Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Jagmal Singh on 9 March, 2026
DLCT110004692022
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI KLER
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI-18
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS : NEW DELHI
Case No. CBI/44/2022
FIR No. : RC/DAI-2022-A-0004
u/Sec. 7 PC Act
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Vs.
Jagmal Singh
S/o Sh. Dayanand Deshwal
R/o H. No. 1850,
Sector-07, Bahadur Garh,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana - 124507
Permanent Address:
Village Dulehra, Post Dulehra,
Bahadurgah, Dist. Jhajjar,
Haryana.
.....Accused
Date of Institution : 01.08.2022
Date on which Judgment Reserved : 28.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 09.03.2026
Decision : Convicted
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 1/118
Free legal aid facilities for pursuing higher remedies against this judgment
are available to the accused as per "The Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987". He may approach any of the following offices for seeking
appropriate guidance:
1. Delhi State Legal Services Authority, 3rd Floor, Rouse Avenue District
Court Complex, Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi -
110002. Help Line: 15100 & 1516; Phone No. 9870101337; E-mail: lae-
[email protected]
2. Office of the Secretary - II, Central District Legal Services Authority,
Front Office, Ground Floor, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, Delhi.
Mobile No. 9810420894; E-mail: [email protected]
3. Office of the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee,
34-38, Lawyers Chamber, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. Phone No. 011-
23383418; E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected]
JUDGMENT
Background:
1. Jagmal Singh (hereinafter ‘the accused’) is an ex-official of Delhi
Police. He was posted as Sub-Inspector & Zonal Officer (ZO), Nangloi
Traffic Circle, Delhi on 08.02.2022, the date of registration of the present
case.
2. Sandeep Yadav (hereinafter ‘the complainant’) is a Transporter. 12
trucks registered in the name of his family members were being operated by
him. He got this case registered in his capacity as caretaker of the trucks
owned by his family members.
3. The instant case was registered on basis of the complaint dated
07.02.2022, which complainant had submitted to the CBI alleging that theCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 2/118
accused was demanding bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- per month for
allowing him to operate his trucks.
The Complaint:
4. Allegations are that the 12 trucks owned by the family members
of the complainant used to be deloaded at Chanchal Park Stock, Delhi.
After deloading, these trucks used to be taken to Charkhi Dadri, Haryana,
for loading, through Mundka (Delhi) & Bahadurgarh (Haryana). Accused
was the ZO of Mundka area that fell under Nangloi Traffic Circle. He
demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- per truck from the complainant i.e. total
Rs.24,000/-, per month, to allow the trucks to pass through Mundka, and
threatened to challan & impound the trucks in case the bribe amount was
not paid.
Verification Proceedings:
5. On receipt of complaint, it was marked to SI Pradeep for
verification. Verification proceedings were conducted by SI Pradeep on
07.02.2022 itself in presence of SI Pawan Kumar, the complainant and an
independent witness, namely, Sh. Jatin Gupta, Senior Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Head Office, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘IW1’).
Preparation
6. The complainant was asked to approach the accused and seek time
for payment of the bribe amount, in order to verify the complaint. A DVR
make Sony (Black Colour) and a 16 GB new Strontium Micro SD Card
were arranged by the CBI in order to record the conversation that would
ensue between the complainant and the accused during the verification
proceedings. Blankness of the memory card and DVR was ensured inCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 3/118
presence of the complainant and IW1. The CBI team, consisting of
Verification Officer SI Pradeep and SI Pawan Kumar, reached Mundka
Industrial Area Metro Station along with the complainant and IW1.
Complainant was directed to meet the accused. Memory card was inserted
in the DVR and introductory voice of IW1 was recorded in it. The DVR
was kept in the left side pocket of the jacket of the complainant in ‘switched
on & hold’ mode.
The Meeting
7. The complainant followed the instructions and met the accused
near the red light of Mundka Industrial Area Metro Station. IW1 was also
with him. The accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- during
this meeting. Complainant requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount
but the accused did not agree. The complainant sought time of a day to pay
the bribe amount and left the spot.
