Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR,
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI) - 04, ROUSE AVENUE
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000190-2022
CBI No. 30/2022
CBI Vs. Kuldeep Singh & Anr.
19.10.2022
ORDER
1) Vide this Order, I shall decide the issue of charge against
accused A-2 Bhagat Lal. As far as accused A-1 Kuldeep Singh is
concerned, Ld. Defence counsel has conceded to the charges as
per charge sheet.
2) The brief facts necessary for deciding this question are that
the present FIR was registered on the complainant of one Dheeraj
Kumar against A-1, an ASI posted at PS Sultan Puri on the
allegations that A-1 had demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from
the complainant for not arresting his brother and son of the
brother in an FIR No. 53/2022, PS Sultan Puri, being investigated
by A-1. The verification was conducted on 17.01.2022.
Thereafter, the present FIR was registered on 18.01.2022 and the
trap proceedings were conducted on 18.01.2022. During the trap
proceedings, A-1 directed the complainant to handover the part
bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- to A-2, who was running a tea shop
opposite the premises of PS Sultan Puri and A-2 accepted the
Page 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
amount of Rs.20,000/- from complainant on gesture and
instructions of A-1.
3) Charges against A-1 have been conceded whereas for A-2,
it was argued by Ld. Defence counsel that he had no knowledge
that the amount handed over to him by the complainant on the
instructions of A-1 was bribe amount. A-2 is running a tea shop
opposite Police Station Sultan Puri and supplies tea and snacks at
PS Sultan Puri as and when ordered by the officials posted at PS
Sultan Puri. A-2 had no knowledge that the amount handed over
to him by the complainant is part of bribe amount demanded by
A-1 and he never conspired with A-1 as alleged by the
prosecution and is guilty of no offence. Ld. Defence counsel had
drawn my attention to the charge sheet where it is nowhere
mentioned that A-2 had knowledge that the amount handed over
to him by the complainant is part of bribe amount. It is argued
that in the absence of any material showing any prior meeting of
mind between A-1 and A-2 and absence of any knowledge to A-2
that the amount received by him is bribe amount, there is no
material to frame charges against A-2 for any offence. Ld.
Defence counsel in support of his submissions has relied upon
the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Dipakbhai
Jagdish Chandra Patel Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., IV (2019)
SLT 537 and Virendranath Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1996
Supreme Court 490.
Page 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
4) Ld. PP on the other hand has argued that there is sufficient
material against both the accused to frame charges for the offence
punishable U/s 7 of the PC Act read with section 120 B of IPC.
It has been argued that the independent witness of trap LW2
Deepak Kumar has specifically stated that complainant met A-1
and thereafter, crossed the road and met A-2 and then A-1 gave
signal to A-2 through gesture of his eyes/head and thereafter, A-2
accepted bribe amount from the complainant and same is
sufficient to infer the conspiracy between A-1 And A-2. It was
also argued that immediately after the call between complainant
and A-1 before meeting outside PS Sultan Puri, A-1 made a call
to A-2 on his mobile and spoke for about 50 seconds and
conspiracy can be inferred from this call as well which was
immediately after the call between complainant and A-1 and
before the transaction of bribe and therefore, there is sufficient
material to framed charges against both the accused.
5) I have heard the submissions and have perused the record.
6) As far as A-1 is concerned, Ld. Defence counsel has
conceded to the charges. Coming to material and evidence
against A-2, record shows that he accepted the bribe amount from
the complainant, which otherwise is not disputed at this stage.
Tainted bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was recovered from him. It
is the argument of A-2 that there was no conspiracy between him
and A-1 as he was not aware that the amount so received is bribe
amount. The material on record shows that when the complainant
Page 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
met A-2 as instructed by A-1, A-2 asked the complainant that
where is A-1 to which complainant replied that A-1 is standing
at the gate of PS Sultan Puri and then, A-2 looked towards A-1
and A-1 nodded his head and thereafter, A-2 accepted money
from the complainant. Record also shows that there was a call by
A-1 to A-2 lasting for about 56 seconds immediately after the call
of complainant to A-1 informing him that he is about to reach PS
Sultan Puri.
7) It is settled law that evidence of conspiracy is seldom
direct and most of the time has to be inferred from the
circumstances of the case. In the present case, acceptance of
bribe money by A-2 after getting nod in affirmation from A-1
and a telephonic call between them immediately after the call of
complainant to A-1 is sufficient at this stage to infer the
conspiracy between them. The judgments relied upon by Ld.
Defence counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case. In the
judgment of Virendranath Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the
restaurant owner who accepted bribe on the directions of police
officer was acquitted at the stage of final judgment since the
prosecution nowhere led evidence of conspiracy on the part of
restaurant owner. In the present case, the case is at the stage of
charge and the prosecution should be given opportunity to lead
evidence.
8) I find sufficient material of offence of criminal conspiracy
against A-2 as well for commission of offence U/s 7 of the PC
Page 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
Act. In facts, there is sufficient material on record to frame
charges against both the accused for the offence punishable U/s
120 B IPC read with Section 7 of the PC Act and sufficient
material for framing charges of substantive offence U/s 7 of the
PC Act against A-1.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT TODAY i.e. on 19.10.2022
(AMIT KUMAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT,
CBI-04, ROUSE AVENUE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
Page 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --