Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 364
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
Tarun Garg
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
CRL. A. No. 52 of 2008
Decided On : 04-02-2014
For the Appellant:K.K. Manan, Nipun Bhardwaj, Navender N. Gautam, Ankush Narang, Satbir S. Gill, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Manoj Ohri, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving illegal gratification.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Illegal Gratification - Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - [Section 8] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for accepting illegal gratification at a Regional Passport Office in New Delhi. The prosecution's case relied on evidence from the trap team and independent witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the identification of the accused and the recovery of the illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the key witness was not corroborated by other reliable evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Issues: The key issues included the identification of the accused and the recovery of the illegal gratification, as well as the failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence in cases involving illegal gratification and highlighted the failure of the prosecution to meet the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment convicting the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence. The order on sentence was also set aside.
1. Tarun Garg has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment dated 18th December 2007 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 67 of 2004 convicting him of the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 20th December 2007 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two years and pay a fine of Rs.25,000, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Inspector Vivek Dhir (PW-1) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) received reliable information on 18th October 1999 that a large number of touts were actively functioning in and around the Regional Passport Office (‘RPO’), Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi; that they were charging illegal gratification in connivance with the staff working at the various counters in the RPO for getting the work related to passport done at an early date and without objections being raised by the officials at the RPO. On the basis of the said information, PW-1 constituted a trap team comprising of himself, other officers of the CBI and three independent witnesses working in the Railways namely Mr. Vikas Chand (PW-2), Mr. Bohari Singh (PW-3) and Mr. Ram Chander (PW-4).
3. The CBI trap team is stated to have reached the RPO at around 11:30 am on 18th October 1999 and kept a close watch on the activities there. The trap team remained there till about 2:30 pm. It is stated that the trap team noticed that certain touts were approaching prospective applicants and telling them that they would be required to pay Rs. 50 to the staff of the RPO if they wanted to avoid objections being raised by the staff in regard to their applications. Applicants Mr. R.C. Rajpal (PW-7) and his son Sanjay Rajpal and Mr. Ved Prakash were found paying illegal gratification to the Appellant and one Mr. Krishan Kumar respectively. Five persons indulging in such activity, including the Appellant, were stated to have been apprehended by the trap team. A government currency (GC) note of Rs.500 was recovered from the Appellant and Rs.450 from Mr.Krishan Kumar. Some other incriminating documents were also recovered from the Appellant and the others who were arrested. In regard to the documents and cash seized from the Appellant, a ‘recovery memo’ (Ex. PW 3/A) and a personal search memo (Ex. PW-4/A) were stated to have been prepared at the spot. According to the prosecution, it was revealed that the Appellant had obtained illegal gratification from Mr. Rajpal to be paid to the officials of the RPO for getting the ECNR stamp on the passport of his son Mr. Sanjay Rajpal. A charge sheet for the offence under Section 8 of the PC Act was filed against the Appellant and the others arrested.
4. The case of the prosecution was sought to be proved essentially through the evidence of Inspector Vivek Dhir (PW-1), the independent witnesses (PWs 2, 3 and 4), Mr. R.C. Rajpal (PW-7 ) and Sub-Inspector Mr. M.M. Ansari (PW-10 ) of the Anti Corruption Branch (‘ACB’) of the CBI to whom the investigation of the case was entrusted in November 2000.
5. One of the key issues that arose before the trial Court was the proper identification of the accused. This was not a case where there was specific advance information with the CBI about the identity of the touts who were operating outside the RPO. In other words, this was not a case where a complainant went to the ACB aggrieved by the demand for illegal gratification made by a particular person and was made to hand over the GC notes that would be used for payment of the illegal gratification which would then be treated with phenolphthalein powder. Even when the trap team left for the RPO on the forenoon of 18th October 1999, they were not clear as to who would be found outside the RPO indulging in the activity of seeking illegal gratification for being paid to the officials of the RPO. Also, the examination-in-chief of the prosecuti
