Niyam AI | Arun Kumar Gurjar vs Central Buraeu Of Investigation 2024 Latest Caselaw 2473 Del

Full Judgement

Delhi High Court
Arun Kumar Gurjar vs Central Buraeu Of Investigation on 22 March, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
                          $~

                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                          %                                   Reserved on: December 07, 2023
                                                               Decided on: March 22, 2024

                          +      CRL.A. 630/2015

                                 ARUN KUMAR GURJAR                             ..... Appellant
                                             Through:              Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal,
                                                                   Senior     Advocate       with
                                                                   Ms.     Vrinda       Bhandari,
                                                                   Ms. Soughanya Shankaran,
                                                                   Mr. Ayush Shrivastava,
                                                                   Mr. Madhav Aggarwal,
                                                                   Ms. Anandita Rana and
                                                                   Ms. P. Barsaiyan, Advocates

                                                       V

                                 CENTRAL BURAEU OF
                                 INVESTIGATION                                ..... Respondent
                                             Through:              Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP
                                                                   for CBI with Ms. Khushal
                                                                   Saini, Advocate
                          +      CRL.A. 643/2015

                                 BALJEET SINGH                                 ..... Appellant
                                              Through:             Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior
                                                                   Advocate with Mr. Manish
                                                                   Tiwari, Mr. Anil Kumar,
                                                                   Mr. Siddharth Singh and
                                                                   Ms. Sanskriti, Advocates

                                                       V
                                 CBI                                        ..... Respondent
                                                       Through:    Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:02.04.2024   CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015                                 Page 1
17:36:55
                                                                for CBI with Ms. Khushal
                                                               Saini, Advocate

                                 CORAM
                                 HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

                                 JUDGMENT

1. The present appeals are filed appeal under section 374 read with

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Code") for setting aside the judgment dated 20.05.2015

(hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") and order on

sentence dated 21.05.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned

order") passed by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Special Judge (PC

Act)/CBI-03, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to

as "the trial court") in case titled as CBI V Arun Kumar Gurjar

& another in CC no. 50/2012 arising out of RC bearing no. CBI/AC-

I/RC-A0003/2010 dated 29.12.2010 registered by CBI, ACU (I),

New Delhi under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") read with section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the

"PC Act") and substantive offence under section 7 of the PC Act and

for acquittal of the appellants.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 2 17:36:55

2. The factual background of the case as appearing from charge sheet

is that Pawan Aggarwal, Partner of M/s Madhya Pradesh Vanijya

Company, 3958/2, Naya Bazar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the

complainant") made a written complaint on the basis of which

present RC bearing no CBI/AC-I/RC-A0003/2010 was registered on

29.12.2010 by CBI, ACU(I), New Delhi under section 120B IPC read

with section 7 of the PC Act and substantive offence under section 7

of PC Act against Arun Kumar Gurjar (Joint Commissioner of

Income Tax, Range 29, New Delhi and hereinafter referred to as "the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar") and Baljeet Singh (Inspector,

Income Tax, Range 29, New Delhi/IAP-V,CIT (Audit) I, C.R.

Building, New Delhi and hereinafter referred to as "the appellant

Baljeet Singh").

2.1 The complainant in FIR alleged that that complainant was

running a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Madhya

Pradesh Vanijaya Company (hereinafter referred to as "MPVC") at

3958/2, Naya Bazar, Delhi. The Tax Assessment for the year 2008-09

pertaining to MPVC was under scrutiny and was pending in the

office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar, Ward no. 29, Drum

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 3 17:36:55 Shape Building, IP Estate, New Delhi, the then Assessing Officer.

The complainant on several occasions during assessment received

various notices from the department and the complainant in response

to notices submitted requisite documents/information to the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar to finalize the scrutiny. The appellant Baljeet

Singh who was a subordinate officer of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar also remained present during the meetings.

2.2 The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh in the

month of October, 2010 asked the complainant to discuss the case

with them in the office. The complainant visited the office of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar where the appellant Baljeet Singh was

also present. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh

demanded Rs.5 lakhs to finalize the scrutiny without any hurdle but

the complainant refused to pay Rs.5 lakhs. The appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar on 20.12.2010 issued a notice to MPVC for submitting

further information which had already been submitted by MPVC and

a reply in response to said letter was sent to the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar on 24.12.2010. The complainant again on 27.12.2010

personally visited the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 4 17:36:55 clarify the pending issues and met the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar

and Baljeet Singh who told the complainant about many

discrepancies in the papers and again demanded Rs.5 lakhs to finalize

entire matter without any hurdle.

2.3 The complainant being aggrieved by the demand made by the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar who was then Joint Commissioner of

Income Tax, Range-29, New Delhi and the appellant Baljeet Singh

who was then Inspector, Income Tax, New Delhi submitted a written

complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi

on 28.12.2010. The genuineness of complaint dated 28.12.2010 was

verified on 29.12.2010 by Ram Singh, the then Deputy

Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi in presence of

independent witnesses namely, Jitendra Bhardwaj and Hukum Chand

from House Tax Department, MCD, Central Zone, New Delhi by

arranging a conversation of the complainant from his Mobile bearing

no. 9311067502 with the appellant Baljeet Singh on his Mobile

bearing no. 9873574750. The conversation between the complainant

and the appellant Baljeet Singh was recorded with the help of digital

voice recorder and transferred to a CD and a verification memo was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 5 17:36:55 drawn by Sh. Ram Singh. The appellant Baljeet Singh in said

incriminating conversation asked the complainant to come to his

office in Drum Shaped Building, IP Estate, New Delhi. ACU-I

branch of CBI, New Delhi registered RC AC 1 2010 A 0003 after

verification of the complaint against the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. Ram Singh, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, CBI, ACU-I, New Delhi was detailed as the „Trap Laying

Officer‟ (TLO) and it was decided to lay a trap against the accused

officials of the Income Tax Department. The complainant produced

Trap money equivalent to Rs.2,00,000/- in Rs.1000 denomination.

The money was kept in an envelope and Phenolphthalein Powder

(hereinafter referred to as "PP powder") was smeared on the

currency notes and envelope in presence of both independent

witnesses. The necessary precautions were taken and a pre-trap

memorandum (handing over memo) containing the details of entire

proceedings which took place before trap was drawn in presence of

the team members and was duly signed.

2.4 The complainant was equipped with a digital voice recorder with

a direction by the TLO to record the conversation between him and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 6 17:36:55 the accused officials during the transaction of bribe money. The trap

money was also handed over to the complainant. The complainant

after arriving at the Drum-shaped building in New Delhi was

instructed to activate his recording device and was then directed to

approach the appellant Baljeet Singh. The complainant at time of

moving into Drum-shaped building was accompanied by the TLO,

Jitendra Bhardwaj, an independent witness and other team members.

The complainant entered into room no. 207 having name plate of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

where the appellant Baljeet Singh was waiting. The complainant was

closely followed by the TLO and Jitendra Bhardwaj along with other

team members also took safe position near room no. 207. The

complainant came out from said the room and gave pre-decided

signal by touching his shoes. One person came out from room no 207

and proceeded towards the staircase who was pointed out as the

appellant Baljeet Singh by the complainant. TLO and independent

witness Jitendra Bhardwaj along with their team members rushed

towards the appellant Baljeet Singh and challenged him of accepting

bribe from the complainant. The appellant Baljeet Singh attempted to

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 7 17:36:55 put hand into his inner left pocket but was apprehended by TLO and

other team members. The appellant Baljeet Singh was taken to room

no. 207 in the presence of the independent witnesses and the

complainant.

2.5 The appellant Baljeet Singh was searched by independent witness

namely Jitendra Bhardwaj which led to the recovery of an envelope

containing bribe money in the left inner pocket of his coat. The

recovered amount was counted and the serial numbers of the

currency notes amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- exactly matched with

those currency notes which were mentioned in Handing Over Memo.

The appellant Baljeet Singh in presence of both independent

witnesses admitted accepting the bribe from the complainant under

the direction of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar who was sitting in

the office of Commissioner of Income Tax at Drum-shaped Building,

New Delhi. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was brought to his

office where the appellant Baljeet Singh reiterated his statement in

the presence of independent witnesses and members of the trap team

whereby confirmed that he accepted the bribe on the directions of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar who could not give any explanation for

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 8 17:36:55 the allegations made by the appellant Baljeet Singh. The appellants

Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh were taken into custody and a

recovery memo mentioning the entire post-trap proceedings was

prepared and the signatures of the trap team members were obtained

on the recovery memo. The recording device previously given to the

complainant was taken back and the incriminating conversation

between the complainant and the appellant Baljeet Singh recorded

during the bribe transaction was transferred to a CD. The washes of

hands and clothes of the appellant Baljeet Singh were collected and

preserved for the purpose of investigation,

2.6 The chamber of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar at Drum-

shaped Building in New Delhi before the trap team left the office was

occupied by another CBI team led by Raja Chatterjee, Inspector,

CBI, New Delhi along with Mr. Kamal Kapoor, Joint Commissioner

of Income Tax at Drum-shaped Building, New Delhi who

accompanied the team as a witness cum representative of the Income

Tax Department. The office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was

searched in the presence of Kamal Kapoor which resulted in the

recovery of cash amount of Rs.6,00,000/- which was taken into

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 9 17:36:55 possession and the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar could not give

satisfactory explanation about recovery of the cash found in the

drawer of his office chamber. Besides recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- as

bribe money and another sum of Rs.59,000/- in cash was also

recovered from the inner pocket of trouser of the appellant Baljeet

Singh for which he could not give any satisfactory explanation.

2.7 The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar who was holding the position

of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) Range-29, Drum-

shaped Building, IP Estate, New Delhi commenced his service in the

Income Tax Department in 1999 as an IRS officer. The appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar in July, 2010 joined as JCIT, Range-29, Drum-

shaped Building, IP Estate, New Delhi falling under the jurisdiction

of the Commissioner of Income Tax-X at Drum-shaped Building, IP

Estate, New Delhi. The appellant Baljeet Singh from June, 2006 to

31.10.2010 was posted as an Inspector in the Income Tax Department

and served in the office of JCIT, Range-29, under CIT-X, Drum-

shaped Building, New Delhi. The appellant on regular transfer from

the office of CIT-X assumed his responsibilities in new office i.e.

IAP-V, CIT (Audit)-1 CR Building, New Delhi on 01.11.2010. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 10 17:36:55 appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar from August, 2010 assumed the role of

assessing officer for the scrutiny case of MPVC and Arju Garodia,

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax at the office of CIT-X, New

Delhi was responsible for assessing this case before appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar. The appellant Baljeet Singh during his tenure in the

office of CIT-X, Range-29, New Delhi assisted the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar in the scrutiny case involving the assessment of

Income Tax of MPVC. The appellant Baljeet Singh despite new

position assisted the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the scrutiny

case involving the firm of the complainant and was also writing order

sheets in the case file on the direction of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar. There was no official order attaching the appellant Baljeet

Singh to the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar.

2.8 The complainant during investigation was found to be user of

mobile no. 9311067502 (Reliance) and mobile no 9873574750

(Vodafone) was being used by the appellant Baljeet Singh. The

chemical examination report dated 12.01.2011 revealed that the

exhibits showed positive tests indicating the presence of PP Powder.

The Forensic Voice Examination Report indicated positive results

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 11 17:36:55 regarding the comparison between the questioned voice of the

appellant Baljeet Singh as recorded in the CD labeled Q-2 and his

reference specimen voice contained in a CD marked as S-1. The

expert opinion dated 31.03.2011 indicated that the order sheet in the

case file of MPVC was written in the handwriting of the appellant

Baljeet Singh which were signed by the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar.

2.9 The investigation established that the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar engaged in criminal conspiracy with the appellant Baljeet

Singh and they committed criminal misconduct by soliciting a bribe

of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant, a partner in MPVC. The

appellant Baljeet Singh on behalf of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar accepted Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe money from the complainant

on 29.12.2010 in the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to

finalize scrutiny of assessment case of MPVC without any hurdle.

