Final Order 31

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT11-000584-2023
CC No.52/2023 & IA No. 2/2025
State vs. Deepainder Kumar
FIR No. 03/2012
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
26.02.2026
Order on charge/discharge
1. This order will decide the application for discharge filed on behalf
of the accused Deepainder Kumar.
2. The prosecution has filed the present chargesheet against the
accused Deepainder Kumar under section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 alleging that the accused Deepainder Kumar misused his official position
and illegally demanded and received a bribe of Rs. 2 Lakh from the
complainant, Mr. Joginder Singh.
Brief facts:
3. As per the chargesheet, the factual matrix of the case is that on
31.01.2012, Sh. Joginder Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Kashiram Rathore R/o 1/7289,
East Gorakh Park, Shahdra, Delhi-32 came at P.S. ACB and gave his
handwritten complaint in Hindi language regarding demand of bribe against
I.T.O. Deepainder Singh, the translated version of which is as under:
I am Sh. Joginder Singh Rathor S/o Sh. Kashi Ram Rathor
R/o 1/7289, East Gorakh Park, Shahdra, Delhi-32 and do
construction work. I have been filing Income Tax Returns
for the last 6-7 years. My PAN No. is ADOPR1893D. Mr.
Dinesh Jain, who does timber work, has his office in my
neighbourhood. About 20-25 days ago, Dinesh Jain told
me that he had gone to Income Tax Office, ITO, where a
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 1 of 18
-- 1 of 18 --
case is pending with Mr. Deepainder Singh, I.T.O. In the
office, Joginder Singh, Gorakh Park, who does
construction work, was mentioned and there was a
discussion about the complaint and a raid. Dinesh Jain
told me that he knows Deepender Singh, ITO very well
and he keeps visiting to his office and after 2-3 days, I
was arranged to meet with I.T.O. Deepender Singh. He
informed me that an Income Tax complaint had been filed
against me, and that I would have to pay Rs. 6 Lakhs to
avoid the proceedings. I got scared, and Mr. Deepender
Singh said he would settle the complaint. I expressed my
inability to pay Rs. 6 Lakhs. Meanwhile, Mr. Deepender
Singh met with me two or three times at Dinesh Jain's
office and told me to settle the matter or I would face
trouble and that he was about to take action on the
complaint. Yesterday, on January 30, 2012, at 7:30 am,
Dinesh Jain called me to his office, where Deepender
Singh was already present. Deepender Singh said it would
cost not less than Rs. 2 Lakhs. I expressed my inability,
but to avoid any further trouble, I reluctantly agreed.
Today, on January 31, 2012, at 5 p.m., Deepender Singh
has asked me to come to Dinesh Jain's office with Rs. 2
lakhs. I have no personal animosity with Deepender Singh,
ITO, nor any financial dealing. I am against bribery and,
under compulsion, have brought the Rs. 2 lakh demanded
by Deepender Singh, ITO, in 1,000 x 100 and 500 x 200
denomination notes. Legal action should be taken against
Deepender Singh, ITO.
4. The complaint was marked to Insp. Yashpal Singh and the
complainant was handed over to Inspector Yashpal Singh (Raiding Officer).
