heard appellant- S.K. Bhatia demanding any
bribe.
It was next pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that in
the face of evidence of S.L. Kanojia (PW-4) , the prosecution case stands
demolished, as this witness in his evidence has clearly deposed that the
Valuation Report of the property in question was prepared way back in
March, 1995. It was also submitted that the case set up by appellants-
Ajay Kumar Goel and S.S.Sanan of going for a visit to a property dealer
on the day and time of the incident stands probablised from the evidence
led by them. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that the glared
contradictions in the prosecution case render it doubtful and so, benefit of
doubt ought to be given to appellants. Reliance was placed upon
decisions in Vishal Chand Jain Vs. CBI 2011 (1) JCC 570; C.M.
GirishBabu Vs. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779 and State through CBI Vs. Shobha
Chhabra 2016 1 AD (Delhi).
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 5 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-
CBI supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the conviction
of appellants is borne out from the evidence on record and so, these
appeals deserve dismissal.
The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly
considered in light of the evidence on record and decisions cited and
thereafter, this Court finds that the instant case is not a typical trap case.
In this background, the evidence of independent witness Baldev Khera
(PW-2) assumes importance. After having scrutinized his evidence and
the evidence of S.B.Sinha , Trap Laying Officer (PW-6) and the remaining
prosecution evidence, I find inherent contradictions inter se the evidence
of material witnesses. In a trap case, like the instant one, the prosecution
ought to have got the videography of the trap proceedings done, so that
the contradictions in the oral deposition of witnesses do not prove fatal to
the prosecution case. More importantly, trial court has erred in solely
relying upon the prosecution evidence and in discarding otherwise
probable defence version. Upon considering the prosecution case as well
as the defence version in its entirety, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the ingredients of the offence alleged and recovery of bribe
money (not powdered) does not stand conclusively proved. Hence,
benefit of reasonable doubt accrues to the appellants, as they have
explained their presence at the spot by cogent evidence. It is settled legal
position that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself, is not sufficient
to prove the charge against an accused. In the absence of direct reliable
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 6 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014
evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe money, the
conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are
hereby set aside and appellants are acquitted of the charges framed
against them, while extending the benefit of doubt to them.
These appeals and application are accordingly disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 19, 2019
r
Crl.A.1256/2014 Page 7 of 7
Crl.A.1136/2014
Crl.A.1193/2014