The appellants Baljeet Singh and Arun Kumar Gurjar were

implicated for the offences punishable under section 120B IPC read

with section 7 of the PC Act. The charge sheet was filed after

conclusion of investigation. The sanction for prosecution required

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 12 17:36:55 under section 19 of the PC Act with respect to the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh were granted by the competent

authorities.

3. The trial court vide order dated 26.02.2013 charged the appellants

Baljeet Singh and Arun Kumar Gurjar for offences punishable under

section 120B IPC read with section 7 of PC Act and for the

substantive offence under section 7 of PC Act. The appellants Baljeet

Singh and Arun Kumar Gurjar pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The respondent/CBI to prove its case examined 23 witnesses

including the complainant as PW1 and TLO Ram Singh as PW22.

The prosecution evidence was ordered to be closed vide order dated

08.12.2014.

4. The statements of the appellants Baljeet Singh and Arun Kumar

Gurjar were recorded under section 313 of the Code wherein they

denied the incriminating evidence pertaining to their role in

commission of the offence.

4.1 The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar stated that the complainant

PW1 never met him and he attended the proceedings only on

25.10.2010 in response to summons issued under section 131 of the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 13 17:36:55 Income Tax Act. He never demanded any money from the

complainant either directly or through the appellant Baljeet Singh.

The respondent/CBI registered a false case against him on basis of

fabricated documents. The appellant Baljeet Singh even after transfer

assisted him in assessment case of the firm of the complainant as per

practice and it was a time bound case and limitation was expiring on

31.12.2010 and the appellant Baljeet Singh was associated with case

since inception. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar further stated that

the assessment pertaining to the firm of the complainant was assigned

to him by CIT-X in August, 2010 and was previously handled by

Arju Garodia who issued a detailed questionnaire seeking

information from the firm of the complainant for the completion of

the scrutiny assessment but the complainant never submitted

complete information. He after taking the charge of the case also

sought the same information from the complainant. The complainant

was aware that the matter was a time bound matter and the

complainant intentionally delayed the proceeding. A detailed

questionnaire/show-cause was issued to the complainant's firm but

the information was again not supplied. The false case was registered

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 14 17:36:55 on 29.12.2010 to avoid the completion of the assessment of the

proceeding on or before 31.12.2010 as income tax department could

not have taken any action after expiry of limitation period i.e.

31.12.2010 in the assessment case in question. He never made any

demand directly or indirectly and performed his duty with honesty

and sincerity in the best interest of the department. The firm of the

complainant was assessed and the penalty was imposed after the

registration of this case. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar pleaded

innocence and false implication by the complainant as the

complainant was apprehending substantial financial

liabilities/penalties and prosecution under Income Tax Act. The

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar further stated that enquiries were also

made by him about the sister concerns of M/s. Madhya Pradesh

Vanijya Company which are RB Commodity Pvt. Ltd., Gaurav

Traders etc. and the complainant in order to scuttle the said enquiries

and to avoid further tax penalties/prosecution under Income Tax Act

implicated him falsely. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar preferred

to lead defence evidence and examined Om Prakash, Inspector at

ITO, Ward no 47 (1), Drum Shape Building. The defence evidence

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 15 17:36:55 on behalf of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was ordered to be

closed vide order dated 19.01.2015.

4.2 The appellant Baljeet Singh stated that he was not assessing

officer and was not dealing income tax assessment case of the

complainant. He never demanded or accepted any bribe from the

complainant. He was not present at room no. 207. The tainted money

was planted on him and nothing was recovered from him. He further

stated that he was transferred from ward no. 29 with effect from

01.11.2010 but he was retained in department till 31.03.2011 due to

rush of work on request of senior officers. The appellant Baljeet

Singh further stated that a survey was conducted by the Income Tax

Department under section 133A of the Income Tax Act at the

godown situated at Siraspur and office situated at Naya Bazar

belonging to Firm M/s Radha Kishan Banarsi Das, a family concern

of the complainant. The appellant Baljeet Singh was a member and

instrumental in survey team. M/s Radha Kishan Banarsi Das due to

survey surrendered unaccounted money of Rs. 2 crores and had to

pay penalty of about Rs. 74 lacs. The complainant has threatened him

to teach a lesson and implicate him in false case out of vengeance.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 16 17:36:55 The assessment case of the complainant was to be expired on

31.12.2010. The complainant got registered false case to avoid

substantial financial penalties/liabilities. The appellant preferred to

lead defence evidence and examined Shiv Swaroop Singh, Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7, Ludhiana, Punjab as DW1

and Ravinder Pal, Junior Judicial Assistant, Sessions Record Room,

Patiala House Courts as DW2. The defence evidence on behalf of the

appellant Baljeet Singh was ordered to be closed vide order dated

08.12.2014.

5. The trial court convicted the appellants for the offences punishable

under section 120B IPC read with section 7 of the PC Act vide the

impugned judgment by observing that the prosecution has

established its case and all essential ingredient of offence under

section 120 B IPC read with Section 7 of PC Act against the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh beyond any

reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar

and Baljeet Singh for the offences under section 120 B IPC read with

section 7 of the PC Act.The relevant portion of the impugned judgm-

ent is reproduced verbatim as under:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 17 17:36:55

34. In view of above discussion, testimony of witnesses, documents proved on record and the circumstances of the case it may be concluded that:-

i) A-1 was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and A-2 as Inspector, Income Tax and this fact has not been disputed even by accused persons.

ii) A-2 was assisting A-1 in the case of firm of the complainant even after the transfer.

iii) Income tax assessment case of Madhya Pardesh Vanijaya Company, the firm of the complainant was pending before A-1 which was time bound case and the limitation was going to be expired on 31.12.2015.

iv) Sanction for prosecution was duly granted by competent authorities for prosecution of A-1 and A-2.

v) Complaint was lodged by complainant in CBI and the FIR was registered.

vi)In pre trap proceedings PWl, PW10, PW18 and PW22 participated with some Other officials of CBI and the proceedings of pre trap has been supported by all the witnesses. In pre trap proceedings, complainant talked to A-2 over the phone and A-2 called the complainant to income tax office. This fact is supported by PWl, PW18 and PW22 and is corroborated by call detail record (CDR) and the oral testimony of these witnesses.

vii)The recorded conversation contained in CD Q-1 and CD Q-2 pertaining to pre trap and post trap proceedings; and the disclosure made by A-2 in the custody of CBI are not required to be taken into consideration being inadmissible evidence.

viii)PWl Complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar Aggarwal has supported the allegations of demand of bribe by A-1 and A-

2 in income tax office; the acceptance of bribe by A-2; and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 18 17:36:55 recovery of the same from possession of A-2 from room no.207. On the question of demand by A-1 and A-2 and the acceptance of bribe by A-2, PWl is the only witness but he has consistently supported these allegations during his testimony and his creditability could not be impeached on these aspects. Testimony of PWl inspires confidence and finds corroboration from the circumstantial evidence followed by recovery of bribe amount from A-2. The fact of recovery of bribe amount from possession of A-2 is fully supported by PWl, PW18 and PW22. PW10 has supported only to the extent that some recoveries were made in post trap proceedings.

ix) There is nothing on record to accept that PWl and PW22 had any motive to falsely implicate A-1 and A-2. PW10 and PW18 are the independent witnesses and there is no evidence to accept that they had any reason to falsely depose against A-1 and A-2. In totality of circumstances, the testimony of PWl, PW10, PW18 and PW22 has supported by each other on the material aspects of the case which find corroboration from the documents i.e recovery memo and handing over memo etc.

x) It has been supported by PWl, PW10, PW18 and PW22 that time and place of meeting in income tax office was fixed during telephonic conversation between PWl and A-2 in pre trap proceedings. In ordinary course of events, A-2 has noreason to call PWl to meet him in income tax office and no explanation has been given by A-2 in this regard.

xi)A-2 met PWl in room no.207 of income tax office which was office room of A-1. In ordinary course of events there was no reason for A-2 to meet a litigant in the office of his senior officer (A-1) when A-1 himself was present in the same complex. It corroborates the story of prosecution.

xii)A-l being the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was the Assessing Officer of Income tax case of firm of PWl and A-2 was assisting him. In the' facts and circumstances of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 19 17:36:55 the case, A-2 could not demand bribe from PWl without instructions of A-1. A-2 himself was in no position to give any favour to firm of PWl without aid and help of A-1 which has clearly established the criminal conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 for demanding and accepting the bribe in lieu of favours in income tax assessment case of firm of PWl.

xiii)The essential ingredient of offence i.e demand of bribe by A-1 and A-2; acceptance of bribe by A-2 from PWl and recovery of bribe amount from the possession of A-2 is proved by prosecution beyond any doubt. The entire chain of facts and circumstances proves that demand and acceptance of bribe was by A-1 and A-2 in conspiracy with each other. A-2 has failed to give any convincing explanation about possession of bribe amount and therefore, he has failed to rebut presumption under section 20 of P.C Act.

xiv)Entire chain of circumstances and the facts established on record proved the guilt of A-1 and A-2 without any doubt. There is no reasonable hypothesis established on record to suggest the innocence of A-1 and A-2. In totality the testimony of PWl, PW10, PW18 and PW22 and other PWs inspires confidence about truthfulness of material allegations.

xv)Defence plea of A-1 and A-2 about their false implication is not proved on record even in preponderance of probability and does not inspire any confidence. Therefore, the defence plea of false implication cannot be accepted.

35. In view of the above findings, I am of the considered view that prosecution has successfully established its case and all essential ingredient of offence u/s 120 B IPC r.w. Section 7 of P. C Act and section 7 of P. C Act against A-1 Arun Kumar Gurjar and A-2 Baljeet Singh beyond any

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 20 17:36:55 reasonable doubt. Therefore, A-1 Arun Kumar Gurjar and A-2 Baljeet Singh are convicted for the offence u/s 120 B IPC r.w. Section 7 of P. C Act and section 7 of PC Act. Let they be heard on quantum of sentence separately

5.1 The trial court vide the impugned order sentenced the appellants

Baljeet Singh and Arun Kumar Gurjar. The relevant portion of the

impugned order is reproduced verbatim as under:-

25. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, incriminating and mitigating circumstances, in my opinion, undue leniency in such cases is neither desirable nor warranted. The punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of offence but as well as should be deterrent enough to give a right message to such similar offenders.

26. Keeping in view the entire mitigating and incriminating circumstances, in my opinion, there is no substantial ground to differentiate the quantum of sentence between the two convicts.

27. Keeping in view the above discussions, convict Arun Kumar Gurjar and convict Baljeet Singh are sentenced in the following manner:-

a) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine Rs.One Lakh each for the offence u/s 120 B IPC r.w section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine the respective convictsshall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

b) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. One Lakh each for the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine the respective convicts shall further undergo simple imprisonment for four months.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 21 17:36:55

28. All the sentences of imprisonment will run concurrently. Benefit of 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict Arun Kumar Gurjar for the period from 29.12.2010 to 28.02.2011 and to convict Baljeet Singh for the period from 29.12.2010 to 25.02.2011 in respect of imprisonment already undergone by them.

29. In accordance with order on sentence, convict Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh be taken into custody and be sent to jail to undergo sentence. Personal bonds and surety bonds of both the convicts stands cancelled. Copy of the judgment, order on sentence, charge, report u/s 173 Cr.PC, statement of Pws and Dws and statement of accused ect be given to the convicts free of cost as per law. Custody warrants be prepared separately in accordance with the order of sentence.

6. The appellants being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and

the impugned order filed the present appeals to set aside the

impugned judgment and the impugned order.

