Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE: PC ACT: ACB-01:
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-000303-2024
CC No. 29/2024
FIR No. 12/2015
PS : ACB
State Vs Kedar Nath Roy & Anr.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1) Briefly stated, prosecution case is that on
21.04.2015 a complaint was received at ACB from the
complainant Raju Kashyap wherein he alleged demand and
acceptance of bribe by two labour Inspectors namely
Kedar Nath Roy and Sanjeev Kumar Yadav. It was stated
in the complaint dated 21.04.2015 that on 27.08.2014 at
05.10 pm two persons visited their office and introduced
themselves as Labour Inspector K.N.Roy and Sanjeev
Yadav. No information or notice was given about the said
visit. They demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- and threatened
to issue a notice and conduct a raid. Complainant stated
that he was suspicious whether those persons were from
the department or not. He stated that those persons tried to
contact him again on 01.09.2014 on his Cell Phone via
mobile number 9958598991 at 04.03 pm. He did not
receive that call. He had a recording of conversation with
them which shows that K.N.Roy had demanded bribe from
them. Alongwith the complaint a CD containing recording
of phone conversation with K.N.Roy was also enclosed.
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 1 of 9
-- 1 of 9 --
2) In continuation with his above complaint, on
21.04.2015 the complainant also intimated that they had
confirmed that K.N.Roy and Sanjeev Yadav were the
Labour Inspectors posted at Karampura District Office
where a number of complaints had been filed as well as
with the Head Office at Shyamnath Marg. The
complainant also stated that the copies of complaints and
RTI shall be provided as well as the original mobile with
which the recording was done on 23.04.2015, for FSL
examination.
3) On the basis of the aforesaid complaints dated
21.04.2015 and after examining the CD of the
conversation, the present FIR bearing no. 12/2015 u/s 7 of
PC Act was registered at PS ACB.
4) Investigation was conducted and the complainant
Raju Kashyap was examined on 23.04.2015 and he
disclosed that on 27.08.2014 around 05.00 pm he was not
present in the factory when the Inspectors had come at the
factory site. The complainant Raju Kashyap also handed
over 31 pages of documents containing complaints made
to the department, RTI applications and transcript of audio
recording sting.
5) On 01.05.2015 the complainant handed over one
mobile phone make ‘Karbonn’ without SIM card and
without memory card stating that it contained the audio
recording sting of the conversation between Labour
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 2 of 9
-- 2 of 9 --
Inspector K.N.Roy and complainant and Gaurav Sharma.
6) The statement of Gaurav Sharma was recorded u/s
161 Cr.P.C. on 01.05.2015 wherein he stated that in the
evening of 27.08.2014 two people came to the factory
premises and one of them introduced himself as the area
Labour Inspector K.N.Roy and told him that he had come
to inspect the factory. He informed the factory owner Raju
Kashyap on phone regarding the visit of area Labour
Inspector. The Labour Inspector K.N.Roy took his phone
from him and talked to the owner and demanded bribe. On
the demand of area Labour Inspector K.N.Roy, the factory
owner directed him to give a bribe of Rs. 2000/- to him but
Labour Inspector stated that he should be given due regard
and took Rs. 5000/- as bribe.
7) The voice samples of accused K.N.Roy, Raju
Kashyap – complainant owner of M/s Raju Enterprises and
Gaurav Sharma – supervisor of M/s Raju Enterprises, were
taken and were sent to FSL, Rohini, alongwith the mobile
phone containing the audio recording, for evaluation and
analysis. As per the FSL result dated 17.08.2020, the
voice of complainant Raju Kashyap, Gaurav and accused
K.N.Roy were found to be same as contained in the
questioned recording.