Post Meeting
8. The incident was seen by IW1 and narrated to the Verification
Officer later. Complainant also narrated the incident and handed over the
DVR to the Verification Officer. The Verification Officer took out the
memory card from the DVR and made a copy of it for investigation using
write blocker. The memory card was then put in its original plastic case and
the plastic case was put in its original cover. The cover was signed by IW-1,
complainant & the Verification Officer and was marked as Q-1. This
original cover was then put in a brown colour envelop and sealed with the
brass seal of CBI. The brown envelop was also marked as Q-1. The
Verification Memo was prepared that was signed by both the CBI officials,
complainant and IW1.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 4/118
Registration of Case:
9. Since the allegations stood verified, the Verification Officer
recommended that a regular case u/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘the PC Act‘) be registered. Accordingly, the instant
FIR was registered by the CBI on 08.02.2022. The FIR was marked to
Inspector Jaswinder Singh, CBI, ACB, New Delhi [hereinafter ‘ Trap
Laying Officer’ (TLO)] for laying of trap.
Pre-Trap Proceedings:
Constitution of Team
10. The TLO constituted a team of the CBI officials consisting of
Insp. Ajay Kumar Singh, Insp. Umesh Kaushik, Insp. Satish Kumar Bana,
Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, SI Pradeep, SI Pawan Lamba and SI Jai Prakash to
lay the trap. Two independent witnesses were also made to join this team.
They are IW1 and Sh. Varun Mittal, JSA, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi
(hereinafter ‘IW2’). Complainant too joined the trap team.
Briefing of Team & Preparation for Trap
11. The entire team assembled in the office of CBI. The DVR used in
conducting the verification proceedings and the sealed memory card
marked as Q-1 were handed over by the Verification Officer to the TLO.
The brass seal of CBI was handed over to the TLO by IW1 because it had
been given to him for safe custody after completion of the verification
proceedings.
12. TLO briefed the team about purpose of the assembly and
procedure that shall be followed for laying the trap.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 5/118
13. The complainant produced a sum of Rs.24,000/- consisting of
total 48 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500/- each and handed
those over to the TLO. The numbers of these currency notes were noted
down and these were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration
was thereafter given to the team by Inspector Umesh Kaushik with the help
of IW-2 for explaining the purpose & significance of use of phenolphthalein
powder. The treated currency notes were then kept in the right side front
pocket of the jeans pant of the complainant by IW1 after taking his personal
search to ensure that nothing was left with the complainant except his
mobile phone. A trap kit for the spot of trap was also prepared. The team
members who had touched the phenolphthalein powder or the currency
notes laced with it, washed their hands properly.
14. A new memory card was inserted in the DVR after ensuring its
blankness and introductory voices of both the independent witnesses were
recorded in it. This DVR, along with the trap kit, a file cover consisting of
original complaint, verification report, copy of FIR & Stationary material
and some cash to meet the incidental expenses, were kept ready for taking
to the spot of trap.
15. IW1 was instructed to act as a decoy/shadow witness and remain
with the complainant at a safer distance in order to see the transaction of
bribe and overhear the conversation, if possible. The complainant and IW1
were asked to give a signal to the TLO either by rubbing their head with
both hands or by giving a missed call on the mobile number of the TLO or
Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, as soon as the transaction of bribe was over.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 6/118
16. A pre-trap memo was prepared with respect to the aforesaid
proceedings which was signed by the entire team. The pre-trap memo was
also kept in the file cover that was to be taken to the spot.
The Trap Proceedings:
Approaching the Accused
17. On reaching the vicinity of Mundka Industrial Area, complainant
was asked to give a call from his mobile No. 9873101900 to the mobile
number 9350902268 belonging to the accused by keeping his phone on the
speaker mode. The call was made and complainant asked the accused about
his location but the accused did not reply.
18. The accused called the complainant back after some time but the
said call could not be taken.