Insp. Yashpal Singh, Raiding Officer verified the complaint and the complaint
was also signed by Panch Witness and Inspector Yashpal. Thereafter, the
complainant handed over the bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to Inspector
Yashpal which was in the denomination of 100 notes of Rs. 1000/- and 200
notes of Rs. 500/-. The numbers of the said notes were checked and mentioned
in the report. The numbers of notes of Rs.1000/- are as under:
(1) 4BG84493 (2) 8EB066773 (3) 8EB066774 (4) 4BL211253
(5) 3CH0911552 (6) 1AC022819 (7) 8EB066769 (8) 1DG690693
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 2 of 18
-- 2 of 18 --
(9) 8CA510483 (10) 5CG565251 (11) 7BB527281 (12) 0CG275530
(13) 5DC929760 (14) 9AR395459 (15) 8AD030011 (16)1AF356994
(17) ODB784958 (18) 9AA208105 (19) 2BH405289 (20) 4BQ238519
(21) OAQ027216 (22) 8AW543781 (23) 0AR569887 (24) 0DC836067
(25) 8EB714121 (26) 1EC259157 (27) 9CR674812 (28) 5DF756986
(29) 3EN709903 (30) 3EN709904 (31) 5BP933071 (32) 7CT818153
(33) 1AC029460 (34) 2AK120411 (35) 0BQ938590 (36) 1BF054406
(37) 0CG191631 (38) 0BK089462 (39) 5BF278159 (40) 3CD418365
(41) 2CL438980 (42) 5AG502389 (43) 2CS079626 (44) OAK161658
(45) 5AM654985 (46) 9BP590659 (47) 2DR513078 (48) 6BB646180
(49) 5AR475757 (50) 9BH811837 (51) 3CH524472 (52) ICF294268
(53) 98U774148 (54) OCQ185494 (55) 8BH933977 (56) 3BM287673
(57) 4CU768205 (58) 9DR144227 (59) OEN909711 (60) 38H162298
(61)0AL110888 (62) 5AF893033 (63) 3AE726023 (64) 4CD347664
(65) 5AR111408 (66) 8EB401895 (67) 7AU383109 (68) 8DQ312534
(69) 78F240987 (70) 9BW075219 (71) 9DE273512 (72) 3AT855579
(73) 4AW883075 (74) 1BH576145 (75) 7AE654372 (76) 5BH312477
(77) 2CG279889 (78) 2CP816122 (79) 5BE142773 (80) 3AG587970
(81) 5AP580496 (82) 3C5037934 (83) 2AB140398 (84) 3AC753877
(85) 4CU184188 (86) 1CH780219 (87) 8BN512090 (88) 0DA649870
(89)7CP668682 (90) 5AC079489 (91) 5DA835551 (92) 1DG364281
(93) 0BU326752 (94) 8AM607762 (95) 6CA325623 (96) SBU303838
(97) 4EC727294 (98) 4EC727293 (99) 7CL668540 (100) 4EC727292
5. The numbers of notes of Rs.500/- are as under:
(1) 4QH730816 (2) 2GP910157 (3)9RM797499 (4) 3MC859763
(5) OHT965944 (6) 6QG965875 (7) 1FW338962 (8) 1EC579933
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 3 of 18
-- 3 of 18 --
(9) 5FF627159 (10) 5LB146999 (11) 9AS857583 (12) 8DA 527513
(13) 2GK441446 (14) 7TN476763 (15) 2FV923021 (16) 4ED974108
(17) 4LH088130 (18) 3HV010489 (19) 8KE678365 (20) 4EB431341
(21) 7GW240837 (22) OLK325898 (23) 2GQ149939 (24) 285838510
(25) 0EG263961 (26) 4BU408587 (27) 1HD639493 (28) 6BB864694
(29) 4GM849860 (30) 1EL019544 (31) 6KG528055 (32) 2KW230329
(33) 8AD653624 (34) 7DU297940 (35) 6GA297082 (36) 5FV905031
(37) 6DA721878 (38) 2GQ973844 (39) 9DV496604 (40) 4BM149549
(41) 8DQ984218 (42) 3FP855675 (43) 2BA134284 (44) 6BE495628
(45) 8KW962916 (46) 0HA356681 (47) 5AV305388 (48) 2GU310674
(49) 1CL832623 (50) 3KA054773 (51) 5HN728302 (52) 1DP125912
(53) 1BF305480 (54) 0SW677941 (55) 3FC583204 (56) 9DB741267
(57) 9GT254173 (58) 1GA146724 (59) 8GL652476 (60) 0CV328741
(61) 6BR341885 (62) 1BT848551 (63) 9FF074603 (64) 4CR892055
(65) 2FT284839 (66) 4EW893918 (67) 5CP053814 (68) 4DM198244
(69) 7FG632227 (70) 2MM135601 (71) 2BQ360018 (72) 1BH329282
(73) 8HH761304 (74) 0CC803284 (75) IGP421352 (76) 5GA549490
(77) 2HF433209 (78) 4BM947869 (79) SAN590907 (80) 3DL656810