8) On 12.08.2021 the complainant was again
examined by the IO, wherein he again described the
incident and stated that bribe of Rs.5000/- was paid in cash
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 3 of 9
-- 3 of 9 --
to K.N.Roy, who gave Rs. 2500/- out of that amount to the
other Labour Inspector Sanjeev Yadav in presence of his
employee Gaurav Sharma. He also stated that he met both
the Labour Inspectors in their office when he was called by
his Senior Officer at Karampura, Delhi. He also learnt that
both the Labour Inspectors did not have jurisdiction over
his factory.
9) On 01.10.2021 Gaurav Sharma was interrogated
by the IO in which he stated that the two Labour Inspectors
came to his office and he got to know their names to be
K.N.Roy and Sanjeev Yadav. When asked how did he
know the names of the accused persons to be K.N.Roy and
Sanjeev Yadav, Gaurav Sharma stated that he had asked
their names and the one who had received the money told
his name as K.N.Roy, who also told on his own that the
person (Sahab) was Sanjeev Yadav.
10) On 17.07.2023 the complainant stated that he
did not have any CCTV footage of the factory premises of
the date of incident i.e. 27.08.2014. The transcription of
the audio recording was also prepared.
11) Thereafter on 17.07.2023 Gaurav Sharma was
confronted with accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav in the
presence of panch witnesses and he did not identify
accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav.
12) During investigation, the IO also collected
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 4 of 9
-- 4 of 9 --
the relevant documents i.e. movement register for the
month of August 2014, bio-data and service record of the
accused persons etc. Sanction for prosecution u/s 19 of
P.C.Act was obtained qua accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
and K.N.Roy. Thereafter charge-sheet had been filed
against accused Kedar Nath Roy and Sanjeev Kumar
Yadav u/s 7 P.C.Act.
13) It is argued by ld. Chief P.P. for the State that
in view of the statements of the complainant Raju
Kashyap, Gaurav Sharma and the FSL result of the audio
recording and other material on record, there is prima-facie
sufficient evidence on record to frame charge against the
accused u/s 7 of PC Act.
14) Ld. Counsel for the accused Sanjeev Kumar
Yadav has argued that the accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
is liable to be discharged in this case. An application
seeking discharge has been filed on his behalf. It is argued
that the complaint has been filed after a delay of almost
eight months. The complainant was regular defaulter and
the complaint was filed to pressurize accused Sanjeev
Yadav against the proposed recovery action against the
complainant which was assigned to accused Sanjeev
Kumar Yadav vide memo dated 01.09.2014. It is stated
that Gaurav Sharma did not identify accused Sanjeev
Kumar Yadav during identification proceedings. It is
urged that the name of accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav has
been added by the complainant as an afterthought on
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 5 of 9
-- 5 of 9 --
03.09.2014 after 01.09.2014 when a memo was issued
whereby accused K.N.Roy was directed to hand over the
complaint of Raju Kashyap to Sanjeev Kumar Yadav. It is
also stated that the first complaint of the complainant dated
29.08.2014 before the authorities did not name accused
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and the description of the second
person mentioned therein is dark complexion, curly hair
and height 5’10” whereas accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
has fair complexion, straight hair and is 5’4” tall. Hence,
the description of the second person accompanying accused
K.N.Roy is entirely different from the description of
accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav and even otherwise Gaurav
Sharma did not identify Sanjeev Kumar Yadav during
identification proceedings. It is accordingly prayed that
accused Sanjeev Kumar Yadav is liable to be discharged in
this case.
15) It is argued by ld. Counsel for accused
K.N.Roy that there is no allegation that any money was
given to the accused persons in the initial complaint dated
21.04.2015. It is urged that there is no allegation even of
demand in the initial complaints dated 29.08.2014 &
03.09.2014 filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Labour
Court, by the complainant. There is delay of eight months
in filing the complaint on 21.04.2015 before ACB. It is
urged that the complainant held grudges against the Labour
Department as recovery certificates had been issued against
him and the present case has been filed against the accused
persons as a counter blast. It is accordingly prayed that
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 6 of 9
-- 6 of 9 --
accused Kedar Nath Roy is liable to be discharged in the
present case.