19. The complainant thereafter again made a call to the accused by
keeping his phone on speaker mode and the said call was recorded in the
DVR. During this call the accused asked the complainant to meet him near
Mundka Industrial Area. Hence, complainant was sent along with IW1 in
his personal car to deliver the tainted money to the accused.
20. The complainant was instructed to hand over the money to the
accused on his specific demand only and thereafter give the pre-decided
signal immediately. The DVR was put in the inner left side of the jacket
worn by the complainant.
21. The CBI team and IW2 placed themselves discreetly at different
positions around the spot. The complainant along with IW1 reached the spot
where the accused was sitting inside a grey colour Maruti Brezza Car.
Complainant entered in the said car and IW1 stood nearby, outside the car.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 7/118
Transaction of Bribe & Apprehension
22. The complainant negotiated the bribe amount with the accused
inside the Brezza Car. The accused agreed to reduce the bribe amount to
Rs.22,000/-. Complainant handed over the said amount to the accused
which he accepted with his right hand and kept it in the storage space near
gear lever of the Car. The entire conversation between the complainant and
the accused was recorded in the DVR. The complainant came out of the Car
after transaction of bribe was complete and a missed call was then given on
the mobile number 9953109195 belonging to Insp. Anil Kumar Singh, by
IW1 from his mobile number 8888801428. The entire trap team was alerted
and they ran towards the Maruti Brezza Car.
23. The accused was asked to come out of the Car by the TLO and
other team members after disclosing their identity. The accused however
did not follow the instructions and instead accelerated the Brezza Car
during which he hit Insp. Anil Kumar Singh and caused injuries to him. One
CBI vehicle chased the Brezza Car and apprehended the accused near
Metro pillar No. 674 at Rohtak Road. In the meanwhile, DVR was also
taken back from the complainant and was switched off.
Recovery of the Bribe Money
24. The remaining team of CBI was informed on apprehension of
accused and they reached near Metro pillar no. 674 at Rohtak Road. The
TLO challenged the accused regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
The accused got perplexed and did not answer any question. When the CBI
team asked about the bribe amount, the accused pointed towards the storage
space of the gear lever of the Brezza car. The bribe amount was recovered
from that place by IW2 on the directions of TLO.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 8/118
25. A sodium carbonate solution with water was prepared in a clean
glass tumbler on recovery of bribe amount and the accused was asked to dip
his right hand in that solution in order to detect presence of
phenolphthalein. On dipping of the right hand of the accused, the solution
turned pink. This solution was transferred in a clean glass bottle which was
capped, covered with a white piece of cloth and tied with a tag. This tag
was sealed with the brass seal of CBI. A white paper label was pasted on the
bottle and marked as “RHW”.
26. The storage space from where currency notes were recovered was
also wiped with a cloth and this cloth too was dipped in a clean glass
tumbler containing sodium carbonate solution. The solution again turned
pink and was transferred in another glass bottle which was sealed in the
similar manner as RHW. This second solution was marked as “SPW”.
27. The bribe money in the sum of Rs.22,000/- recovered from the
gear lever of the Brezza Car was counted. The numbers of 44 currency
notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo, all the
matching numbers were single ticked and signed by IW1 & IW2. The
recovered trap money was kept in an envelop which was sealed and marked
as “Trap Money of Rs.22,000/- recovered from the accused “.
28. The remaining sum of Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the right
side front jeans pocket of the complainant by IW2 on the directions of TLO.
The numbers of these four currency notes were also tallied with the
numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo and were found matching. These
numbers were double ticked and signed by IW1 & IW2. The sum of
Rs.2,000/- was thereafter sealed in an envelop marked as “Amount of
Rs.2,000/- recovered from the complainant”.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 9/118
29. The Brezza Car used by the accused was searched and a separate
search memo was prepared.
Post-Trap Proceedings:
House Search
30. An authorization u/Sec. 165 Cr.P.C. was given to Insp. Sanjay
Malhotra through special messenger by the TLO asking him to search the
house of the accused. Search was conducted and a list prepared.