(81) OGC081412 (82) 3BN002421 (83) 9KA120444 (84) OFN423338
(85) 5PR104558 (86) 7BH373352 (87) 7AH140547 (88) 4CD488923
(89) 5LS712264 (90) 4GL755995 (91) 7EH620735 (92) 9PK491863
(93) 0GQ032559 (94) 1AE028537 (95) 7MA777109 (96) 8GR949516
(97) 0PC666313 (98) 6KE144728 (99) 2KA892939 (100) 9QK284322
(101) 2BH818719 (102) 6DA335046 (103) 1GP984125 (104) 1GP970926
(105) OTL013265 (106) 6CM954549 (107) 0GS601332 (108) 0GS601331
(109) 8GW416772 (110) 3KA769816 (111) 6PK255471 (112) 7AF704691
(113) 4GH534292 (114) 6DM323508 (115) 5GD637457 (116) 2PH972860
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 4 of 18
-- 4 of 18 --
(117) 78P462065 (118) 7FP070249 (119) 4FE241911 (120) 4MC961624
(121) 2DA758160 (122) 5GD272632 (123) 2BB949885 (124) 5NC478570
(125) 5GW136417 (126) 2SP607558 (127) 7PK249117 (128) 0GH831330
(129) 4BS993816 (130) 4AD710311 (131) 3AB206928 (132) 3PK950823
(133) 4DT876375 (134) 0DM436738 (135) OGK338509 (136) 9BE302223
(137) 3AM842846 (138) 8AQ730300 (139) 2BW974931 (140) 5CT499734
(141) 5CP353036 (142) 1CG552905 (143) 6DV682487 (144) 9GN512499
(145) 0FS902560 (146) 1DN498021 (147) 9CT382669 (148) 9EE783370
(149) 1HP511967 (150) 5CR549816 (151) OPL514537 (152) 9FV533784
(153) 1FR328369 (154) 4MA128646 (155) 5BD474206 (156) 9SW151425
(157) 2BW733454 (158) 3FV657685 (159) 3FT368246 (160) 1EN784302
(161) 0AH511080 (162) 5DV368924 (163) 4LD700251 (164) 5GN978973
(165) 8MD816566 (166) 0EU476143 (167) 0GP985152 (168) 2BR251773
(169) 4LG513164 (170) 4DL813105 (171) 8BG910196 (172) 8RP936224
(173) 7CV398089 (174) 5GF172667 (175) 2AF475593 (176) 9GN128659
(177) 9KV081096 (178) 5GP085159 (179) 0GQ268986 (180) 9GG181677
(181) 5CC008664 (182) 6LL360805 (183) 2GK822679 (184) 2GK822678
(185) 4GD789180 (186) 7KS523909 (187) 4GS110664 (188) 5KK808154
(189) 7GH312145 (190) 9GR278093 (191) 3BG946146 (192) 7LF365922
(193) 2SP567001 (194) 5AL607323 (195) 6AT789139 (196) 4KU542273
(197) 0DV860386 (198) 4AB913272 (199) 2FL089980 (200) 0GH995315
6. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the above currency notes
and the same were touched by the panch witness. When the wash of the right
hand of the panch witness was taken in a colourless solution of sodium
carbonate, the colour of the colourless solution changed to pink. By giving the
sample in this manner, the speciality of the two powders was explained to the
complainant and the panch witness that if any person touches or keeps these
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 5 of 18
-- 5 of 18 --
powdered notes somewhere, the colour of the wash of that person’s hand and
the place where the note is kept will change to pink on taking it in a colourless
solution of sodium carbonate. The powdered notes were handed over to the
complainant who kept the same in the inner pocket of his coat, which was
already empty. The complainant was instructed to keep the panch witness with
him so that he could clearly hear and see the conversation of bribe transaction.
He was also instructed to pay the bribe amount only when asked for it,
otherwise not. The panch witness was also instructed to accompany him and
carefully listen and observe the bribery conversation and the transaction
between the complainant and Deepainder Singh, ITO, and as soon as he was
convinced that the bribe amount was real, he should hand it over to him.
