Page 1 of 35

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRL.APPEAL NO.826/2004

NEPAL SINGH RAWAL

……Appellant

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate

Versus

CBI

……Respondent

Through: Mr.A.K.Gautam, Standing

Counsel for CBI with Mr. Neeraj

Kapoor, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed

to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest?

YES

1. The

instant

appeal

is

being

filed

against

the

judgment/order dated 27.10.2004 of Special Judge wherein

the appellant was convicted to rigorous imprisonment for

two years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. In default of

payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

three months each. Convict is further sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `25,000/-

for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with

13(1)(d) of PC Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall

2011:DHC:3253

Page 2 of 35

undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. It is

further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run

concurrently and period of detention already undergone

during investigation/trial of the case, if any, shall be set off

under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The essence of the allegation against the appellant is

that, working as an Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Recovery

Wing, Delhi Development Authority, he was pursuing

proceedings against M/s. Pragati Construction Company for

recovery of ground rent for the sum of ì.77,44,000/- and had

issued arrest warrant against the owner of the said

company. It is further alleged that the Civil Judge had stayed

the recovery proceeding and directed the DDA to issue

demand

notice

as

per

the

order

of

the

Financial

Commissioner and that the appellant demanded ì.10,000/-

“for complying with the said order of learned Civil Judge”.

3. The charge sheet was filed, wherein, the appellant has

been shown in Column No. I, as accused whereas his son

namely Yash Pal Rawal and Lalu Sahu (juice vender) are

shown in Column No. 2.

4. The Trial Judge has framed Charge vide its order dated

22.07.1998, against the appellant as under :-

2011:DHC:3253

Page 3 of 35

cognizance.”

5. The appellant pleaded not guilty.

6. The

prosecution

has

examined

nine

witnesses,

whereas, the appellant produced three defense witnesses.

7. The Trial Judge has mainly relied upon the following

witnesses:-

2011:DHC:3253

Page 4 of 35

PW 1 Sh. K.S. Chabra who proved phenolphthalein

test.

PW 2 Satbir, who has proved complaint.

PW 4 B.R. Gupta, Partner in Pragati Constructions and

Employer of PW 2 Satbir.

PW 5 R.K. Agarwal, shadow witness.

PW 6 Uday Kumar, Punch Witness.

PW 8 R.S. Tokus, first IO who laid the trap.

PW 9 Mrs. Asha Badola, second IO of the case.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

pursuant to complaint made to CBI on 27.10.1995 by PW2

Sh. Satbir Singh (who claimed to be an employee of the said

company), CBI formed the trap team. It is further alleged

that in addition to CBI‟s/witness, PW-5 and PW-6 were also

summoned as independent witness by CBI on 26.10.1995,

i.e. even before the lodging of the complaint dated

27.10.1995. PW-6 recovered a bundle of currency notes

from Lalu Sahu (Juice Vendor). Subsequently, at the time of

recovery, even the said punch witness PW-6 was not aware

nor told that the said money, was paid to Lalu Sahu by PW2

Sh. Satbir Singh (Complainant) as demanded by the

appellant. Although it is alleged that PW6 had gone to the

2011:DHC:3253

Page 5 of 35

trap place, had taken appropriate position, waiting to see

the signal from the shadow witness PW5.

9. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, appearing