Site Plan
31. Two rough site plans, one of the spot where transaction of bribe
took place, and another of the spot from where the accused was
apprehended, were prepared by Insp. Satish Kumar Bana. Respective
position of all members of the trap team were depicted in these site plans.
The site plans were signed by the TLO, complainant, both the independent
witnesses and the maker Insp. Satish Kumar Bana.
Seizure of Memory Card
32. The memory card was taken out from the DVR. An investigation
copy was prepared using write blocker and memory card was put back in its
original paper cover marked as Q-2. The original cover was signed by the
TLO, IW1 & IW2 and was then put in a brown envelop. This envelop was
also marked as Q-2, was signed by the TLO, IW1 & IW2 and thereafter was
sealed.
Lodging of Complaint regarding the Accident
33. The entire team thereafter went to the Police Station Mundka
where a complaint was lodged about conduct of the accused regarding
hitting of Insp. Anil Kumar with Brezza Car. A FIR bearing No. 339/2022
dated 08.02.2022 was registered against the accused on the basis of the said
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 10/118
complaint. Inspector Anil Kumar was taken for medical examination and
his right hand was got plastered due to injuries.
Arrest & Personal Search
34. The CBI team was given a room in PS Mundka for carrying out
the further proceedings. During these proceedings, the accused was arrested
and his personal search was carried out. Intimation of arrest of the accused
was given to his wife through Insp. Sanjay Malhotra who had gone to the
residence of the accused for conducting house search.
35. A mobile phone make One Plus Model KB2001 having EMEI-1-
864721053471872 and IMEI-2-864721053471864 carrying SIM card of
Vodafone & Jio, was recovered during the personal search of the accused
which was seized by the TLO. Few vehicle challans were also recovered
which were handed over to the local police.
Recording of Specimen Voice
36. Accused and complainant were asked to give their specimen voice
to which they voluntarily agreed.
37. A new memory card was opened and using the DVR its blankness
was ensured. Introductory voices of IW1 and IW2 were recorded in this
memory card first. Thereafter, specimen voice of the accused was recorded.
This followed the recording of concluding voices of IW1 and IW2. The
memory card was then taken out and kept in its original cover. It was
marked as S-1 and was sealed in a brown colour envelop, which was signed
by IW1, IW2, accused and the TLO.
38. The specimen voice of complainant was then recorded in another
new 16 GB memory card in the similar fashion and the said memory card
was sealed and marked as S-2.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 11/118
39. The DVR used in the proceedings was then sealed in a brown
colour envelop and marked as DVR.
Documentation
40. A recovery memo (detailing the trap & post trap proceedings) was
prepared and signed by the entire trap team. Specimen of brass seal were
taken in ink and lak.
Investigation:
41. After completion of trap proceedings, investigation was handed
over to Insp. Sanjay Malhotra.
42. During investigation, the copies of Q-1 and Q-2 related to
verification & trap proceedings, which were prepared using the write
blocker before sealing the said two memory cards, were played in the
official laptop of CBI and Voice Identification-cum-Transcription Memos
were prepared qua both Q-1 & Q-2 in presence of IW1, IW2 and the
complainant. The complainant had identified his own voice and voice of the
accused while the independent witnesses had identified their respective
voices.
43. The investigation copies of Q-1 and Q-2 were also played in
presence of Sh. Satinder Singh, Inspector, Todapur Traffic Unit, Delhi and
one independent witness, namely, Sh. Ramanpal Singh, Manager, Bank of
Baroda, Ashok Vihar Branch, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘ IW3’). Sh. Satinder
Singh identified the voice of accused in both Q-1 and Q-2 in presence of
IW3 and Voice Identification-cum-Transcription memo was accordingly
prepared.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 12/118
44. The mobile phone seized from the accused was sent to the FSL for
extracting of mobile data. CAF, CDR and the Cell ID Charts of the mobile
numbers belonging to the accused i.e. 9350902268 (Vodafone) and
8168984937 (Jio), were also collected by the IO. Similar details were
collected qua the mobile number 9873101900 (Airtel) belonging to the
complainant. The CDRs of the Vodafone mobile number belonging to the
accused and Airtel mobile number belonging to the complainant were
analysed and it was found out that on 08.02.2022 there were two telephonic
conversations between them.