6.1 The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar challenged the impugned

judgment and impugned order primarily on grounds that the

prosecution case is based on speculations and the trial court has

failed to appreciate the prosecution story in right perspective. The

trial court ought to have granted benefit of doubt to the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar as there was no direct evidence against him

except disclosure statement of the appellant Baljeet Singh. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 22 17:36:55 trial court convicted the appellant on basis of evidences which

were not proved by the prosecution which was also observed by

the trial court. The recorded conversations being CD Q-1 and CD

Q-2 do not contain any reference of demand of the bribe by the

appellant Arjun Kumar Gurjar and the trial court has rightly held

that it is not safe to rely on recorded conversation. The trial court

convicted the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar merely on the ground

that the appellant Baljeet Singh was transferred on 31.10.2010 but

he after transfer and without any formal order was assisting the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar including writing of order sheets

and was sitting in the room of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

which is not an unusual practice. The independent witnesses

PW10 and PW18 of trap proceedings did not support prosecution

case on material aspects. The respondent/CBI did not conduct any

inquiry against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar before

registration of FIR. The prosecution has not led any evidence

against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to connect him with the

alleged demand of bribe and only the call records of the appellant

Baljeet Singh were seized, trap proceedings were conducted on

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 23 17:36:55 the appellant Baljeet Singh and recovery was also effected from

the appellant Baljeet Singh. The prosecution could not prove any

conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh. The complainant has not mentioned any specific date and

time of alleged demand. The testimony of the complainant was

liable to be rejected being wholly unreliable, motivated being

contradictory and the complainant was having reasons to falsely

implicate the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to save himself from

tax liabilities and criminal prosecution. There was inordinate delay

in recording of FIR. The prosecution could not prove place of

recovery. The impugned judgment itself is full of contradictions.

The prosecution has failed to examine material witnesses. The

prosecution has not obtained sanction under section 197 of the

Code for prosecution of offence under section 120 B IPC. The

trial court has awarded excessive sentence to the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to challenge

impugned judgment and impugned order also raised other grounds

and referred case law as detailed in grounds of appeal. It is prayed

that the impugned judgment and impugned order be set aside.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 24 17:36:55 6.2 The appellant Baljeet Singh challenged the impugned

judgment and impugned order on grounds that they are based on

surmises, assumptions and conjectures and contrary to the

evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove any prior meeting of

mind between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh to prove charge under section 120B IPC. The prosecution

has not led legally admissible evidence to prove demand,

acceptance and recovery to establish offence under section 7 of

PC Act. The testimony is not corroborated by any independent

evidence which is inconsistent, contradictory and improved

testimony. The sanctioning authority PW19 S. M. Ashraf while

granting sanction Ex. PW19/A against the appellant Baljeet Singh

did not apply its mind. The complaint Ex PW 1/A is a fabricated

document making the entire prosecution case highly suspicious.

The original complaint made by the complainant PW1 was not

produced during trial rather complaint Ex. PW1/A which was

typed in office of CBI was produced during trial. The trial court

erroneously presumed that there was no change in the complaint

Ex PW 1/A. The prosecution has not proved initial demand which

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 25 17:36:55 is most crucial ingredient of Section 7 of the PC Act. The

deposition of the complainant PW1 regarding initial demand is

self-contradictory and his testimony is unreliable. There is

extraordinary delay in registration of FIR. The testimony of

independent witness did not support case of prosecution and

proved that the alleged recovery from the appellant Baljeet Singh

was tainted and manipulated. The testimony of PW18 Jitender

Bhardwaj has belied the entire prosecution version regarding the

alleged trap of the appellant Baljeet Singh. The testimony of

PW22 Ram Singh TLO is self-contradictory and he was an

interested witness. The handing Over Memo Ex PW 1/E was a

tainted document and no reliance can be placed on said document.

The prosecution could not prove attendance of the complainant

PW1 and submission of complaint on 28.12.2010. The trap

proceedings are appearing to be doubtful from evidence led by the

prosecution. The demand at spot is not proved. The prosecution

could not prove alleged acceptance by the appellant Baljeet Singh

from the complainant PW1 and alleged recovery is extremely

doubtful. The washes relied on by the prosecution are fabricated

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 26 17:36:55 and tempered. The prosecution has not examined material

witnesses to establish guilt of the appellant Baljeet Singh. The

appellant only assisted the office even after his transfer due to

official exigencies and not because of any conspiracy. The

appellant Baljeet Sigh also raised other grounds to challenge

impugned judgment as detailed in grounds of appeal. It was

prayed that impugned judgment and impugned order be set aside.

6.3 The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as

such challenged the impugned judgment and the impugned order

primarily on the following grounds:-

i.) The prosecution has failed to establish any prior meeting of mind to prove charge under section 120 B IPC.

ii) There is no evidence led by the prosecution pertaining to prove demand, acceptance and recovery.

iii) The sanctioning authorities granted sanction to prosecute the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh without application of mind.

iv) The complaint Ex. PW1/A is a fabricated document making the entire prosecution case highly suspicious.

v) There is an extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR.

vi) The testimony of the complainant is unreliable contradictory and there are material contradictions,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 27 17:36:55 improvements and inherent deficiencies in the testimony of the complainant.

vii). Hukum Chand PW10 did not support the case of the prosecution.

viii) The testimony of Ram Singh TLO PW22 is full of contradictions, improvements and inherent deficiencies and he was an absolute interested witness.

ix) Handing Over Memo Ex PW 1/E is a tainted document.

x) The prosecution has not proved attendance of the complainant PWl for lodging of the complaint in CBI Office on 28.12.2010.

xi) There are contradictions regarding attendance in the testimonies of PWl, PW10 and PW18 in CBI office on 29.12.2010.

xii) There is no evidence to prove demand at the spot.

xiii) The alleged acceptance of any bribe by appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh from complainant PW1 is not proved.

xiv) The washes of the clothes were fabricated/tampered.

7. Chapter III of PC Act deals with offences and penalties. Section 7

deals with offence relating to public servant being bribed. The

Supreme Court in Soundarajan V State Rep. by the Inspector of

Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul, Criminal Appeal No.

1592 of 2022 decided on 17th April, 2022 after referring Mohan

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 28 17:36:55 Singh V State of Bihar, (2011) 9SCC272; Union of India V Ex.-

GNR Ajeet Singh, (2013) 4SCC186 and Neeraj Dutta V State

(Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC1724 observed as

under:-

9. It is well settled that for establishing the commission of an offence punishable under section of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non. Moreover, the Constitution Bench in case of Neeraj Dutta has reiterated that the presumption under section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of facts in issue, namely, the demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof.

12. There is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case. In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established. Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (1) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved. 7.1 The Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta held that a person could be

convicted based on circumstantial evidence for the crime of

demanding a bribe or illegal gratification under the PCA, 1988. It

was held as under:-

3. Thus, the moot question that arises for answering the reference is, in the absence of the complainant letting in direct evidence of demand owing to the non-availability of the complainant or owing to his death or other reason, whether the demand for illegal gratification could be

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 29 17:36:55 established by other evidence. This is because in the absence of proof of demand, a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") would not arise. Thus, the proof of demand is a sine qua non for an offence to be established under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and dehors the proof of demand the offence under the two sections cannot be brought home. Thus, mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof in the absence of proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Hence, the pertinent question is, as to how demand could be proved in the absence of any direct evidence being let in by the complainant owing to the complainant not supporting the complaint or turning "hostile" or the complainant not beingavailable on account of his death or for any other reason. In this regard, it is necessary to discuss the relevant Sections of the Evidence Act before answering the question for reference.

45. On consideration of the aforesaid cases, the question framed for determination by the larger Bench is as under:

"(1) Whether, in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution?"

66. Section 20 of the Act deals with presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. It uses the expression "shall be presumed" in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) unless the contrary is proved. The said provision deals with a legal presumption

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 30 17:36:55 which is in the nature of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act, etc. if the condition envisaged in the former part of the Section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that during trial, it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The Section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification.

75. In B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] , the complainant did not support the prosecution case. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 :(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] , the complainant had died prior to letting in his evidence in the case. In M. Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 :

2001 SCC (Cri) 258], the question was whether a legal presumption could be based on a factual presumption. In Hazari Lal [Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1980) 2 SCC 390 :1980 SCC (Cri) 458] , this Court through O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that it is not necessary that the passing of money should be proved by direct evidence, it could also be proved by circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 34]("MadhukarBhaskarrao Joshi"), it was observed that in order to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the Act, the premise is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established, the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted as a "motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 31 17:36:55

87. Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a witness is treated as "hostile" and is cross-examined, his evidence cannot be written off altogether but must be considered with due care and circumspection and that part of the testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and acted upon. It is for the Judge as a matter of prudence to consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact that a witness has been declared "hostile" does not result in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the evidence of a "hostile witness" if it finds corroboration from the facts of the case may be taken into account while judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar to raise a conviction upon a "hostile witness" testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.

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

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter offact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

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

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 32 17:36:55

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

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

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 33 17:36:55 of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

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

88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on theproof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 34 17:36:55

92. Before we conclude, we hope and trust that the complainants as well as the prosecution make sincere efforts to ensure that the corrupt public servants are brought to book and convicted so that the administration and governance becomes unpolluted and free from corruption.

8. It is reflecting from record that the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and the

appellant Baljeet Singh was posted as Inspector, Income Tax. The

appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar in assessment case of the firm of the complainant even

after his transfer and income tax assessment case of MPVC was

time bound case and the limitation was to be expired on

31.12.2010. The complainant PW1 lodged complaint Ex. PW1/A

with the respondent/CBI and after verification present FIR was got

registered.

9. Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, the learned Senior Counsel for

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar (appellant in CRL.A.630/2015)

advanced oral arguments and also filed written submissions.

9.1 The learned Senior Counsel argued that the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Range 29 was victimized by the complainant by filing false and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 35 17:36:55 motivated complaint to derail the investigation into tax evasion by

his firm MPVC which was to be time-barred on 31.12.2010

without any scope of further time extension. The complainant

PW1 was a partner in MPVC which was selected for scrutiny for

assessment year 2008-09 through Computer Assisted Scrutiny

Selection (CASS) on 03.08.2009 Ex.PW1/DX-22 and was

pending in Ward-29 of Range-29. The Income Tax Department

issued notices to MPVC and related firms to obtain more

information since 03.08.2009 but response given by MPVC was

found to be unsatisfactory and complete documents were not

submitted before assessing officers. The appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar became the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax of Range

29, Drum Shaped Building, ITO in CIT X in July 2010 and used

to sit in room no 207. The pending assessment of MPVC was

transferred from Arju Goradia, Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, CIT X PW16 to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar by

the order of Feroz Khan, Commissioner of Income Tax vide order

dated 06.08.2010. The appellant Baljeet Singh was already posted

as Inspector, Income Tax, Circle 29 (Range 29), CIT X in July

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 36 17:36:55 2010 and used to sit in room no 110. The appellant Baljeet Singh

joined Circle 29 sometime in year, 2008 and was associated with

the assessment of MPVC since then even before Arju Goradia

PW16 handled it. The appellant Baljeet Singh also participated in

surveys of the family firms of the complainant PW1 which was

operating from office situated in Naya Bazaar which was also

office of MPCV. The note sheets in MPVC‟s proceedings Ex.

PW1/K2 were written by the appellant Baljeet Singh as reflected

from Ex. PW6/B.

9.2 The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the

complainant was motivated by malice to implicate the appellants

Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh to derail the ongoing

scrutiny of the firms of the complainant including MPVC. The

complainant was a regular tax evader and was having grudge

against the appellant Baljeet Singh as a quarrel happened between

them during the survey conducted by IT department at the firm of

the family of the complainant namely M/s Radha Krishan Banarsi

Dass, Naya Bazaar Office which is also office of MPVC. The

complaint was mala fide and a cover-up for the complainant‟s tax

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 37 17:36:55 practices which were under the scanner even before the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar took charge as the assessment officer. The

complainant did not cooperate by giving responses to various

notices issued to the complainant. The complainant deliberately

timed the complaint so that scrutiny of MPVC would get derailed

and time-barred on 31.12.2010. The complainant did not give any

explanation as to why he filed the complaint on 28.12.2010 i.e.

just 3 days before the investigation would become time-barred

despite that first demand for a bribe allegedly being made in

October 2010 as per Ex. PW 1/A. It was further argued that delay

in FIR without proper explanation must be viewed with suspicion

since it gives an opportunity to deliberate and embellish and relied

on Harilal V State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1124.

9.3 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar further argued that there is no definite evidence of demand

against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar except the complaint Ex.

PW1/A. The complainant PW1 is an unreliable witness who

changed his stance many times. The trial court also observed that

testimony of the complainant as PW1 suffers from contradictions,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 38 17:36:55 improvements, and deficiencies and his testimony should be

scrutinized with caution. The appellant cannot be convicted on

basis of unreliable testimony of the complainant PW1 and referred

K.Ramadoss & another V Deputy Superintendent of Police,

2019 SCC OnLine Mad16566 and State of Punjab V Madan

Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14 SCC 153. The allegations of

demand in October and December 2010 are vague, unclear and

inherently improbable. It is also argued that there is no evidence

of acceptance.

