V.N. Singh v. C.B.I. Dehradun

the basis of said report, first information report (Ex.A8) was registered by C.B.I., with crime no. RC‐14(A)/94‐DAD on 18.06.1994 at 4:00 p.m. The matter for investigation was entrusted to P.W.3 R.K. Bhagta Dy. S.P. C.B.I. who planned to trap the accused. As per the prosecution case initially the C.B.I. team with decoy (P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini) alongwith with witnesses P.W.2 Satish Gupta and P.W.3 Anil Kumar Jain reached Chamba on

19.06.1994, but when accused V.N. Singh asked informant to come in the T.H.D.C. office on E.C. Road, Dehradun on 20.06.1994 at 4:00 p.m., the trap party reached there and arrested the accused red handed accepting ‘ 40,000/‐ from P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini. After trap proceedings, further investigation was conducted by P.W.7 Inspector P.K. Chaudhary who submitted charge sheet (Ex. A21) against accused V.N. Singh for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 7, under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. 4

#4. The trial court, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., heard the parties and framed charge of offence punishable under section 7, and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, against accused V.N Singh who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini (informant/ decoy), P.W.2 Satish Gupta (witness of proceedings), P.W.3 Anil Kumar Jain (another witness of trap proceedings), P.W.4 R.K. Bhagta, Dy. S.P.C.B.I. (who laid the trap), P.W.5 K.L. Jutsi, the then Managing Director. T.H.D.C., who granted sanction for prosecution, P.W.6 N.K. Prasad, the then Senior Scientific Officer of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, P.W.7 P.K.Chaudhary (who completed the investigation) and P.W.8 C.K. Jain (another Senior Scientific Officer of Central Forensic Science Laboratory who conducted voice spectography).

#5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which only this much was admitted by accused V.N. Singh that he was Dy. General Manager with T.H.D.C in the year 1994, and P.W.1 Samay Singh 5 Saini was partner of M/s Manoj Electrical, the contractor firm who was awarded contract no. LOA 035 (Ex.A1) and LOA 036 (Ex. A2) for electrification work in Baurari. In respect of the rest of the evidence the accused pleaded that the same was false and he has been falsely implicated. In defence, D.W.1 Rakesh Khare, the then Manager, Rehabilitation, T.H.D.C and D.W.2 P.K.Srivastava, the then Senior Manager (Electrical) T.H.D.C., were examined. After hearing the parties the trial court found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section 7, and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988, against accused V.N. Singh and convicted him accordingly. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine ‘ 2500 under section 7 rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and directed to pay fine of ‘ 7,500/‐ under section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated

24.08.2000, passed by Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Dehradun, in C.B.I. case no. 4 of 1995, this appeal was preferred by the convict before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by 6 transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000, for its disposal.

#6. Admittedly, in the year 1994, accused V.N. Singh was Dy. General Manager (Electrical) with T.H.D.C. It is also not disputed that M/s Manoj (Electrical) Meerut, was the firm which was awarded contracts nos. LOA035 and LOA036 regarding electrification in Baurari, by T.H.D.C. The alleged demand of bribe relates to contract no. LOA no. 036. Both letters of awarding of contracts were admitted by the defence counsel before the trial court and placed on the record as Ex. A1 and Ex.A2.

#7. P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini has stated that he was the partner of firm Manoj Electrical. He further told that said firm was awarded contract no. 035 and 036 for Electrification in Baurari. He further narrated that under contract no. 035 supplies were to be made, and under contract no. 036 erection work to be done. He further told that one Jai Kumar, Manager (Electrical) and accused V.N. Singh Dy. General Managar (Electrical) used to pass the bills. P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini further told that his bills amounting ‘ 3.5 lac were outstanding in respect of 7 erection work for eight months. He further told that even after requesting again and again the payment was not made. He proved M.B. (Measurement Book) as material Ex.1. He further proved his signatures on the M.B. on several pages. P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini told that when he met the accused in connection with clearance of the bill he demanded ‘ 40,000/‐. The witness further told that when accused V.N. Singh asked him to pay the amount by 20th June, 1994, he (P.W.1) made a written complaint (Ex. A5) to C.B.I. The witness further narrated that C.B.I. asked him to come to Chamba alongwith the amount to be paid to the accused V.N. Singh. According to this witness (P.W.1 Samay Singh) meanwhile accused asked him to reached Dehradun on