45. The RHW and SPW, two bottles containing handwash of the
accused and spacewash of the Brezza car respectively, collected during the
trap proceedings, were also sent to the FSL which confirmed presence of
phenolphthalein in both the washes.
46. The investigating officer obtained sanction regarding prosecution
of the accused from the competent authority i.e. Additional Commissioner
of Police, Traffic (Headquarter), Delhi.
47. The chargesheet was prepared on the basis of aforesaid
investigation and IO concluded that the material collected during
investigation disclosed commission of a cognizable offence punishable
u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act by the accused.
Court Proceedings:
Pre-Trial Stage
48. IO filed the chargesheet in the Court and also sought some time
for carrying out further investigation on the ground that the Voice
Examination Report qua the accused and copy of data & report with respect
to the mobile phone seized from him, were still awaited.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 13/118
49. Court took cognizance of the offence on basis of the first
chargesheet & summoned the accused.
50. The Voice Examination Report was filed in the Court on
08.02.2023 after filing of the first chargesheet. It was opined in the Voice
Examination Report that the sample voice marked as S-1 and the questioned
voices Q-1 and Q-2 marked as Q-1(2)(J) & Q-2(4)(J) to Q-2(6)(J) were the
probable voices of speaker Jagmal Singh i.e. the accused. It was also opined
that the specimen voice S-2 and questioned voices marked as Q-1(2)(S) &
Q-2(4)(S) to Q-2(6)(S) were the probable voices of speaker Sandeep Yadav
i.e. the complainant.
51. The supplementary chargesheet was filed by the IO later in the
year 2023. It was revealed in the supplementary chargesheet that a spiral
note book that was seized from the house of the accused during search
proceedings, had been sent to the FSL for examination of handwriting.
However, the expert opined that the said diary contained handwriting of
multiple persons and it was not possible to express any opinion about the
writers on basis of the specimen handwritings of various persons that were
collected by the CBI during investigation. The report received from
Computer Forensic Science Division of CFSL also revealed that no
incriminating material was found from the mobile phone of the accused.
52. On basis of the aforesaid two reports, IO concluded in the
supplementary chargesheet that there was no material on record to suggest
that any other official of Nangloi Traffic Circle was involved with the
accused in demand and acceptance of bribe.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 14/118
53. Complete copy of the chargesheet, supplementary chargesheet and
documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207
Cr.P.C. (now Sec. 230 BNSS).
54. The accused was heard on the point of charge.
55. Vide Order dated 13.04.2023, it was held that a prima facie case
for the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act was made out against the
accused.
56. The charge was accordingly framed against the accused on
24.04.2023 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial: Evidence of Prosecution
57. The prosecution examined total 27 witnesses in support of its
case.
58. These consist of material witnesses who were part of the trap
proceedings and IO as well as formal witnesses like, the expert witnesses,
nodal officers, witnesses from the transport department of various States,
witnesses from the traffic police, the sanctioning authority and some public
witnesses.
59. Details of the witnesses of the prosecution are as below:-
S.No. Name of Examined If cross- Role Description
Witness as examined
Material Witnesses
59.1. Sandeep PW-2 Yes. He is the complainant. He
Yadav proved his complaint,
verification proceedings
related to the complaint, pre-
trap proceedings, the trap
proceedings and post-trap
proceedings. He also
identified the specimen and
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 15/118
questioned voices of himself
and the accused.
59.2. Jatin PW-4 Yes. He is IW1. He had acted as
Gupta shadow witness during the
verification and the trap
proceedings. Hence, he
proved the aforesaid
proceedings as well as pre-
trap & post-trap proceedings.
He also identified the
specimen voices of accused
and the complainant.
59.3. Varun PW-6 Yes. He is IW2. He was part of
Mittal the trap team and has proved
the pre-trap proceeding, trap
proceedings and post- trap
proceedings. He also
identified the specimen
voices of accused and the
complainant.