16) I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
17) Perusal of record reveals that the initial complaint
was made by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner
Labour on 29.08.2014 about Insp. K.N.Roy and another
Labour Insp. Thereafter the name of the other Labour
Inspector was revealed as Sanjeev Yadav in another letter
dated 03.09.2014 to the Deputy Commissioner Labour. It
is contended that the said name of Sanjeev Yadav was
introduced in the communication dated 03.09.2014 on the
basis of memorandum dated 01.09.2014 whereby Sanjeev
Yadav was handed over the complaint against K.N.Roy, a
copy of which was also supplied to the complainant. As to
whether the memo dated 01.09.2014 was the reason for
mentioning the name of Sanjeev Yadav in the letter dated
03.09.2014, is a matter of trial. It is also contended that
PW Gaurav Sharma in his statement recorded u/s 161
Cr.P.C. on 01.05.2015 did not reveal the name of Sanjeev
Yadav and since the eye witness Gaurav Sharma did not
name Sanjeev Yadav, he had no role to play in the
incident. It may be noted that an interrogation report of
Gaurav Sharma is also placed on record wherein he has
named Sanjeev Yadav, whose name is also mentioned in
the complaint dated 03.09.2014, as the person
accompanying K.N.Roy.
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 7 of 9
-- 7 of 9 --
18) It is contended by ld. Counsel for the accused
K.N.Roy that there are no allegations of demand and
acceptance either in the initial complaint dated 29.08.2014,
03.09.2014 or in the complaint dated 21.04.2015 and since
the ingredients of Section 7 of PC Act are missing in the
said complaints, therefore, charge is not liable to be framed
against accused K.N.Roy also.
19) In this regard, the prosecution has placed on record
the audio recording and the transcript of the conversation
that took place on 27.08.2014 between accused K.N.Roy,
the complainant and Gaurav Sharma. The transcript of the
said conversation and the FSL result has also been placed
on record. As per the FSL result dated 17.08.2020 the
voice of speakers was identified to be that of the
complainant Raju Kashayap, Gaurav Sharma and K.N.Roy.
The statements of PW Gaurav Sharma and Raju Kashyap
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. also reveal demand and acceptance of bribe
money. The impact of non-mention of the specific
allegations of demand and acceptance in the initial
complaint shall be tested at the trial. At the stage of
framing of charge the court has to consider the entire
material placed on record by the prosecution. Sanction to
prosecute u/s 19 of P.C. Act was granted to prosecute the
accused persons u/s 7 of PC Act vide sanction orders dated
21.12.2023. The charge sheet has been filed u/s 7 of P.C.
Act against the accused persons.
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 8 of 9
-- 8 of 9 --
20) It is a settled legal position that prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
However, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has
only to see whether prima facie case is made out against
the accused. In this regard, it is held in
Amit Kapoor Vs.
Ramesh Chander, 2012 (9) SCC, 460 as under:
“19. At the initial stage of framing of a
charge, the court is concerned not with proof
but with a strong suspicion that the accused
has committed an offence, which, if put to
trial, could prove him guilty. All that the
court has to see is that the material on record
and the facts would be compatible with the
innocence of the accused or not. The final
test of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.”
21) After considering above-mentioned rival
submissions as well as going through charge-sheet and
other material placed on record, I am of the considered
opinion that prima facie a case for the offence under
section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section
34 IPC is made out against both the accused persons
namely Kedar Nath Roy and Sanjeev Kumar Yadav.
Accordingly, charge be framed against both the accused
persons.
Announced in the open court ( Deepali Sharma )
on 30th April, 2025 Special Judge, PC Act (ACB-01)
RACC, New Delhi.
CC No. 29/2024 FIR No. 12/2015 PS ACB State Vs. Kedar Nath Roy & Anr. Page 9 of 9
-- 9 of 9 --