7. He was also told that if the bribe money had actually been obtained
after asking for it, then he was to indicate by moving his right hand twice over
his head. Thereafter, the panch witness, the complainant and Inspr. Yashpal
Singh cleaned their hands by washing them with clean water and soap. At about
04.45 pm, Inspector Yashpal Singh, Inspector Manoj Kumar, SI Balkishan, No.
D/2609, Ct. E. Dinesh, No. 1173/E and Ct. Anil Kumar, No. 669/Comn. left in
the government vehicle Maruti Van No. DL-6CJ-4180 with driver Ct. Ratan,
No. 4924/DAP and government vehicle Maruti van no. DL-6CJ-8291 Bus
Driver Ct. Jagdish, No. 789/C along with panch witness, Sh. Kalu Ram Meena,
and the complainant. At 5.20 pm, Inspector Yashpal Singh along with the
raiding party reached in front of Dev Banquet Hall, Loni Road. After giving
appropriate instructions to the drivers of both the government vehicles and
Inspector Manoj Kumar, they were sent towards the office of Shri Dinesh Jain
and Inspector Yashpal Singh and the raiding party followed behind maintaining
a proper distance. Inspr. Yashpal Singh (RO) at 5.25 pm, the complainant
and panch witness went inside the office of the Shri Dinesh Jain
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 6 of 18
-- 6 of 18 --
i.e. Shri Mahabir Timber Traders, 641 8, Loni Road, Shahdra, Delhi and
Inspector Yashpal Singh and the members of the raiding party took their
positions waiting for the signal of the panch witness. At around 5.35 pm, the
panch witness gave the mutually agreed signal, on which Inspr. Yashpal Singh
and the raiding party immediately swung into action and reached the shop/office
of Dinesh Jain. The witness pointed to a man sitting on one of the two chairs at
the owner’s table inside the shop/office and stated that he demanded a bribe of
Rs.200,000/- from the complainant. He then asked him to place the money on a
newspaper lying on the table. He then wrapped the bribe money in the same
newspaper and placed the same in a drawer with his own hand. Inspector
Yashpal Singh immediately apprehended the person, introduced himself as an
Inspector with the Anti-Corruption Branch, and stated that he had obtained the
bribe from the complainant, Mr. Jogendra Singh, by demanding it. If he wished,
he could search Inspector Yashpal Singh and the raiding party. The witness
panicked and refused to be searched. Later, his name was revealed to be
Deepainder Kumar, S/o Sh. Prakash Chand, R/o C-6, 2nd Floor, Kaushambi,
Ghaziabad (UP). Meanwhile, the shop owner, Dinesh Jain, also approached the
table. Inspector Yashpal Singh then took the bribe money, wrapped in
newspaper, from the drawer of the table. The numbers were matched by the
witness with those already recorded in the raid report. These numbered notes
were seized by the police as evidence. The complainant, witness, and Dinesh
Jain signed the Fard. Inspector Yashpal Singh then washed the inside page of
the Hindi newspaper Navbharat Times dated 31.01.2012 (The Economic Times)
in which the bribe money was received, in a colorless sodium carbonate
solution. The color of the colorless solution changed to pink. This pink solution
was poured into two clean bottles, corked and capped, tied with thread and
cloth, and stamped with a YPS stamp. These were marked as NPW-1 and
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 7 of 18
-- 7 of 18 --
NPW-2. The bribe money wrapped in paper was then removed from the drawer
of the wooden table and taken into police custody. On both the exhibits i.e. the
newspaper and drawer of the table, the complainant, panch witness, Dinesh Jain
and Inspector Yashpal put their signatures and thereafter, the newspaper was
placed in a plastic cover and the drawer was wrapped in a white cloth pullanda,
sealed with the seal of ‘YPS’ and seized by him. Signatures of the complainant,
the panch witness and the shop owner, Dinesh Jain, were obtained. Signature
labels were affixed to the NPW-1 and NPW-2 bottles. Sample seals were
prepared and handed over to the witness for subsequent use.