9.4 The learned Senior Counsel further argued that there was no

proper verification by the respondent/CBI regarding allegations

against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The investigating officer

PW23 did not cross-verify version of the complainant about meeting

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in October or 27.12.2010 and no

verification was made in respect of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

in the presence of the independent witnesses.

9.5 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

regarding original complaint argued that the prosecution did not

produce original complaint brought by the complainant in CBI office

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 39 17:36:55 and suppression of the original complaint and its substitution with a

new document made the entire case suspect and relied on A. Sevi v.

State of T.N., 1981 Supp SCC 43. It was further argued that

non securing of the original complaint is a glaring error and relied on

C. Prasnnakumar @ Papanna and others V State, Crl. A. No.

376/2006.

9.6 The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the prosecution

has failed to establish conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and pointed out that the trial court inferred

conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh on four factors which are i) the appellant Baljeet Singh despite

being transferred was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar, ii)

the appellant Baljeet Singh was not in individual position to grant any

favour to the complainant PW1, iii) the appellant Baljeet Singh could

not have demanded the bribe from the complainant PW1 without

instruction of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and iv) the appellant

Baljeet Singh met the complainant PW1 in the office-room of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. It was argued that these issues are not

good enough to constitute conspiracy between the appellants Arun

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 40 17:36:55 Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. It was further argued that the

alleged recovery was not affected in room of the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar.

9.7 The learned Senior Counsel also argued that there are gross

discrepancies in conduct of the trap proceedings by the

respondent/CBI. The Handing Over Memo (HOM) is of doubtful

veracity. The learned Senior Counsel also attempted to distinguish

case law/judgments relied on by the respondent/CBI and in support

of his arguments cited Harilal V State of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1124; State of Punjab V Madan Mohan Lal Verma,

(2013) 14 SCC 153; Mukut Bihari and Another V State of

Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642; Sevi and Another V State of Tamil

Nadu, 1981 (Supp) SCC 43; Tomaso Bruno and Another V State

of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178; CBI V K. Narayanrao, (2012) 9 SCC

512; Meena V State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21. The learned

Senior Counsel argued that the impugned judgment and the

impugned order passed by the trial court be set aside and the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar be acquitted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 41 17:36:55

10. Sh. Vikas Pahwa, the learned Senior Counsel for appellant

Baljeet Singh (appellant in CRL.A.643/2015) advanced oral

arguments and filed written submissions as well.

10.1 The learned Senior Counsel besides referring dates in chronical

order to establish mala fide intention of the complainant in filing

complaint argued that the appellant Baljeet Singh was falsely

implicated and was wrongly convicted and the case of the

prosecution suffers from inherent contradictions and prosecution

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution

could not prove charges against the appellant Baljeet Singh.

10.2 It was argued that the trap was motivated and was orchestrated

by the complainant PW1 with the help of the respondent/CBI. The

complainant PW1 was facing income tax assessment proceedings for

assessment year 2008-2009 which was to be time barred on

31.12.2010. Hanish Bansal who was not examined as witness, the

authorised representative of MPVC wrote a letter dated 21.12.2010

addressed to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar seeking 15 days‟ time

to produce the documents to make the assessment proceedings time

barred under section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 196l which was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 42 17:36:55 rejected by the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The complainant PW1

was also having previous enmity with the appellant Baljeet Singh to

falsely implicate him as the appellant was associated with the enquiry

of firm M/s Radha Kishan Banarasi Das, a family firm of the

complainant and the appellant Baljeet Singh during survey had

heated arguments with the complainant. Hanish Bansal was handling

proceedings on behalf of MPVC and if the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh wished to seek bribe, they could have

demanded from Hanish Bansal. The complainant PW1 did not

mention about survey against M/s Radha Kishan Banarasi in his

complaint Ex. PW 1/A. DW l Shiv Swarup Singh, Joint

Commissioner of Income Tax also deposed about the said scuffle

between the appellant and the complainant.

10.3 The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the appellant

Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in

concluding assessment proceedings in various cases which is not

contrary to the practice and procedure adopted by the IT Department

during the period of completion of the assessment. The appellant

Baljeet Singh was posted in the office of Joint Commissioner Income

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 43 17:36:55 Tax, Range-29, under CIT-X, Drum Shaped Building, New Delhi till

31.10.2010 and he joined new office i.e. lAP-V, GIT (Audit)-1, C.R.

Building, New Delhi on 01.11.2010 on transfer and the appellant

Baljeet Singh even after his transfer was assisting the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar in scrutiny case of MPVC and writing order-sheets in

the said case on the directions of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar.

The appellant was not the assessing officer and had no authority or

power in the assessment and was not in position to show any favour

to the company of the complainant PW 1. The appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar sent a letter dated 22.10.2010 Ex PW16/DX whereby the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar requested CIT-X for staying the

operation of order of transfer of the appellant Baljeet Singh till

31.03.2011. Thereafter Firoz Khan CIT-X sent another letter dated

25.10.2020 ExPW14/DX to request CIT-VI for continuation of the

appellant Baljeet Singh in Range 29 of CIT-X) till 31.03.2011. CCIT-

VI also sent a letter dated 27.10.2010 whereby he forwarded the

request of ClT-X for allowing the appellant Baljeet Singh to continue

in his present place of posting till 31.03.2011 for favourable

consideration. PW16 Arju Garodia deposed that the assessment case

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 44 17:36:55 of MPVC was to be time barred on 31.12.10 and there is maximum

work in Income Tax Department in last about 3-4 months of the year

and the appellant Baljeet Singh was relieved in October-November,

2010 when there was maximum workload in the office in respect of

the assessment work. PW16 also deposed that even after transfer of

officers their assistance are being taken by the officers as and when

required in important or time barred matters. DWl Shiv Swaroop

Singh, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax has also deposed that as a

matter of practice sometimes senior officers used to request the

officials for their assistance even after their transfer. PW23 on

10.10.2014 stated that he did not notice any illegality in the order

sheets and proceedings pertaining to the case of MPVC.

10.4 The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the

prosecution has failed to prove the initial demand which is a sine qua

non for convicting an accused for an offence under section 7 of PC

Act. The initial demand of Rs. 5 lakhs which was allegedly made in

October 2010 is only mentioned in the complaint Ex PW 1/A which

is contradictory to deposition of PW 1 in his chief examination. The

complainant PW 1 introduced for the first time in his examination in

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 45 17:36:55 chief dated 03.06.2013 that initially demand of Rs 1.5 lakhs was

made by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. The

investigating officer PW 23 Vijay Bahadur in cross examination

states that he did not cross verify the version of complainant about

his alleged meeting with the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in October

2010. The deposition of the complainant PWl has material

contradictions, improvements and deficiencies and was an interested

witness. The learned Senior Counsel regarding demand made in

December, 2010 submitted that the allegation of demand of Rs.

5 lacs was introduced for the first time on 22/23 December 2010 and

on 27.12.2010 remained uncorroborated hence the sole testimony of

the complainant PW1 cannot be relied upon to prove such demand

beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant PW1 admitted that no

complaint was filed by him before any authority in December 2010

prior to meeting on 27.12.2010. The trial court in impugned judgment

held that it is not safe to rely on recorded conversation hence the

demand is not corroborated by any substantive piece of evidence.

TLO Ram Singh PW22 was an interested witness and his deposition

has contradictions, improvements and deficiencies and as such it can

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 46 17:36:55 be relied on. There is no corroboration to the demand made as the

testimony of PW 22 has to be discarded and the sole testimony of the

complainant PW1 in relation to such demand remains

uncorroborated. The learned Senior Counsel relied on P.

Satyanarayana Murthy V District inspector of police state of

AndhraPradesh, (2015) 10 SCC 152; B. Jayaraj V State of

Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 13 SCC 55 and others judgments.

10.5 It was also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that

the appellant Baljeet Singh accepted any bribe whether voluntary or

otherwise from the complainant PW 1 on 29.12.2010 in room 207. It

is case of the respondent/CBI that the complainant PWl met the

appellant Baljeet Singh alone in room 207 and shadow witness was

not present and as such there is no corroboration or support to his

version by the independent witness or the recovery witness.

10.6 It was further argued that the presumption under section 20 of

PC Act against a public servant can be drawn only after demand and

acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. The complaint dated

28.12.2010 is a false and manipulated document. There is ample

evidence to suggest that documents prepared by CBI during alleged

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 47 17:36:55 verification, handing over and recovery were prepared subsequently

after the arrest of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh. The learned Senior Counsel also advanced other arguments as

detailed in written submissions.

11. Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, the learned Special Public Prosecutor

for the respondent/CBI advanced oral arguments and also submitted

written submissions.

11.1 It was argued that the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar, Joint

Commissioner of Income tax was assessing officer (AO) of firm of

the complainant MPVC and during October, 2010 to December 2010

connived with the appellant Baljeet Singh and entered into criminal

conspiracy and in pursuance thereof by abusing their position as

public servants while scrutinizing the income tax assessment of 2008-

2009 of MPVC, the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and the appellant

Baljeet Singh demanded illegal gratification of 5 lakhs in the month

of October, 2010 from the complainant PW1, the partner of MPVC

for scrutiny and finalizing the income tax assessment without any

hurdle. A notice dated 20.12.2010 was issued to MPVC when the

complainant PW1 refused to pay the bribe amount of‟ 5 lacs and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 48 17:36:55 when the complainant visited the office on 27.12.2010, the appellants

Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh again demanded bribe of Rs. 5

lacs from the complainant PW1 for finalization of entire matter

without any hurdle and illegal gratification of Rs. 2 lacs was accepted

by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh on

29. 12.2010 from the complainant.

11.2 The trial Court has passed the impugned Judgement after

appreciation of entire evidence and law. The appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income tax and the

appellant Baljeet Singh was posted as inspector. The appellant

Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the

case of firm of the complainant even after his transfer. The income

tax assessment case of MPVC, the firm of the complainant was

pending before the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar which was time

bound case and limitation was to expired on 31.12.2010. The

complainant lodged the complaint on 28.12.2010 and FIR was

registered on 28.12.2015. The complainant PW2, Hukum Chand

PW10, Jitender Bhardwaj PW18 and TLO Ram Singh PW22 along

with other officials of CBI participated in pre trap proceedings and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 49 17:36:55 these witnesses supported pre trap proceedings. The complainant in

pre trap proceedings talked to the appellant Baljeet Singh over the

phone who called the complainant to income tax office and this fact

is supported by PW1, PW18 and PW22 and is corroborated by call

detail records (CDR) and the oral testimonies of these witnesses. The

complainant PW1 has supported allegations of demand of bribe by

the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh in income tax

office; the acceptance of bribe by the appellant Baljeet Singh and

recovery of the same from possession of the appellant Baljeet Singh

from room no. 207. The complainant PW1 being sole witness of

demand by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and

acceptance of bribe by the appellant Baljeet Singh has consistently

supported these allegations during his testimony and his credibility

cannot be impeached and inspires confidence. The testimony of the

complainant PW1 is corroborated by circumstantial evidence

followed by recovery of bribe amount from the appellant Baljeet

Singh which is corroborated by the PW1, PW18 and PW22 and

PW10 has supported only to the extent that some recoveries were

made in post trap proceedings.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 50 17:36:55 11.2.1 It was further argued that there is nothing to establish that the

complainant PW1 and TLO PW22 (TLO) had any motive to falsely

implicate the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh.

PW10 and PW18 are the independent witnesses and there is no

evidence to accept that they had any reason to falsely depose against

the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. The respective

testimony of PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22 are supporting each

other in material particulars and corroborated from the documents i.e.

recovery memo and handing over memo etc. The appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar being the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was the

assessing officer of income tax case of firm of the complainant PW1

and the appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting him and in such

circumstance the appellant Baljeet Singh could not demand bribe

from the complainant PW1 without instruction of the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar and the appellant Baljeet Singh was not in position to

give any favour to firm of the complainant without aid and help of

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar which has clearly established the

criminal conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and

Baljeet Singh for demanding and accepting the bribe in lieu of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 51 17:36:55 favours in income tax assessment case of firm of the complainant

PW1.