20.06.1994 at 4:00 p.m., in T.H.D.C. office situated on E.C. Road. P.W.1 further told that he communicated the same to Dy. S.P. Shri Bhagta (P.W.4). Thereafter C.B.I. team alongwith decoy and witnesses came to Dehradun. P.W.1 told that in the office of C.B.I. at Dehradun, a demonstration was made regarding the use of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution. He further told that the currency numbers of cash of ‘ 40,000/‐ were noted down by C.B.I and memorandum (Ex. A11) of the same was 8 prepared. He further told that on the amount of ‘ 20,000/‐ of currency notes of denomination of ‘ 100/‐ each, and another amount of ‘ 20,000/‐ of currency notes of denomination of ‘ 50/‐ each phenolphthalein powder was applied, and the amount was given to him so that the same may be handed over to the accused. The witness further narrated that micro tape (cid:150)recorder was also given to him in order to record voice of the accused regarding his talks at the time of giving the amount. P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini further told that at 4:00 p.m., he reached in the office of T.H.D.C at Dehradun, and after his talks in a room with accused V.N. Singh, he called A.K. Jain (P.W.3) to bring his briefcase from the vehicle as per the plan. After the amount was handed over to accused V.N. Singh who kept the same in his briefcase, a gesture/signal was given by him (P.W.1) and P.W.3 A.K. Jain on which C.B.I. team rushed to the room and caught the accused red handed. The witness further narrated that the hands of the accused were dipped in a sodium carbonate solution on which colour of the solution turned pink, thereafter necessary memorandum was prepared by C.B.I. team. This witness has been subjected to lengthy 9 cross‐examination but nothing has come out which creates doubt in his testimony.

#8. The statement of P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini has been fully corroborated by P.W.2 Satish Gupta, Accounts Officer of PPCL who was called by C.B.I. to witness the trap proceedings.

#9. P.W.3 Anil Kumar Jain has further corroborated the entire trap proceedings narrated by P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini. This witness was Assistant Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, who was also called by C.B.I. to witness the trap.

#10. P.W.4 Shri R.K. Bhagta, Dy. S.P.C.B.I. led the trap party, proved the fact that informant (P.W.1) came to him with the complaint against V.N. Singh. The witness further told that he asked the informant to come to Chamba so that the trap may be laid but after getting information from the informant that meanwhile accused had asked him to come to Dehradun Office on 20.06.1994 at 4:00 p.m., the trap accordingly planned successfully conducted. He also proved the fact that the accused V.N.Singh was caught red handed. He proved the 10 memorandum (Ex.A20) prepared by him regarding the currency notes in which phenolphthalein powder was applied, and which was recovered from the briefcase of the accused, whereafter another memorandum (Ex. A21) was prepared.

#11. P.W.5 K.L. Justi was the then Managing Director and Chairman of T.H.D.C who has proved sanction (Ex. A17) for prosecution of accused V.N. Singh, given by him. The witness has stated that he perused the record, and the documents produced before him before granting sanction.

#12. P.W.6 N.K. Prasad, the then Senior Scientific Officer of Central forensic Science Laboratory has proved his report (Ex.A18) regarding the chemical analysis of the sealed parcels sent to it pertaining to papers containing phenolphthalein powder said to have been sealed at the time of demonstration and raid. Said report further corroborates the prosecution case.

#13. P.W.8 C.K. Jain, the then another Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory has stated that he conducted voice spectography on the tape 11 (between accused and informant) of conversation received. He proved his report (Ex. A22) that the sample voice tallied with the voice recorded earlier (at the time of raid).