8. Thereafter, the IO recorded the statement of the panch witness Sh.
Kalu Ram Meena who stated that as per instructions of the IO Insp. Yashpal
Singh, he went along with the complainant at the office of Sh. Dinesh Jain and
after some time, one another person came inside the shop and sat on the chair of
the owner of the shop and asked the complainant if he had brought the money to
which, the complainant offered the money lying in the pocket of his wearing
coat. The panch witness also stated that the person sitting on the chair asked the
complainant to keep the money on the newspaper lying on the table. The
complainant kept the money on the newspaper lying on the table and the person
who asked for money, wrapped the money in the newspaper and kept the same
in the drawer of the table. He gave the signal once more. He also told the IO
that the name of the person who took money from the complainant was later
disclosed to be Deepainder Kumar. As per instructions from the IO, he
recovered the money wrapped in the newspaper from the drawer. Thereafter,
the complainant, Joginder Singh, was interrogated, who identified the panch
witness. On the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant and the above,
Raid Proceedings, it was found that Deepainder Kumar @ Deepainder Singh
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 8 of 18
-- 8 of 18 --
demanded and received bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly, FIR under
Section 7/13 of POC Act was registered at P.S. Anti Corruption Branch.
9. After registration of the case, the original complaint along with a
copy of the FIR was handed over to Inspector Manoj Kumar, who had already
arrived at the scene and was busy in investigating the matter. Thereafter, the
case of Deepainder Kumar was handed over to Inspector Manoj Kumar who
personally verified all the circumstances and Inspector Yashpal Singh, after
explaining all the circumstances to Inspector Manoj Kumar, handed over the file
and accused Deepainder Kumar to Inspector Manoj Kumar. Thereafter,
Inspector Yashpal Singh was relieved from the investigation and further
investigation was conducted by Inspector Manoj Kumar.
10. During investigation, Inspector Manoj Kumar prepared the site
plan of the spot at the instance of the panch witnesses and the complainant.
After this, Inspector Manoj Kumar informed the Duty Officer/ACB by
telephone that he is reaching AC Branch. Inspector Manoj Kumar along with
staff and the accused came to AC Branch where Ct. E Dinesh handed over the
raid report and the copy of the FIR to Inspector Manoj Kumar and further
investigation was conducted.
11. Thereafter, the IO interrogated the accused and arrested him as
there was enough evidence against him. Arrest papers were completed. The
information about the arrest of accused Deepainder Kumar was given to Smt.
Chitra, wife of accused Deepainder Kumar on her mobile. The seized exhibit
(wash) were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi for examination the result of which has
been received, and enclosed. As per the FSL examination report No. FSL.
2012/C-1339 dated 30.03.2012, Sh. Amarpal Singh, Assistant Director
(Chemistry) Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Madhuban
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 9 of 18
-- 9 of 18 --
chowk, Rohini, Delhi opined that, “On Chemical &TLC examination, exhibit
‘NPW-I’ was found to contain “phenolphthalein” “Sodium Carbonate.”
Statements of all the witnesses were recorded u/s 161 CrPC.
12. During investigation, information whether any enquiry was
pending against complainant Mr. Joginder Singh was obtained from Income
Tax Deprtment. Sh. Pradeep Rai, holding Addition Charge of Income Tax,
Ward No. 34(2) vide letter no. F.No.ITO/WARD-34(2)/2011-12 dt. 29/2/2012
informed that no complaint was pending against the complainant Mr. Joginder
Singh.
13. During the investigation, it was found that Mobile Nos.
9654374914 and 9212551240 were being used by the complainant, Mobile No.
9811092987 was being used by accused Deepainder Kumar and Mobile No.
9811981175 was being used by Sh. Dinesh Jain. CDRS & CAFs of all these
mobile numbers revealed that all these above persons were in constant contact
with each other.