11.2.2 The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that

essential ingredients of offence i.e. demand of bribe by the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar, acceptance of bribe by the appellant Baljeet

Singh from the complainant PW1 and recovery of bribe amount from

the possession of the appellant Baljeet Singh are proved by

prosecution beyond any doubt. The appellant Baljeet Singh has failed

to give any convincing explanation about possession of bribe amount

and as such has failed to rebut presumption under section 20 of PC

Act. The respective testimony of PW1, PW10, PWI8 and PW22 and

other PWs inspires confidence about truthfulness of material

allegations.

11.3 The Special Public Prosecutor in respect of role of the

appellant Baljeet Singh argued that he was unofficially rendering his

service to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar even after his transfer

from CIT-X, range -29 due to criminal conspiracy between them. The

appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar in case of scrutiny of MPVC even after his transfer and was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 52 17:36:55 writing the order sheets of the case of firm of the complainant on the

direction of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and there was no

official order of attachment of the appellant Baljeet Singh to the

office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. It was further argued that

without the connivance of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar it was

not possible for the appellant Baljeet Singh to demand or obtain

illegal gratification from the complainant in the office of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The illegal gratification of 2 lacs in

currency notes of serial numbers as mentioned in the handing Memo

was recovered from the pocket of the appellant Baljeet Singh in the

presence of independent witnesses. The appellant Baljeet Singh had

no justification of having that amount in his possession.

11.3.1 It was further argued that the complainant PW1 was user of

mobile phone number 93110675502 (Reliance) as reflected from

testimony of PW8 Rajender Kumar and mobile number 9873574750

(Vodafone) was being used by the appellant Baljeet Singh. The pre

trap proceedings are supported by PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22.

The test of hand washes and cloth washes gave positive results for

the presence of PP Powder which reflects that PP Powder smeared

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 53 17:36:55 envelope of trap money came in contact of the hands and cloths of

the appellant Baljeet Singh and indicates the acceptance of bribe

money by him. The order sheets pertaining to case of firm of the

complainant were written by the appellant Baljeet Singh and signed

by the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar as reflected from opinion of

expert from GEQD, Shimla.

11.4 The learned Senior Public Prosecutor in respect of role of

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar argued that the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, had joined Range 29 in

the month of July 2010 and was Assessing Officer (AO) of firm of

the complainant. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar even after

transfer of the appellant Baljeet Singh was getting his services

without any attachment order to his office. The complainant PW1

deposed that the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh

have demanded bribe in the month of October and the appellant

Baljeet Singh called the complainant in the office of Income Tax on

29.12.2010. The appellant Baljeet Singh received bribe from the

complainant in the office of appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar even after

knowing the fact that appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was present in

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 54 17:36:55 the same building. During the search conducted in the office of

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar on 29.12.2015, a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was

recovered from the office drawer of room no 207 of the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar in the presence of witnesses which was

corroborated from document Ex. PW15/A i.e. search list dated

29.12.2010, testimonies of PW15 Kamal Kapoor, Joint

Commissioner, Income Tax and PW21 Raja Chatterjee, Inspector

CBI who conducted search at room no. 207 post trap. PW2 Narender

Nahata, an Income Tax Practitioner has deposed that he had not

given any cash amount to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar could not satisfactorily explained

recovery of Rs. 6 lacs which reflected that he was indulged in corrupt

practices.

11.5 The learned Special Public Prosecutor during arguments also

controverted arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as detailed in written submissions

filed on behalf of the respondent/CBI.

12. The trial court in impugned judgment in light of arguments

advanced on behalf of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar that no

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 55 17:36:55 sanction under section 197 of the Code was obtained prior to taking

cognizance for offence under section 120 B IPC observed that the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh faced charge for

offence under section 7 of the PC Act and conspiracy to commit

offence under section 7 of PC Act and further observed that

conspiracy to take bribe within the meaning of PC Act cannot be

connected to the official discharge of duty by any imagination. The

trial court also discussed and distinguished case law cited on behalf

of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The trial court further observed

that PW19 S.M Ashraf, Commissioner of Income Tax, GIT, Audit-I,

C.R Building, IP Estate, New Delhi granted sanction Ex. PW19/A for

prosecution against the appellant Baljeet Singh and PW20 Suresh

Sivanandan, Under Secretary (V &L-I), CBDT, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Revenue, Govt of India, New Delhi proved sanction

dated 13.3.2012 Ex.PW20/A granted against the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar by him on the basis of approval by the then Finance

Minister, Govt. of India. The trial court also observed that sanction

order Ex.PW19/A against the appellant Baljeet Singh and sanction

order Ex.PW20/A against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar reflect

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 56 17:36:55 that detailed facts and evidence was discussed and accordingly

sanctions were accorded with application of mind. There is nothing in

said finding of the trial court to interfere. The trial court has rightly

and correctly observed that sanctions Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW20/A

were granted with due application of mind and are legally valid.

13. The trial court in impugned judgment also considered arguments

advanced on behalf of the appellant Baljeet Singh that telephonic

conversation allegedly contained in CD Q-1 and CD Q-2 are alleged

recorded conversation at the time of pre trap and post trap

proceedings are not admissible in evidence. It was also argued that

conversation was originally recorded in DVR which was transferred

in CD Q-1 and CD Q-2 from the DVR but original DVR has not been

produced and CDs prepared from DVR is electronic evidence within

the meaning of Evidence Act and therefore, certificate under section

65 B of the India Evidence Act, 1872 is mandatory requirement but

certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was

neither issued nor produced before the court. The trial court after

referring Anwar RV V P.K Bhaseer, Civil Appeal No 4226/2012

decided on 18.09.2014 by the Supreme Court of India observed that

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 57 17:36:55 certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was

required from the person who prepared CD Q-l and CD Q-2 with the

help of laptop/computer from DVR and the recorded conversation

contained in CD Q-l and CD Q-2 is not admissible in evidence.

13.1 The trial court also observed that it is reflected from evidence

that at some places the recorded conversation could not be properly

identified by the complainant PW1, many portions are not audible

and some portions are not clearly audible and there are loud

background voices in some portions. The trial court further observed

that there is no finding in CFSL report proved by PW3 Amitosh

Kumar, SSO-II (Physics), CFSL, CBI, New Delhi to eliminate the

possibility of tampering in recorded conversation. The trial court

under given facts and circumstances of present case rightly observed

that it is not safe to rely on such a recorded conversation apart from

the admissibility of this evidence on account of certificate under

section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

14. The complainant PW1 deposed that he was one of the partners of

MPVC in year 2010 which was an income tax assesse and used to file

income tax return regularly. The assessment of income tax was under

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 58 17:36:55 the jurisdiction of ward no.29. The appellants Arun Kumar Gujjar

and Baljeet Singh were dealing with the income tax assessment of

MPVC for the assessment year 2008-2009. The complainant used to

meet the appellants Arum Kumar Gujjar and Baljeet Singh in relation

with the income tax assessment in their office. The complainant in

October, 2010 in response to a notice received from the income tax

office pertaining to the assessment of income tax of MPVC for the

year 2008-2009 met the appellant Baljeet Singh in his office and

submitted few documents required by income tax department for the

assessment of income tax. The complainant PW1 again met the

appellant Baljeet Singh who asked the complainant PW1 to submit

other documents. The complainant PW1 again met the appellant

Baljeet Singh in mid of December, 2010 in his office and the

appellant Baljeet Singh took him to the office of the appellant Arun

Kumar Gujjar where the appellant Baljeet Singh demanded bribe of

Rs.5 lacs to settle the case. The complainant PW1 again met the

appellant Baljeet Singh on 22nd/23rd, December, 2010 in his office

where the appellant Baljeet Singh again demanded Rs.5 lacs. The

complainant again met the appellant Baljeet Singh in his office on

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 59 17:36:55 27.12.2010 but he did not agree to accept less than Rs. 5 lacs to settle

case. The complainant on 28.12.2010 lodged a complaint Ex. PWl/A

in the office of CBI, New Delhi. The complainant PW1 in cross

examination conducted on behalf of the appellant Baljeet Singh

deposed and admitted that he firstly visited office of CBI on

28.12.2010 and he reached the CBI office along with the already

written complaint which was typed by his staff namely Hanish

Bansal on his instructions in the morning of 28.12.2010. The

complainant PW1 further deposed that the complaint Ex. PWl/A is

not the same complaint which was typed by Hanish Bansal in office

as there were mistakes in the complaint typed by Hanish Bansal and

due to this complaint Ex. PW1/A was retyped in CBI office. The

complainant PW1 could not answer whether the complaint typed by

Hanish Bansal was returned back to him by the CBI officers. The

complainant PW1 denied suggestion that the complaint Ex. PWl/A

was typed in CBI office according to the directions of the CBI

officers by incorporating false facts. It is reflecting from the

testimony of the complainant Ex. PW1/A was not the complaint

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 60 17:36:55 which was originally brought by the complainant in office of CBI and

the complaint Ex. PW1/A was retyped in office of CBI.

14.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar argued that entire prosecution case is suspected as the

prosecution did not produce original complaint which was substituted

by a new document and relied on Sevi V State of T.N., 1981 Supp

SCC 43. He further argued that the respondent/CBI did not secure

original complaint which is a glaring error and relied on C.

Prasnnakumar @ Papanna and others V State, Crl. A. No.

376/2006 decided on 13th March, 2013 by the High Court of

Karnataka. He further argued that Hanish Bansal was dropped as a

witness and an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872 must be drawn against the prosecution and relied

on Tomaso Bruno V State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178.

14.2 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh

argued that the complaint dated 28.12.2010 Ex. PW1/A is a false and

manipulated document as the original complaint which was typed in

office of the complainant PW1 was never produced during trial. The

complainant PW1 also admitted that the complaint EX PWl/A was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 61 17:36:55 not the same complaint which was typed by Hanish Bansal in office

and the complaint Ex. PW1/A was retyped in the CBI office. The

respondent/CBI/prosecution did not examine Hanish Bansal who was

an important witness and as such adverse inference is required to be

taken against the prosecution.

14.3 The trial Court in impugned judgment regarding argument that

the complaint Ex. PW1/A is a fabricated document and other

arguments as detailed herein above observed that in present case it

was established that the original complaint was typed in the office of

the complainant PWl and was given to CBI where another complaint

Ex.PWl/A was prepared which became the basis for registration of

FIR and the original complaint was not produced by prosecution

during trial. The trial court further observed that the complainant

PW1 during testimony explained retyping of the complaint in CBI

office as it was not properly addressed and change in complaint is

required to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the particular

case. PW 10 gave explanation and admitted his signature on the

complaint. The trial court further observed that there was nothing on

record to accept that any material allegation of complaint was

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 62 17:36:55 changed and ultimately opined that in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, no importance can be given to this aspect of

complaint. The trial court also distinguished case law under given

facts and circumstances of the case.

14.4 The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI in light of

observation made by the trial court argued that the trial court in

impugned judgment has considered the arguments advanced on

behalf of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and

rightly held that there was nothing on record to prove that there was

any material change in the retyped complaint except the proper

address as clarified by the complainant PW1 during his testimony

and trial court has rightly held that in the facts and circumstances of

the present case no importance can be given on this aspect of change

of complaint.

14.5 The Supreme Court in Sevi and another V State of Tamil

Nadu and another as cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar observed as under:-

According to the suggestion of defence the original First Information Report which was registered was something altogether different from what has now been put forward as the First Information Report and that the present report

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 63 17:36:55 is one which has been substituted in the place of another which was destroyed. To substantiate their suggestion the defence requested the Sessions Judge to direct the Sub- Inspector to produce the First Information Report Book in the Court so that the counterfoils might be examined. The Sub-Inspector was unable to produce the relevant F.I.R. Book in Court notwithstanding the directions of the Court. The F.I.R. book, if produced, would have contained the necessary counterfoils corresponding to the F.I.R. produced in Court. The Sub-Inspector when questioned stated that he searched for the counterfoil book but was unable to find it, an explanation which we find impossible to accept. We cannot imagine how any F.I.R. Book can disappear from a Police Station. Though he claimed that relevant entries had been made in the general diary at the Station the Sub- Inspector did not also produce the general diary in Court. The production of the general diary would have certainly dispelled suspicion. In the circumstances we think that there is great force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the accused that the original F.I.R. has been suppressed and, in its place some other document has been substituted. If that is so, the entire prosecution case becomes suspect. All the eye-witnesses are partisan witnesses and notwithstanding the fact that four of them were injured we are unable to accept their evidence in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Where the entire evidence is of a partisan character impartial investigation can lend assurance to the Court to enable it to accept such partisan evidence. But where the investigation itself is found to be tainted the task of the Court to sift the evidence becomes very difficult indeed.