59.4. Insp. PW-11 Yes. He is the verification officer
Pradeep who had verified contents of
(the then the complaint filed by PW-2.
SI) He was also part of the trap
team and has proved the pre-
trap, trap and post-trap
proceedings.
59.5. Insp. PW-15 Yes. He is the TLO, who headed
Jaswinder the trap team. He also has
Singh proved the pre-trap, trap and
post-trap proceedings.
59.6. Insp. PW-24 Yes. He deposed about the
Sanjay investigation undertaken by
Malhotra him.
Expert Witnesses
59.7. V. B. PW-8 Yes. He is the Deputy Director
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 16/118
Ramteke and Scientist (Chemistry)
from CFSL Delhi. He
examined the bottles
containing right hand wash
of the accused and storage
space wash of the Brezza
car. Both these exhibits
tested positive for
phenolphthalein as per his
report.
59.8. Mahesh PW-16 Yes. He is the Scientist from
Kumar CFSL, Chandigarh, working
Jain in the field of Forensic Voice
Examination and Forensic
Physical Examination of
crime exhibits. He had
compared the voices in Q-1
& Q-2 with the voices in S-1
& S-2. He opined that both
Q-1 & Q-2 contained the
voices of speakers in S-1 and
S-2, wherein S-1 is the
specimen voice of the
accused & S-2 is the
specimen voice of the
complainant.
Nodal Officers
59.9. Pawan PW-1 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Vodafone Idea Ltd. who
Singh
produced the record
pertaining to mobile No.
9350902268 belonging to the
accused.
59.10. Rajiv PW-5 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Bharti Airtel Ltd. who
Vashist
proved the record pertaining
to mobile No. 9873101900
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 17/118
belonging to the
complainant.
59.11. Prakash PW-7 Yes. He is the Nodal Officer from
Saxena Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.
who proved the record
pertaining to mobile No.
8168984937 belonging to the
accused.
Witnesses from the Transport Department
59.12. Sanjeev PW-19 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Kumar the data related to
registration of vehicles No.
HR55W3222 &
HR55S0345.
59.13. Vikas PW-21 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Jain the Notification bearing No.
F.19
(183)/Tpt./Sectt./2017/70257
dated 03.08.2021.
59.14. Moatula PW-22 Yes. She was summoned to prove
the data related to
registration of vehicle No.
NL01L8103; NL01AB0248;
NL01AB0247;
NL01AB1284;
NL01AB1280; &
NL01AB1279.
59.15. Sukhbir PW-25 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Singh the data related to
registration of vehicles No.
HR63C5021; HR63D6201;
& HR63C2051.
59.16. Amit PW-26 Nil. He was summoned to prove
Kumar the data related to
registration of vehicle No.
HR31S1450.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 18/118
Witnesses from the Traffic Police
59.17. ASI Amit PW-3 Nil. He was summoned to prove
Kumar the service record pertaining
to the accused that included
details related to his joining
in Delhi Police, his
promotions, salary drawn by
him and his dismissal from
the service.
59.18. Insp. PW-9 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Kuldeep the record related to transfer
Kumar of the accused to Nangloi
Tiwari Traffic Circle, his duty roster
& timings on 07.02.22 &
08.02.22 and his dismissal.
59.19. Pankaj PW-10 Nil. He proved the DD entries
Kumar related to joining of the
accused in Nangloi Traffic
Circle, departure & arrival of
the staff of Nangloi Traffic
Circle on 07.02.22 &
08.02.22, laying of trap and
dismissal of the accused.
59.20. HC PW-13 Yes. He was on duty in the
Manoj Nangloi Traffic Circle on
Kumar 08.02.22 and as per duty
roster was performing his
duty at Mundka Red Light
point. Accused was his Zonal
Officer on that day. PW-13
deposed about the said facts
and also about the officials
who were performing duty
on Mundka Red Light point
along with him on 08.02.22.