14. During the investigation, the complainant also stated that he had
recorded the conversation between him, Sh. Dinesh Jain and the accused
Deepainder Kumar. On 19/03/2012, the complainant Mr. Joginder Singh
presented the Recording Device Karbonn Mobile Phone, CDs and Transcription
of the conversations. The Recording Device and 2 CDs were kept in pulinda and
sealed with the Seal of MK, and were seized by the IO/Insp Manoj Kumar in the
presence of the panch witnesses, through seizure memo. During the
investigation, notice was given to the accused Deepainder Kumar to give his
voice sample, who refused to give his voice sample to the police and before the
Court. A copy of the order of the Court and the written statement given in front
of the police is also enclosed. During investigation, IO Insp Manoj Kumar has
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 10 of 18
-- 10 of 18 --
sent only recording device to FSL, Rohini for examination. As per the FSL
Report No. FSL 2012/P-8854/PHY-333/12 dated 28.01.2013, Sh. V. Lakshmi
Narasimhan, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) Forensic Science Laboratory,
Delhi Cum-Ex Officio Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of NCT of Delhi opined
that :-
“(i) On auditory analysis by critical listening and subsequent waveform and
spectrographic analysis of the audio recordings no indication of any form of
alteration was found in relevant audio files in CDs marked “Exhibit-A-1” &
“Exhibit-A-2”.
(ii) The relevant audio files in CD marked Exhibit-A-1 were found similar to
the corresponding audio files in CD marked Exhibit- A-2 in respect of content,
file name, file type, size, duration and MDS hash value. Hence, the content of
CD marked Exhibit-A-2 could be the copy of Exhibit-A-1.
(iii) The content of relevant audio files contained in CDs marked Exhibit-A-1
and Exhibit A-2 were found similar to the corresponding audio files in mobile
phone marked Exhibit-B. Hence, the origin of relevant files in Exhibit-A-1 &
Exhibit-A-2 could be mobile phone Exhibit-B.
15. After that, the IO/Inspector Manoj Kumar got the voice of the
accused Deepainder Kumar, identified through his co-worker namely Sh. J.S.
Ahlawat, Joint Commissioner, Income Tax and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Rai, Income
Tax officer in the presence of the panch witnesses.
16. The log book of the government vehicles used during the raid was
obtained and same is enclosed. A copy of the duty roaster of the panch witness
was obtained and is enclosed. After obtaining Prosecution Sanction u/s 19 POC
Act against accused Deepainder Kumar was received from the competent
authority. BIO Data was also obtained.
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 11 of 18
-- 11 of 18 --
17. During subsequent investigations, IO/Insp Sanjay Goswami got
recorded the voice sample of Complainant Sh. Joginder Singh at FSL, Rohini,
Delhi. Original Cassette containing voice sample of Sh. Joginder Singh as
recorded at FSL Rohini, along with copy of same was obtained and taken into
possession through seizure memo in the presence of panch witness/witnesses,
and deposited in Malkhana, PS Civil Line.
18. Similarly, the voice Sample of Sh. Dinesh Jain was got recorded at
FSL Rohini, Delhi. Original Cassette containing voice sample of Sh. Dinesh
Jain as recorded at FSL Rohini, along with copy of same was obtained and
taken into possession through seizure memo in the presence of panch
witness/witnesses, and deposited in Malkhana, PS Civil Line. Thereafter
exhibits (Voice Sample & recording voice UX HCdevice), were sent to FSL
Rohini for examination. Result of the same is pending. Same will be submitted
through supplementary Challan when received from FSL Rohini.
19. Regarding role of Sh. Dinesh Jain, it has been that the complainant
has not made any allegations against Dinesh Jain in his original complaint on
which FIR was registered. The complainant had filed a complaint against
Dinesh Jain only after about a week of registration of case. Dinesh Jain was not
present on the spot during the transaction of bribe. Also, as per the transcription,
no evidence of demand/receipt of any money by Sh. Dinesh Jain is found. As no
evidence against Sh. Dinesh Jain has come on file, his name has been placed in
Column No. 12 being insufficient evidence.
20. From the circumstances of the case, investigation conducted,
statements of witnesses and, results of the FSL etc., it is clear that the accused
Deepainder Kumar misused his official position and illegally demanded and
received a bribe of Rs.2 lakh from the complainant Mr. Joginder Singh and was
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 12 of 18
-- 12 of 18 --
caught red handed. Thus, accused Deepainder Kumar has committed the offense
u/s 7/13 POC Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was prepared
against accused Deepainder Kumar for the offences u/s 7/13 POC Act and filed
before the court.
Cognizance:
21. While chargesheet was filed only against accused Deepainder
Kumar and Dinesh Jain was kept in Column No. 12, but while taking
cognizance, vide order dated 13.10.2023, the court summoned both the accused
persons. However, accused Dinesh Jain expired during the course of the trial
and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 19.11.2024.