The High Court of Karnataka in Prasannakumar @

Papanna and others V State, Criminal Appeal No 376/2006

decided on 13.03.2013 observed that the original complaint was not

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 64 17:36:55 produced and no steps were taken to produce original complaint

during the trial and as such it cannot be looked into.

14.6 In the present case the complainant PW1 brought one typed

complaint in office of CBI which was stated to be not properly

addressed. Thereafter another complaint Ex. PW1/A was retyped in

office of CBI and said complaint is basis of registration of present

FIR. There is nothing on record which can suggest that the contents

of previous complaint which was already typed in office of the

complainant PW1 were materially different from the complaint

Ex. PW1/A which was retyped in office of CBI. Although previous

complaint was not produced during trial and this may raise suspicion

about case of prosecution but is not fatal to case of prosecution. The

trial court rightly held that there was nothing to prove that there was

any material change in the retyped complaint except the proper

address as clarified by the complainant PW1 during his testimony

and no importance can be given on aspect of change of complaint in

the facts and circumstances. The trial court rightly observed that case

law cited on behalf of the appellants as referred herein above can be

distinguished under facts and circumstances of present case.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA

Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 65 17:36:55

15. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

argued that it is a settled principle of law that delay in FIR without

proper explanation must be viewed with suspicion since it gives an

opportunity to deliberate and embellish and relied on Harilal V State

of Chhattisgarh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1124. The learned counsel

for the appellant Baljeet Singh also argued that there was delay in

lodging FIR as alleged demand was made in October, 2010 but FIR

was registered on 29.12.2010 on complaint dated 28.12.2010 as the

assessment in respect of MPVC was going to be time barred and

needed to be completed by 31.12.2010. The Special Public

Prosecutor in argument defended observation made by the trial court

in impugned judgment regarding delay in FIR.

15.1 The trial court in impugned judgment considered argument

advanced on behalf of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh that the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as

per complaint Ex. PWl/A allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.5 lacs from

the complainant in October 2010 which he refused to pay and the

bribe was again demanded by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and

Baljeet Singh in December, 2010 and the complainant approached

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 66 17:36:55 CBI on 28.12,2010 only due to reason that income tax assessment

case of firm of the complainant was to be time barred on 31.12.2010.

The trial court also considered argument that no explanation was

given by the complainant or the prosecution that why the

complainant did not approach investigating agency or any other

authority in October/November 2010 i.e. immediately after the

demand of bribe and unexplained delay in reporting the matter has

created a serious doubt about the genuineness of the complaint and

testimony of the complainant. The trial court in impugned judgment

observed that that delay in FIR is not fatal in each and every case if it

is properly explained. The trial court further observed that as per the

complainant PW1 first demand was made by the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh in October, 2010 but the

complainant approached CBI on 28.12.2010 and there was nothing

on record to accept that due to delay in FIR there had been any

material change in the allegations and there was no reason for the

complainant PW1 to lodge a complaint against senior public servants

and held that there was no unusual delay in lodging FIR.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 67 17:36:55 15.2 The Supreme Court in Harilal V State of Chattisgarh as

referred by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar observed as under:-

When an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work.

15.3 It is accepted legal proposition that delay in lodging FIR must

be properly explained to rule out chance of manipulation and

embellishments. In present case the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar

and Baljeet Singh were handling income tax assessment of firm of

the complainant i.e. MPVC. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and

Baljeet Singh as per the complainant initially demanded bribe of Rs.

1.5 lacs in month of October, 2010 which was raised to Rs. 5 lacs in

month of December, 2010 which the complainant was not able to pay

and thereafter the complainant on 28.12.2010 lodged the complaint

Ex. PW1/A which was basis of registration of FIR. The prosecution

under given facts and circumstances of case has properly explained

delay in registration of FIR. There is no legal force in arguments

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 68 17:36:55 advanced on behalf of appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh that there was unexplained delay in registration of FIR.

16. The respective Senior Counsels for the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh pleaded argued malicious prosecution of the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh by the complainant

PW1. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar argued that the complainant PW1 was motivated by malice to

implicate the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar to derail ongoing scrutiny

of various companies of the complainant including MPVC and one of

the firm of the complainant namely M/s Radha Krishan Banarsi Dass

was subjected to survey by the IT Department in January 2010 and

paid tax liability/penalty of Rs. 74 lacs due to surrender of

unaccounted stock of about Rs.2 crores. The appellant Baljeet Singh

had a quarrel with the complainant PW1 during survey conducted by

IT department regarding M/s Radha Krishan Banarsi Dass. The

complainant lodged false complaint Ex. PW1/A to cover up his tax

practices which were under scanner even before the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar took charge as assessing officer. The case of MPVC

was selected for scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 69 17:36:55 Selection (CASS) since 2009 Ex.PW1/DX22 and was allotted to the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The complainant PW1 deliberately

timed the complaint Ex. PW1/A in a way that the scrutiny of MPVC

would get derailed and time-barred on 31.12.2010. The complainant

PW1 has abused action of CBI as an excuse to obtain undue benefit.

16.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh

after referring dates in chronological order to establish motive on part

of the complainant PW1 also argued that the trap was motivated by

the complainant PW1 as firm of the complainant MPVC was facing

income tax assessment proceedings for assessment year 2008-2009

which was to be time barred on 31.12.2010. The complainant PW1

had a reason to delay the ongoing proceedings of Income Tax

Assessment by 3 days and also had previous enmity with the

appellant Baljeet Singh to falsely implicate him. The appellant

Baljeet Singh and the complainant had heated arguments during

survey conducted by IT Department regarding another firm of the

complainant namely M/s Radha Kishan Banarasi Das. The learned

Senior Counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh also referred

testimony of DWl Shiv Swarup Singh, Joint Commissioner of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 70 17:36:55 Income Tax who also deposed about scuffle between the appellant

Baljeet Singh and the complainant.

16.2 The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI

argued that there is nothing on record to accept that the complainant

PW1 and PW22 Ram Sing TLO had any motive to falsely implicate

the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and PW10 and

PW18 were the independent witnesses without any reason to falsely

depose against the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh.

The respective testimony of PW1, PW10, PW18 and PW22 has

supported by each other on the material particulars and are

corroborated by the documents i.e. recovery memo and handing over

memo etc. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also referred

relevant part of the impugned judgment.

16.3 The trial court in impugned judgment discussed arguments

advanced on behalf of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh that the complainant PW1 was having motive to falsely

implicate the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as the

complainant PWl had a scuffle/quarrel with the appellant Baljeet

Singh at the time of survey of his firm in another income tax case and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 71 17:36:55 income tax assessment pertaining to MPVC was to be time barred on

31.12.2010 and due to this the complainant PW1 was having motive

against the appellant Baljeet Singh. The trial court after considering

these arguments observed that the appellant Baljeet Singh had dispute

with the complainant appellant Baljeet Singh at the time of survey of

another firm for income tax assessment case. The appellant Baljeet

Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the income

tax assessment case of MPVC and was writing the order sheets. The

trial court further observed that the appellant as per testimony of the

complainant PW1, the appellant Baljeet Singh was continuously in

the touch in respect of demand of bribe. The trial court held that in

ordinary course of events, it is hard to believe that the complainant

PWl will go to the extent of lodging false case against the appellant

Baljeet Singh on account of minor argument much prior to present

case. The trial court further observed that as per record assessment

case of MPVC was going to be barred on 31.12.2010 and held that it

is not probable that the complainant PWl would have lodge the false

complaint against the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh just to delay the time bound income tax assessment case of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 72 17:36:55 MPVC and there was in particular no reason for the complainant

PW1 to implicate the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. Accordingly in

consideration of the trial court plea of false implication of the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh by the complainant

PWl did not inspire any confidence and there is no convincing

material on record to accept the plea of false implication. The trial

court as such considered plea of false implication of the appellants

Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh by the complainant PW1 due

to reasons as mentioned hereinabove in detail and in right

perspective. The plea of false implication is without any justification

and there is no force in arguments advanced by the learned Senior

Counsels for the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and the Baljeet Singh

that they were falsely implicated at instance of the complainant due

to reasons as detailed hereinabove.

17. Another issue which needs judicial consideration is existence of

conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Senior Counsel for

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar argued that the prosecution has

failed to establish conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 73 17:36:55 Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and trial court in impugned judgment

wrongly inferred existence of conspiracy between them as the

appellant even after being transferred was assisting the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar; the appellant Baljeet Singh was not in any

individual position to grant any benefit or favour to the complainant

PW1; the appellant Baljeet Singh could not have demanded the bribe

from the complainant PW1 without the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

and the appellant Baljeet Singh met the complainant in office room

of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. It was further argued that mere

fact that the appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar after transfer in the assessment of MPVC cannot lead

to any inference of conspiracy between the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as it was not uncommon to take assistance

of transferred officers which was also supported by the testimony of

DW1 and PW16. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar had formally

requested to stay the transfer of the appellant Baljeet Singh out of

Range 29 as he was looking after the uploading of demand of Central

Processing Centre which has to be completed by 31.12.2010 and

other time barred matters vide letter dated 22.10.2010 Ex. PW16/DA.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 74 17:36:55 Sh. M. P. Varshney Chief CIT also made similar request vide letter

dated 27.10.2010 and Firoz Khan, CIT Delhi-10 vide letter dated

25.10.2010 Ex.PW14/DX also requested for permission till

31.03.2011 as transfer of appellant Baljeet Singh would adversely

impact the office work of Range-29. The operation of order of

transfer of the appellant Baljeet Singh was stayed till 31.10.2010 vide

Ex. PW16/DA who was only providing limited clerical assistance to

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The inference of conspiracy

between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and the Baljeet Singh

cannot be based on the shaky ground that the appellant Baljeet Singh

met the complainant PW1 in the room no. 207 which belonged to the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The charge of conspiracy between the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh cannot be deemed

to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or

inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable

evidence and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which it has

not been. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on CBI

V K. Narayanrao, (2012) 9 SCC 512.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 75 17:36:55 17.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh

argued that the appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar in concluding assessment proceedings in various

cases which is not illegal or contrary to the practice and procedure

adopted by the IT Department. The appellant Baljeet Singh was not

the assessing officer and hence had no authority or power in the

assessment and was not in position to show any favour to the firm of

the complainant and was only assisting the assessing officer i.e. the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The learned Senior Counsel referred

letter dated 22.10.2010 Ex PW16/DX whereby the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar requested CIT-X for staying the operation of order of

transfer of the appellant Baljeet Singh till 31.03.2011 due to the

reason that the appellant Baljeet Singh was looking after the

uploading of demand on CPC to be completed by 31.12.2010 and

other time barred matters and letter dated 25.10.2020 ExPW14/DX

was sent by Firoz Khan CIT-X whereby requested the CIT-VI for

continuation of the appellant Baljeet Singh in his place of posting in

Range 29 of CIT-X till 31.03.2011. He also referred another letter

dated 27.10.2010 of CCIT-VI whereby he forwarded the request of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 76 17:36:55 ClT-X for allowing the appellant Baljeet Singh to continue in his

present place of posting till 31.03.2011 for favourable consideration.

He also referred testimonies of PW16 Ms Arju Garodia, DWl Shiv

Swaroop Singh, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and PW23.