59.21. HC Sumit PW-14 Yes. The Maruti Brezza car
bearing registration No.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 19/118
(also re- HR-31S-1450 from the
examined by storage space of which the
the bribe amount was recovered
prosecution) at the instance of the
accused, belonged to this
witness. He deposed that his
Brezza car was borrowed by
the accused on 08.02.22 at
around 2:00/2:30 PM for
taking rest.
59.22. Insp. Ram PW-17 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Niwas the DD entries dated
22.10.21, 07.02.22 &
08.02.22 related to the
Nangloi Traffic Circle. He
also deposed that no entry
time of heavy goods vehicle
in Mundka Metro &
surrounding areas was 07:00
AM to 11:00 AM & 05:00
PM to 11:00 PM.
59.23. Insp. PW-18 Yes. He is the official of Delhi
Satinder Police, posted in the Traffic
Singh Department. During his
tenure in Nangloi Traffic
Circle, accused was posted
there as Sub-Inspector. This
witness had identified the
voice of the accused during
investigation, from the audio
recordings in memory cards
Q-1 & Q-2, & he deposed
about this in the Court.
Sanctioning Authority
59.24. Shibesh PW-23 Yes. He had granted sanction for
Singh prosecution of the accused
while serving as Additional
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 20/118
Commissioner of Police
(Traffic), Head Quarters,
Delhi.
Other Public Witnesses
59.25. Ravi PW-12 Yes. He is elder brother of the
Yadav complainant. He deposed
that out of total 12 trucks, 5
trucks bearing No.
NL01AB1279; HR63C2051;
NL01AB1280; HR55S0345;
& HR63D6201 were
registered in his name and 02
bearing no. HR55W3222 &
NL01AB1284 were
registered in the name of his
wife but operation of these
trucks was being managed
by his brother i.e. the
complainant.
59.26. Akash PW-18 Yes. He was summoned to prove
Sinha the information related to
(Since two entry and exit of commercial
witnesses vehicles into Delhi from
were Haryana.
numbered
as PW-18
due to
inadvertent
error, he
will be
referred as
PW-18A
henceforth)
59.27. Ravi Goel PW-20 Nil. He is an official of MCD
who was summoned to prove
the information related to
entry & exit of commercial
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 21/118
vehicles that was provided
by M/s Tecsidel to the MCD
through PW18A.
60. The following documents were proved by the prosecution through
the aforesaid witnesses:
S.No. Description of Doc. Exhibit No. Proved Relevant
the Doc. No. by Deposition
60.1. FIR D-1 Ex.PW15/1 PW-15 Signature of
SP Akhilesh
Kumar Singh
at point ‘A’
identified.
60.2. Complaint D-2 Ex.PW2/A PW-2 PW-2
dated 07.02.22 & identified the
filed by the PW-11 complaint &
complainant. his signature at
point 'A'.
PW-11
identified
endorsement
of the then SP,
marking the
complaint to
him for
verification, at
point 'B'.
60.3. Verification D-3 Ex.PW2/B PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
07.02.2022 & identified by
PW-11 PW-2, 4 & 11
at points A, B
& C
respectively.
60.4. Pre-Trap D-4 Ex.PW2/C PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
08.02.2022 PW-6 identified by
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 22/118
PW-11 PW-2, 4, 6, 11
& & 15 at points
PW-15 A to E
respectively.
PW-15 also
identified
signatures of
other team
members at
points F to K.
60.5. Recovery D-5 Ex.PW2/D PW-2 Their own
Memo dated PW-4 signatures
08/09.02.2022 PW-6 identified by
PW-11 PW-2, 4, 6, 11
& & 15 at points
PW-15 A to E
respectively.
60.6. Two Site plans, D-6 Ex.PW2/E PW-2 Their own
one of the spot (Colly) PW-4 signatures
where bribe PW-6 identified by
was transacted & PW-2, 4, 6 &
and another of PW-15 15 at points A
the spot where to D
accused was respectively.
apprehended,
dated
08.02.2022.