#14. On behalf of the accused attention of this Court is drawn to the statement of D.W.1 Rakesh Khare the then Manager, Rehabilitation of T.H.D.C. at Dehradun, who has stated that he gave notice of meeting to the accused V.N.Singh only on 20.06.1994. On its basis it is argued that statement of P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini that he was informed in the night of 19.06.1994 by the accused to meet in Dehradun office is a false statement. I have carefully gone through the statements of the two witnesses it is not a case where the accused was given notice (Ex.a37) by D.W.1 in Tehri. On 20.06.1994, according to D.W.1 Rakesh Khare he got information from Tehri that accused was already in Rishikesh, as such the written communication could be made to him at Rishikesh through some messenger. In circumstances, since T.H.D.C. was having its offices at Tehri, Rishikesh and Dehradun, and before the time of meeting could be communicated by D.W.1 at Tehri, accused had already reached Rishikesh, the 12 testimony of P.W.1 Samay Singh cannot be doubted that on 19.06.1994, accused asked him to come to office at Dehradun.

#15. D.W. 2 P.K. Srivastava, Senior Manager (Electrical) T.H.D.C., has been got examined by the defence to show that Dy. General Manager (Electrical) had normally no power to pass the bill of the contractor unless he is specially authorized for that purpose. On its basis, an argument is developed that the accused had no power to pass the bill of the accused, as such there was no question of demand of bribe by him from the contractor. However, on careful examination of statement of D.W.2 P.K. Srivastava, this Court finds that in the cross‐ examination this witness has admitted that in respect of the bill relating to contract no. LOA 035 there were signatures of Dy. General Manager (V.N. Singh) but he tried to save his face by saying that it was not necessary. In the cross‐examination D.W.2 P.K. Srivastava has further admitted that in the M.B. (measurement book) which is (Ex. A27) accused who was Dy. General Manager (Electrical) had signed said document relating to work done by the contractor (Manoj Electrical) which shows that 13 arguments developed on behalf of the accused on the basis of statement of D.W.2 P.K. Srivastava in examination in chief, does not carry force.

#16. Attention of this Court is also drawn on behalf the accused/appellant the contradiction between the statements of P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini and P.W.3 Anil Kumar Jain on the point as to whether the briefcase containing currency notes kept in the vehicle was brought by P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini after conversation was recorded on tape, to the room where trap was laid, or it was P.W.3 A.K. Jain who was in the vehicle who brought it after receiving call from P.W.1 Samay Singh. On careful reading of the statements of the two witnesses it is clear that after the conversation between the accused and informant was recorded secretly by P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini, he came out of the room and called A.K. Jain (P.W.3) so that he may bring briefcase as per the plan and when he did not see A.K.Jain he went towards the vehicle but by then A.K. Jain had proceeded towards the room where the briefcase was to be handed over by P.W.1 Samay Singh Saini and Shri Saini got the briefcase to be given to the accused. In the opinion of this Court, 14 this minor contradiction does not create reasonable doubt to disbelieve the prosecution story.

#17. Similarly, another minor contradiction that one witness has stated that briefcase had only number lock and another witness has stated that it was operational by key is of little consequence to doubt the veracity of the trap laid down by C.B.I.

#18. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly held the accused V.N. Singh guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the conviction does not require interference. However, on the point of sentence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act would meet the ends of justice. The sentence recorded by the trial court under section 7 of the Act appears to be just and proper. 15

#19. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed on the point of conviction, and the conviction of appellant is affirmed. However, on the point of sentence, the appeal is disposed of with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the sentence of the accused/appellant V.N. Singh is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year without disturbing fine of ‘ 7,500/‐ directed to be paid by the trial court. The sentence awarded by the trial court under section 7 of P.C. Act is not interfered with. Both sentences concurrently. Accused/appellant V.N. Singh is on bail. His bail is cancelled. He shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remaining part of the sentence. The trial court record be sent back. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)

07.12.2012