17.2 The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI argued that

there was criminal conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as the appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the assessment case of MPVC

and was rendering his services to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

even after his transfer from CIT-X and was writing order sheet of the

case of the firm of complainant which were signed by the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar and relied on opinion of expert from GEQD,

Shimla. The Special Public Prosecutor further argued that it was not

possible for the appellant Baljeet Singh to obtain illegal gratification

from the complainant in the room no. 207, office of the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar without connivance of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar. The Special Public Prosecutor defended the impugned

judgment related to criminal conspiracy between the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and stated that the trial court has

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 77 17:36:55 rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh for the offence punishable under

section 120-B IPC read with section 7 of PC Act.

17.3 The trial court in relation to criminal conspiracy between the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh observed as under:-

34. In view of above discussion, testimony of witnesses, documents proved on record and the circumstances of the case it may be concluded that:-

i) A-1 was posted as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and A-2 as Inspector, Income Tax and this fact has not been disputed even by accused persons.

ii) A-2 was assisting A-1 in the case of firm of the complainant even after the transfer.

iii) Income tax assessment case of Madhya Pardesh Vanijaya Company, the firm of the complainant was pending before A-1 which was time bound case and the limitation was going to be expired on 31.12.2010.

x) ..... In ordinary course of events, A-2 has noreason to call PWl to meet him in income tax office and no explanation has been given by A-2 in this regard.

xi)A-2 met PWl in room no.207 of income tax office which was office room of A-1. In ordinary course of events there was no reason for A-2 to meet a litigant in the office of his senior officer (A-1) when A-1 himself was present in the same complex. It corroborates the story of prosecution.

xii)A-l being the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was the Assessing Officer of Income tax case of firm of PWl and A-2 was assisting him. In the' facts and circumstances of the case, A-2 could not demand bribe from PWl without

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 78 17:36:55 instructions of A-1. A-2 himself was in no position to give any favour to firm of PWl without aid and help of A-1 which has clearly established the criminal conspiracy between A-1 and A-2 for demanding and accepting the bribe in lieu of favours in income tax assessment case of firm of PWl.

17.4 Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy

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.

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

Section 120 B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy which

reads as under:-

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.--(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 79 17:36:55 (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

The Supreme Court in State through Superintendent of

Police V Nalini & others, (1999) 5 SCC 253 discussed and

summarized ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy which are

as follows:

i) Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means.

ii) The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to the general law, where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and join hands with persons having the same intention.

iii) Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence.

Usually, the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.

iv) Where in pursuance of the agreement, the conspirators commit offenses individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act that has a nexus to the object of the conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offenses even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offenses.

The Supreme Court in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V

State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1 followed these principles

and reiterated that to establish conspiracy it is necessary to establish

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 80 17:36:55 an agreement between the parties and the offence of criminal

conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are liable for the

acts of each of the crimes which have been committed as a result of

the conspiracy. The Supreme Court again in Sanjeev V State of

Kerala, Criminal Appeal No 1134 of 2011 decided on 09th

November, 2023 and Pavana Dibbur V

The Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No 2779 of

2023 decided on 29.11.2023 again referred these principles.

17.5 It is reflecting that the appellant Baljeet Singh was looking

after the assessment case of the MPVC and even after his transfer

continued to deal with assessment case of MPVC for assessment year

2008-2009 and was also writing the order sheets as reflected from the

expert opinion from GEQD Shimla which were subsequently signed

by the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. There was no specific order for

attaching the appellant Baljeet Singh with the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar. The prosecution also alleged that the complainant was called

by the appellant Baljeet Singh in the room of the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar and the appellant Baljeet Singh in the ordinary course

could not have demanded bribe from the complainant PW1 without

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 81 17:36:55 the instructions of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and further the

appellant Baljeet Singh was also not in official position to favor the

complainant PW1 in hassle free disposal of assessment case of the

firm of the complainant namely MPDC for the assessment year 2008-

2009. The trial court also agreed with this stand of the prosecution as

well as the arguments advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor.

17.6 It is correct that the conspiracy are conceived and executed in

privacy and it is very difficult to establish conspiracy by direct

evidence. The existence of the conspiracy has to be inferred from the

prevailing circumstances as well as the conduct of the accused.

However in present case, the mere facts that the appellant Baljeet

Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in assessment

case of the MPVC which was to be expired on 31.12.2010 even after

his transfer and if the appellant Baljeet Singh met with the

complainant PW1 in the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

and the appellant Baljeet Singh was writing the order sheet under the

signature of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar as confirmed by the

expert opinion are not itself sufficient to establish an agreement

between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh and

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 82 17:36:55 prior meeting of mind. The observations as given by the trial court in

the impugned judgment are based on the presumption and assumption

rather the true appreciation of the evidence. There is no force in the

arguments advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/CBI that the facts as mentioned hereinabove are

sufficient to constitute conspiracy between the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. The respective learned Senior Counsels for

the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh have rightly

argued that there are no sufficient evidences to establish the

conspiracy between the appellant Arun Kumar Gujjar and Baljeet

Singh for demanding and accepting bribe as alleged by the

complainant PW1. The prosecution has failed to establish existence

of conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh should

not have been convicted for the offence punishable under section

120B IPC read with section 7 of the PC Act.

18. It is accepted legal proposition that proof of demand and

acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non to constitute offence

punishable under section 7 of the PC Act and presumption under

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 83 17:36:55 section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of demand of

gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. The offence

under Section 7 cannot be established unless demand and acceptance

are established. It is also accepted legal proposition that mere

acceptance of any illegal gratification or recovery thereof in the

absence of proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home

the charge under Sections 7 of the PC Act. However an accused can

be convicted for offence of demanding a bribe or illegal gratification

under the PC Act on circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct

oral and documentary evidence. It was observed by the Supreme

Court in State of Punjab V Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14

SCC 153 as under which was also cited by the learned Senior

Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar:-

10. It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court for compelling reasons should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse, i.e. if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record; or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice; or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 84 17:36:55 innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence. (Vide: Abrar v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 354; Rukia Begum v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2011 SC 1585; and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dal Singh & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 2059).

11. 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 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,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 85 17:36:55 (2011) 6 SCC 450; and Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642).

18.1 The learned Senior Counsels for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the twin

requirements of demand and acceptance which are necessary to

constitute the offence punishable under section 7 of the PC act. He

further argued that the only evidence of alleged demand stated to be

made by the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar is the complaint Ex.

PW1/B filed by the complainant PW1 and the filing of the complaint

with the respondent/CBI by the complainant PW1 cannot be taken as

substitute for the evidence of proof of allegation and the reliance was

placed on F. RoshanLal Saini V CBI, (2010) SCC online Del 3573.

It is further argued that the complainant PW1 was unreliable witness

whose testimony is full of contradictions and improvements. The trial

court in the impugned judgment also observed that the testimony of

the PW1 suffers from contradictions, improvements and deficiency

and he may be an interested witness and due to this reason the trial

court further observed that the testimony of the complainant PW1 is

required to be scrutinized with caution. The trial court observed that

the testimony of PW 1 is not fully reliable but required to be seen in

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 86 17:36:55 the facts of the case and may be acted upon material facts if it is

corroborated with some other material facts of the case. It was further

argued that there was no corroboration of any allegation made by the

complainant PW1 by any document or any witness and the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar was convicted on the testimony of the

complainant PW1 despite being unreliable and referred K.Ramadoss

& another V Deputy Superintendent of police, (2019) SCC online

Mad 16566 and State of Punjab V Madan Mohan Lal Verma,

(2013) 14 SCC 153.

18.1.1 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar further argued that the complainant PW1 in deposition has

changed his stand regarding the demand of bribe of Rs. 5 lacs and

pointed out that the complainant PW1 in the complaint Ex PW1/B

stated that the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh

demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lacs for hassle free completion of tax

assessment while in the statement under section 161 of the code Ex.

PW1/DA stated that Rs. 2.5 lacs was demanded by the appellant

Baljeet Singh. The complainant PW1 in examination in chief also

changed his stance by deposing that the appellant Baljeet Singh has

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 87 17:36:55 made initial demand of Rs. 1.5 Lacs which was increased to Rs. 5

lacs when he met the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh at the end of the October 2010 in the office of the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar. The learned senior counsel further argued that

the allegations of demand in October and December 2010 as made by

the complainant PW1 are vague, unclear and inherently improbable.

The learned senior counsel argued that there is no proof of

acceptance by the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and no recovery was

affected from the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and he was not

caught while taking any bribe from the complainant PW1. The

recovery memo PW1/G does not make any conclusive or direct

finding against the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The recovery of Rs

6 lakhs from the drawer of the office of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar as alleged by the prosecution is totally irrelevant for the

purpose of the present case. Ultimately, the learned senior counsel for

the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar argued that as no recovery was

affected from the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the entire incident

as such no presumption under section 20 of the PC act regarding

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 88 17:36:55 acceptance of bribe can be drawn against the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar.

18.2 The learned senior counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh

argued that the prosecution has failed to prove initial demand which

is sine qua non for convicting an accused for offence under section 7

of the PC Act. It is submitted that the complainant PW1 only made

allegation of initial demand of Rs 5 lakhs in complaint EX. PW1/A

which is contradictory to deposition of PW1 in the examination in

chief. The complainant during his examination in chief recorded on

03.06.2013 has introduced for the first time the initial demand of

Rs. 1.5 lakh by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh.

The complainant during his cross examination introduced the demand

of Rs 2.5 lacs alleged to have been made in the month of October

2010. It is argued that the testimony of the complainant PW1 has

material contradictions, improvements and was an interested witness

and relied upon Muktar Singh V State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC

136.

18.2.1 The learned senior counsel for the appellant Baljeet Singh

regarding the demand made in December 2010 argued that the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 89 17:36:55 complainant introduced the demand of Rs 5 lakhs for the first time on

22/23.12.2010 and on 27.12.2010 which remain uncorroborated by

any substantive piece of evidence. It is further argued that the onus to

prove subsequent demand was on the prosecution which is sine qua

non for constituting an offence under section 7 of the PC Act. There

is no evidence to prove demand at this point. The PW10 and PW18

did not depose about the demand as the amount was already

recovered when they entered the room 207. The learned senior

counsel relied upon P Satyanaryana Murthy V District Inspector

of police state of Andra Pradesh (2015) 10SCC, B. Jayaraj V

State of Punjab 2017.

18.3 The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI

argued that the appellants Arun Kumar Gujjar and Baljeet Singh have

demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lacs in the month of October

2010 from the complainant PW1 which was again demanded on

27.12.2010 when the complainant again visited the office on

27.12.2010 to finalize the assessment case of the MPVC without any

hurdle. The appellant Baljeet Singh has accepted illegal gratification

of Rs 2 lakhs on 29.12.2010 from the complainant for himself as

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 90 17:36:55 well as on behalf of the appellant Arun Kumar Gujjar and the said

amount was recovered from the possession of the appellant Baljeet

Singh. The complainant being the only witness of demand and

acceptance has consistently supported the allegation and his

testimony can‟t be impeached on these aspects which inspire

confidence and find corroboration from circumstantial evidence. The

recovery of bribe amount from the appellant Baljeet Singh was

supported by the testimony of the complainant PW1, Jitender

Bharadwaj PW 18 and TLO Ram Singh PW 22. There was no motive

on the part of the complainant PW1 and PW 22 TLO Ram Singh to

falsely implicate the appellants Arun Kumar Gujjar and Baljeet Singh

and Hukum Chand PW 10 and Jitender Bhardwaj PW 18 were the

independent witnesses. The prosecution has proved essential

ingredients of offence i.e. demand of bribe by the appellants and

acceptance of bribe by the appellant Baljeet Singh from the

complainant and thereafter recovery of bribe amount from the

possession of the appellant Baljeet Singh.

18.4 The complainant PW1 in the complaint Ex. PW1/A stated that

he is one of the partner of MPVC along with his brother Anil Jindal

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 91 17:36:55 and Income Tax Assessment for the financial year 2008-09 pertaining

to the MPVC was under scrutiny and was pending in the office of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gujjar, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax,

Ward 29 being the assessing officer. The complainant further stated

that he received various notices from the department and accordingly

submitted necessary documents/information to the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar to finalize the scrutiny. The appellant Bajleet Singh

who was a subordinate officer of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

also remained present during the meetings. The complainant PW1 on

being asked by the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh

met them in the month of October 2010 in the office of the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet

Singh demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lacs to finalize the scrutiny without

any hurdle but the complainant PW1 refused to pay the bribe of Rs. 5

lacs. Thereafter, the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar on 20.12.2010

issued a notice to MPVC which was replied on 24.12.2010. The

complainant PW1 on 27.12.2010 again visited the office of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar where the appellants Arun Kumar

Gujjar and Baljeeet Singh demanded Rs 5 lacs to finalize the scrutiny

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 92 17:36:55 but the complainant PW1 was hesitant to pay the bribe. Accordingly,

he made the complaint Ex. PW1/A to the SP,CBI ACU-1, New

Delhi.

