Despite Being Cited As Witness, He Was Dropped Subsequently: Delhi High Court Acquits Two Men In Bribery Case
The Delhi High Court acquitted two men in a bribery case on the ground that despite being cited as a witness, the person was dropped subsequently.
The Court was deciding two Appeals filed by the accused persons, challenging the Judgment of the Special Judge, CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) by which they were convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 7 read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (PC Act), registered with CBI.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Sharma observed, “Admittedly, this Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj has not been examined by the prosecution during the course of trial. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that a team was sent by TLO/PW-15 to P.S. Bhajan Pura immediately after the proceedings culminated at the shop of PW-9. … This witness does not take name of Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj. In fact, Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj was never examined by the prosecution during the course of trial and despite being cited as witness, he was dropped subsequently.”
Advocates Sanjeev Bhardwaj and D.B. Goswami represented the Appellants while SPP Ravi Sharma represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
Vide the Judgment of conviction and Order on sentence, both Appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Additionally, the Appellant-Ajay Bali (A-1), was also convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The other Appellant, Arun Sharma (A-2), was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act. A-2 was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence of criminal conspiracy for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
In 2005, a Complaint was addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI stating that a murder had taken place and four persons were allegedly involved in the same. It was alleged that the accused (A-1) demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to keep one’s name out of this case. When that person informed that he could arrange only Rs. 50,000/-, the accused demanded a seven-seater sofa with side-table at his residence. The A-2 was also accused of being involved in this bribery matter and resultantly, charges were framed against both Appellants. The Trial Court after analysing the testimonies of prosecution, defence witnesses, and other documentary evidence, found both Appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved by their conviction, they were before the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, said, “In response to the said RTI application of A-1, a letter dated 03.12.2010 (Ex. D1W1/DB) was issued by Public Information Officer-cum-Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East Distt., Delhi whereby, it was informed that no raid was conducted by CBI/ACB at PS Bhajan Pura on 30.10.2005, as per roznamcha, as there is no entry in roznamcha. Therefore, in view of the testimony of D1W1 and the documents brought on record by way of his testimony, the recovery of personal police diary (Ex. PW-20/1) is doubtful and cannot be relied upon. In any case, this document has been relied upon to show that A-1 had complainant/PW-9’s mobile number. This circumstance, in absence of other evidence, cannot prove the charges levelled against A-1.”
The Court added that the entire case had been foisted against A-1 at the instance of one Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj and it has come on record that the said Inspector was part of the search conducted at the room belonging to A-1 in the police station Bhajan Pura.
“The recovery memo of the aforesaid diary being Ex.PW-20/2 has been signed by this Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj. It has also come on record that TLO/PW-15, during his cross-examination recorded on 20.03.2012, has admitted the fact that the aforesaid Inspector Amit Vikram Bhardwaj was part of the aforesaid team sent to P.S. Bhajan Pura on 30.10.2005 but his name has not been mentioned in the handing over memo (Ex. PW-2/1)”, it further noted.
The Court said that the prosecution failed to establish any link between A-1 and A-2 and similarly, the audio cassette, in absence of being played, cannot be relied upon. It added that the prosecution has not able to prove their case and the charges levelled against A-1 and A-2 beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals and acquitted the accused persons.
Cause Title- Ajay Bali v. CBI (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9840)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Sanjeev Bhardwah, D.B. Goswami, Harinath Ram, and Arunansh B. Goswami.
Respondents: SPP Ravi Sharma, Advocates Premtosh K. Mishra, Praphull Kumar, Ishann Bhardwaj, and Madhulika Rai Sharma.