Case of the prosecution:
22. Ld. PP for the State argued that the case is very clear as the
complaint of the complainant is categorical that the accused Deepainder Kumar
had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,00,000/- at the office of Mr. Dinesh
Jain. He argued that in view of the specific complaint, the accused Deepainder
Kumar be charged for the offence under Section 7/13 of the PC Act.
Case of the accused:
23. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that he has filed an application
for discharge of the accused on the technical ground that ACB, GNCT of Delhi
was not competent to take cognizance against the accused as he was a Central
Government employee. He submitted that the issue regarding jurisdiction of
ACB was discussed and decided in Civil Appeal No. 2357/2017, titled as
GNCT of Delhi vs. UOI where many petitions were collectively decided by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He also submitted that vide Civil Appeal No.
2357/2017, notification bearing No.14036/4/2014-Delhi-I (Pt. File), dated
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 13 of 18
-- 13 of 18 --
23.07.2014 & 21.05.2015 were challenged by GNCT of Delhi about validity
and it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that the notifications dated
23.07.2014 and 21.05.2015 are valid notifications while upholding the validity
of both the notifications. Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that
“The
Impugned notifications are only a modification to the notification dated
08.11.1993, while limiting the power of ACB not to take cognizance against
officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government”. The
department sought opinion from Sh. Sanjay Jain, the then Additional Solicitor
General of India, vide request letter dated 06.06.2017 regarding its jurisdiction
and the Ld. ASG, while giving opinion dated 03.07.2017 had categorically held
that ACB, GNCT does not have jurisdiction to launch prosecution against
Central Government Employee and this opinion was sought by ACB in relation
to case FIR No. 13/2014, u/s 7/13 P.C. Act, P.S. ACB, Delhi, registered against
one Ghanshyam Das, an ITO, during investigation of the said case and the said
issue was raised as Income Tax Department refused to give sanction for
prosecution to a case being investigated by ACB, Delhi.
24. He further submitted that even CVC manual regarding CBI
(Chapter-VI) vide Rule No. 6.2, the power to investigate against Central
Government employees is vested with SPE (CBI) and similar view was taken by
Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) 2946/2014, titled as Union of India vs. GOI &
Ors. vide order dated 29.08.2025. Therefore, he prayed that the investigation
conducted by ACB, GNCT of Delhi against accused without jurisdiction and
chargesheet filed on the basis of such investigation cannot be looked into and as
such, the accused is entitled to be discharged.
Analysis:
25. It is an admitted position on behalf of the prosecution that the
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 14 of 18
-- 14 of 18 --
investigation was carried out by P.S. ACB. It is also admitted by prosecution
that the accused was an employee of Central Public Works Department
(CPWD) which falls under Central Government of India.
26. The prosecution also admits that P.S. ACB has the power to
investigate into offences committed by Delhi Government officers and not
Central Government Officers. However, it is their case that if investigation
is carried out by P.S. Anti Corruption Branch into an offence committed by a
central government employee, it does not become
non-est and if cognizance is
taken by the court, the case can still be tried.
27. Ld. PP for the State has relied upon the judgment dated 19.01.2026
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.492/2026 titled as Nawal
Kishore Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein, it has been held that :
“10. The question whether State police has jurisdiction to
investigate the offences of bribery and corruption under the
PC Act against the Central Government employees came
up for consideration before the High Courts of Madhya
Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh respectively. A Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ashok Kumar
Kirtiwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2001 SCC
OnLine MP 83, held that the State Police, be it a regular
police force or the Special Police Establishment, can
investigate the offences of bribery and corruption against
the Central Government employees posted in the State of
Madhya Pradesh. The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Arvind Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1294, also took the same
view that the offence of bribery and corruption against the
Central Government employees posted in the State of
Madhya Pradesh can be investigated by regular police force
or Special Police Establishment. A Single Bench of Andhra
Pradesh High Court in G.S.R. Somayaji (Dr.) v. State
through CBI, reported in 2001 SCC OnLine AP 1196, held
that the trap laid down against Central Government
employees and investigation done by the State agency
cannot be questioned on the premises that it is illegal for
want of jurisdiction. We agree with the dictum laid down in
those decisions.”