18.4.1 The complainant PW1 in his testimony deposed that the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh were dealing

income tax assessment of MPVC for the assessment year 2008-2009

and due to this reason he used to meet the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh. The complainant in October, 2010 in

response to the notice received from the income tax office met the

appellant Baljeet Singh in his office and submitted further

documents. The complainant again met the appellant Baljeet Singh in

the mid of December, 2010 in his office and thereafter the appellant

Baljeet Singh took him to the office of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar where the discussion was held pertaining to the assessment of

MPVC. The appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was not satisfied with the

reply/information given by the complainant then he came out from

the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and met the appellant

Baljeet Singh who demanded bribe of Rs. 5 lacs to settle the case

which was to be paid to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 93 17:36:55 complainant PW1 also deposed that when he met the appellant

Baljeet Singh in October, 2010 then he demanded bribe of Rs.1.5 lacs

which was increased to Rs. 5 lacs in the month of December, 2010.

The appellant Baljeet Singh also demanded Rs. 5 lacs from the

complainant PW1 on 22/23 December and he requested the appellant

Baljeet Singh to settle the case for lesser demand which was not

considered by the appellant Baljeet Singh. The complainant again

met the appellant Baljeet Singh in his office on 27.12.2010 in

pursuance of the notice received from the office of appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar but the appellant Baljeet Singh did not agree to settle

the case of MPVC for lesser demand of bribe. Accordingly the

complainant lodged the complaint Ex. PW1/A in the office of CBI.

The complainant on 29.12.2010 reached at CBI office where he met

TLO Ram Singh PW22 where independent witnesses namely Jitender

Bhardwaj and Hukum Chand were also present. The complainant

PW1 was instructed by TLO Ram Singh PW22 to call the person

who was demanding the bribe. The complainant PW1 contacted the

appellant Baljeet Singh and conveyed him that he would be coming

to his office at about 02:00 pm to pay Rs. 2 lacs which was also

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 94 17:36:55 accepted by the appellant Baljeet Singh. The conversation was

recorded and was transferred to a CD and verification memo vide

Ex. PW1/D was also prepared. The handing over memo Ex. PW1/E

was also prepared on 29.12.2010 as a part of pre trap proceedings

conducted in the CBI office on 29.12.2010.The complainant PW1

along with members of the trap team reached in the office of

appellant Baljeet Singh and on inquiry he was found to be sitting in

the office of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. Thereafter the

complainant PW1 reached in the office of appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar where the appellant Baljeet Singh was present but the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar was not there. The complainant handed

over the envelope containing GC notes of Rs. 2 lacs to the appellant

Baljeet Singh which was accepted by him and thereafter they came

out from the room of the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The appellant

Baljeet Singh was apprehended by TLO Ram Singh PW22 and other

members of the trap team after pre decided signal was given by the

complainant PW1 and thereafter an envelope containing the GC notes

which was stated to be accepted by the appellant Baljeet Singh were

recovered. The post Trap proceedings were also conducted. The

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 95 17:36:55 complainant PW1 also deposed that the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar

was also brought by TLO Ram Singh PW22 from the office of Firoz

Khan, Commissioner of Income Tax and the appellant Baljeet Singh

in the presence of appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar told CBI officers that

he accepted Rs. 2 lacs on the instructions of the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar. The complainant PW1 in examination in chief

recorded on 04.06.2013 before the trial court also deposed that he

knew the appellant Baljeet Singh since 2010 and he received a phone

from the appellant Baljeet Singh in the first week of October, 2010

who informed him about his assessment case of MPVC under

scrutiny. Thereafter, the complainant PW1 met the appellant Baljeet

Singh who has taken him to the office of the assessing officer i.e. the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The complainant PW1 again met the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in his office at the end of the October,

2010 i.e., around 25/26.10.2010 and in the said meeting the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh demanded Rs. 5 lacs against

the initial demand of Rs. 1.5 lacs. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar

and Baljeet Singh again demanded Rs. 5 lacs to finalize scrutiny of

the assessment of the MPVC in December, 2010.The prosecution

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 96 17:36:55 also examined Hukum Chand who was a member of Trap team as

PW10 who could not identify properly the appellant Baljeet Singh as

the person who was caught by the CBI officials. PW10 Hukam Singh

also deposed that the currency notes were already recovered by the

CBI officials when he reached the room. The prosecution also

examined Jitender Bhardwaj who was the member of trap team being

the independent witness as PW 18 and TLO Ram Singh as PW22.

18.5 The testimony of the complainant as PW1 reflected that the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh demanded bribe of

Rs.5 lacs to finalize the scrutiny without any hurdle which the

complainant PW1 has refused to pay. The complainant PW1 on

27.12.2010 also visited the office of the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar where the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh

have again demanded a bribe of Rs.5 lacs to finalize the scrutiny. The

complainant PW1 in his examination in chief recorded on 04.06.2013

before the trial court deposed that he was taken to the office of the

appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar by the appellant Baljeet Singh in the

first week of October, 2010 and thereafter he again met the appellant

Arun Kumar Gurjar at the end of October, 2010 where the

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 97 17:36:55 apppellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh demanded Rs.5

lacs against the initial demand of Rs1.5 lacs. The complainant PW1

did not speak or depose anything about the initial demand of Rs.1.5

lakh in the early part of his examination in chief. The complainant in

complaint Ex. PW1/A mentioned that the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh demanded bribe to finalize the scrutiny and

thereafter, the demand was raised by the appellants Arun Kumar

Gurjar and Baljeet Singh for Rs.5 lacs on 27.12.2010. The

complainant in Ex.PW1/A did not mention the initial demand of

Rs.1.5 lacs alleged to have been made in October, 2010 which was

increased to Rs.5 lakhs in the month of December, 2010. There are

various other contradictions and improvements in the testimony of

PW1 which was also observed by the trial court in para no 16.6 of the

impugned judgment to the effect that the testimony of the

complainant PW1 is suffering from contradiction and improvements

on different aspects of the prosecution case but simultaneously also

observed that the complainant PW1 has supported the prosecution on

material allegations. The trial court also observed that keeping in

view the fact that the testimony of the complainant PW1 suffers from

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 98 17:36:55 contradictions, improvements and deficiency and he may be an

interested witness and his testimony is required to be scrutinized with

caution. It was further observed that the testimony of PW1 cannot be

said wholly reliable or wholly unreliable but was required to be seen

in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is correct that mere

marginal variations, contradictions, discrepancies or improvements in

the statements of witnesses cannot be fatal to the case of the

prosecution and only major contradictions, discrepancies or

improvements on material facts can shake the very genesis of

prosecution case and can create doubts as to the prosecution case. It

is appearing that the trial court was not convinced with the purity and

credibility of the testimony of the complainant PW1 and also noted

various contradictions, improvements about the prosecution case.

19. The complainant PW1 made the complaint Ex. PW1/A on

28.12.2010 with the CBI and on that day verification of the complaint

was done by TLO PW 22 Ram Singh. The trial court already

observed that the conversation for verification of the complaint

recorded in CD Q 1 cannot be read into evidence. The respondent

CBI after verification has registered the present FIR and thereafter,

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 99 17:36:55 the post trapping proceedings were conducted. The PW1 complainant

only deposed that on 29.12.2010 he contacted the appellant Baljeet

Singh through his mobile phone and told him that the

complainant/PW1 shall be visiting to his office at about 2.00 pm to

pay Rs.2 lacs to settle the income tax case of MPVC which was

accepted by the appellant Baljeet Singh. It is reflecting from this part

of the testimony of the complainant PW1 that the appellant Baljeet

Singh did not make any demand of the bribe on 29.12.2010 but the

complainant PW1 himself stated that he would be coming to the

income tax office to meet the appellant Baljeet Singh. The testimony

of the complainant PW1 also reflected that after completion of pre-

trap proceedings at the CBI office, the trap team left the CBI office at

1:00 pm and reached in the income tax office where he came to know

that the appellant Baljeet Singh was sitting inside the office room of

the appellant Arun Kumar Gujjar. It is also reflecting that he

discussed has assessment case with the appellant Baljeet Singh and

thereafter, took out the envelope containing GC notes of Rs.2 lacs

from the pocket and handed over the same to the appellant Baljeet

Singh which was accepted by him. Again, this part of the testimony

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 100 17:36:55 of the complainant PW1 did not specifically reflects that even on

29.12.2010 the appellant Baljeet Singh PW1 has made specific

demand of bribe either of Rs. 5 lakhs or Rs.2 lakhs from the

complainant and it is only reflected that he handed over an envelope

containing GC notes of Rs.2 lakhs to the appellant Baljeet Singh

which was accepted but the appellant Baljeet Singh. It is also

reflected that thereafter appellant Baljeet Singh on pre decided signal,

the trap team led by TLO/Ram Singh PW22 has apprehended the

appellant Baljeet Singh and GC notes of Rs.2 lacs were recovered

from his possession and subsequent proceedings were also

conducted. It is also reflecting that at that time the appellant Arun

Kumar Gurjar was not present along with the appellant Baljeet Singh

and the complainant PW1 and he was not found in the possession of

the GC notes of Rs.2 lacs stated to be kept in an envelope. Therefore,

as such there is no direct and specific evidence that on 29.12.2010

either of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjjar and Baljeet Singh have

demanded bribe of Rs.2 lacs or Rs.5 lacs from the complainant PW1

and thereafter, the bribe was accepted by the appellant Arun Kumar

Gurjar. The testimony of the complainant PW1 and other witnesses

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 101 17:36:55 only reflects that GC notes of Rs.2 lacs were recovered from the

possession of the appellant Baljeet Singh. It is also pertinent to

mention that none of the witnesses i.e. PW10 Hukum Chand, PW18

Jitender Bhardwaj PW 22 TLO/Ram Singh were present when the

complainant PW1 stated to have delivered an envelope containing

GC notes of Rs.2 lacs. The testimony of the complainant PW1 is

only establishing that on 29.12.2010, the appellant Baljeet Singh

accepted GC notes of Rs.2 lacs from the complainant PW1 which

was subsequently recovered from his possession as reflecting from

the testimony of other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The

testimony of the complainant PW1 is also not inspiring confidence.

The trial court also raised doubts about credibility of testimony of the

complainant PW1. There is legal and factual force in arguments

advanced by the learned Senior Counsels for the appellants Arun

Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh that the prosecution has failed to

prove twin requirements of demand and acceptance of bribe which

are necessary ingredients to prove offence under section 7 of the PC

Act. The arguments advanced by learned Senior Public Prosecutor

for the respondent/CBI are not legally convincing.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 102 17:36:55

20. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has failed to

prove the acceptance of the tainted money by the appellant/Arun

Kumar Gurjar and substantial doubts are appearing from the evidence

led by the prosecution as to the guilt of the appellant Baljeet Singh.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and

impugned order passed by the trial court are set aside and appellants

are acquitted for the offence for which they were charged. If the

appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh have deposited any

fine in terms of impugned order, they are entitled for refund of fine.

21. The present appeals stand disposed of along with pending

applications, if any.

DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN (JUDGE) MARCH 22, 2024 sk/j/am/abk

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:02.04.2024 CRL.A. 630/2015 & CRL.A. 643/2015 Page 103 17:36:55
Arun Kumar Gurjar vs Central Buraeu Of Investigation 2024 Latest Caselaw 2473 Del

Full Judgement

Similar Judgements

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad & Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 4 SC

Rajendhiran Vs. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 7 SC

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta and Anr. 2024 Latest Caselaw 30 SC

In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 51 SC

Shazia Aman Khan and Anr. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 133 SC

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (D) by LRS. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors. 2024 Latest Caselaw 134 SC