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 15 of 18
-- 15 of 18 --
28. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the
investigation carried out by P.S. Anti Corruption Branch with regard to the
accused who is an employee of central government is bad in law and the
accused is liable to be discharged. He has relied upon the notification No.
F.1(21)/93-Home(P)/Estt./1751 dated 08.11.1993 which provides as follows:
“In supersession of this Govt’s Notification No. F12(7)/86-
HP-II dated 1.8.86 and in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 2(S) of the code of Criminal Proedure Code,
1973 (No. II of 1974) read with the Govt. Of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. U-11011/2/74-
UTL(i) dated 20.3.74, Lt. Governor of National Capital
Territory of Delhi hereby declares that Anti-Corruption
Branch of N.C.T. of Delhi at Old Secretariat, Delhi Police
Station for:-
(i) Offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act
(No. 49) 1988 and
(ii) Attempts, Abetment and conspiracies in relation to
or in connection with the above said offence and any other
offence committed in the course of the same transaction
arising out of the same set of facts.
It shall have jurisdiction all over the National Territory of
Delhi.”
29. He has also relied upon the notificiation bearing No.14036/4/2014-
Delhi-I (Pt. File) dated 23.07.2014 which provides as follows:
“S.O. 1896 (E). - In pursuance of Section 21 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) read with the Government
of India Ministry of Home Affairs Notification Number
S.O. 183 (E), dated 20th March, 1974 and having regard to
the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission
over the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation
and the Anti-Corruption Branch, Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi, the Central Government hereby
declares that the notification number F.1/21/92-Home (P)
Estt.1750 dated 08th November, 1993 issued by the
Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi shall be applicable to the officers and employees of
that Government only and for that prupose amends the said
notification, namely:-
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 16 of 18
-- 16 of 18 --
In the said notification, after the existing paragraph, the
following paragraph shall be inserted, namely:-
“2. This notification shall apply to the officers and
employees of the Government of National Capital Territory
of Delhi.”
30. From the plain reading of notification dated 23.07.2014, it is clear
and apparent that the word used is ‘only’ which means P.S. ACB, Delhi can
only investigate into cases against officers and employees of GNCTD and does
not have any authority or power to investigate into the offence committed by
Central Government employees. Clearly, accused, Deepainder Kumar was an
employee of CPWD, thus, he was a Central Government employee. Also, it is
clear from the record and not denied by prosecution that connected cases were
transferred to CBI by P.S. Anti Corruption Branch but for reasons only known
to them, the present case was not transferred.
31. It is settled law that an investigation carried out by an investigating
agency not having jurisdiction to investigate into a case is
non-est in the eyes of
law. Although in the judgment of Nawal Kishore Meena (
Supra), the court held
that the court can try the case even if investigation is carried out by P.S. Anti
Corruption Branch with respect to an offence committed by central government
employee, but there seems no embargo on the P.S. ACB, Rajasthan to not
investigate into offences committed by central government officers. However,
in the present case, vide notification dated 23.07.2014, P.S. ACB, Delhi has
specific jurisdiction to only investigate into cases with respect to Delhi
government employees. Thus, P.S. ACB, Delhi cannot investigate into offences
with respect to central government employees. Since as per the notification No.
F.1(21)/93-Home(P)/Estt./1751 dated 08.11.1993 and notification No.14036/4/
2014-Delhi-I (Pt. File), dated 23.07.2014, P.S. ACB, Delhi did not have the
jurisdiction to investigate into the offence in question against the accused who
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 17 of 18
-- 17 of 18 --
was a central government employee, the whole investigation becomes
non-est in
the eyes of law. Therefore, the application filed on behalf of accused
Deepainder Kumar seeking his discharge from the present proceedings is
allowed and he stands discharged of all the offences alleged against him. He is
directed to furnish bail bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. within one week from the date
of this order.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today
on this 26th day of February, 2026.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC ACT)/(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue Courts/New Delhi.
CC No. 52/23 in FIR No.03/12 State vs. Deepainder Kumar
	Page 18 of 18
-- 18 of 18 --