60.7. Arrest-cum- D-7 Ex.PW4/H PW-4 Their own
Personal PW-6 signatures
Search Memo & identified by
qua the PW-15 PW-4, 6 & 15
accused. at points A-C
respectively.
PW-15 also
identified
signature of
accused at
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 23/118
point 'D'.
60.8. Handing/Taken D-8 Ex.PW15/3 PW-15 PW-15
Over Memo identified his
dated signature at
09.02.2022 point 'A'.
with respect to
the Challans This document
recovered is regarding
during personal handing over
search of the of traffic
accused. challans
recovered
from the
accused to the
Nangloi Circle
Office of
Traffic Police,
Delhi.
60.9. Car Search D-9 Ex.PW4/I PW-4 This document
Memo dated PW-6 lists down the
08.02.2022 & articles
regarding PW-15 recovered
search of grey from the Car.
colour Maruti PW-4, 6 & 15
Brezza Car identified their
from which the signatures at
bribe money point A to C
was recovered. respectively,
on this Memo.
60.10. Letter dated D-11 Ex.PW9/2 PW-9 PW-9
03.03.2022 identified
addressed to signature of
CBI by ACP Smt. Urmila
(Traffic) (HQ), Sharma,
Delhi Inspector
forwarding (Admn.),
transfer Order Traffic at point
& other related A.
documents in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 24/118
respect of the
accused.
60.11. Transfer / D-11 Ex.PW9/3 PW-9 Signature of
Posting Order (Colly) Sh. Ved
dated Prakash, ACP
12.09.2019 & (Traffic), HQ-I
08.10.2021 and identified at
computer point A on all
generated the pages by
details of PW-9;
different
postings in PW-10
Traffic Unit identified his
pertaining to signature &
the accused; stamp at point
'B' on page
Duty chart of 48, 72 & 73.
Feb-March,
2022;
Staff statement
at a glance;
DD No. 17
dated
22.10.2021
(joining of
accused in
Nangloi Traffic
Circle);
DD No. 4
dated 07.02.22
(regarding
assigning of
duty to the
accused at
Mundka point);
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 25/118
DD No. 25
dated 07.02.22
(regarding
releasing of
accused from
duty);
DD No. 3
dated 08.02.22
(departure of
accused to
Mundka point
with HC Sonu,
Ct. Amit & Ct.
Gagan);
DD No. 22
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
information of
trap of accused
received at
Tikri Border);
DD No. 23
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
recording of
information of
trap of
accused);
DD No. 24
dated 08.02.22
(regarding
receipt of FIR
No. 339/22
from PS
Mundka);
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 26/118
DD No. 21
dated 12.02.22
(regarding
receipt of
dismissal Order
of the accused).
60.12. Letter dated D-12 Ex.PW9/1 PW-9 Signature of
07.03.2022 & Smt. Urmila
sent to the CBI PW-10 Sharma,
by the Inspector
Additional (Admin.),
Commissioner Traffic, HQ,
of Police New Delhi,
(Traffic), HQ, identified at
Delhi, point 'A'.
forwarding
requisite
documents in
respect of
accused.
60.13. Service Roll of D-12 Ex.PW3/A PW-3 Signature of
the accused. Sh. Ved
Prakash, ACP
(Traffic), HQ
at point 'B' &
of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of joining
of accused in
Delhi Police
was stated to
be 01.05.1982
as per roll.
60.14. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/B PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 27/118
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of Head at point 'B' &
Constable. of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
accused to the
post of Head
Constable was
stated to be
07.03.1996.
60.15. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/C PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of ASI. at point 'B' &
of PW-3 at
point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
accused to the
post of ASI
was stated to
be 21.02.2014.
60.16. Record D-12 Ex.PW3/D PW-3 Signature of
pertaining to Sh. Ved
promotion of Prakash, ACP
accused to the (Traffic), HQ
post of SI (ad at point 'B' &
hoc) & his pay of PW-3 at
level. point 'A'
identified.
Date of
promotion of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 28/118
accused to the
post of SI (ad
hoc) was
stated to be
26.07.2019
and his pay
scale w.e.f.
01.07.2021
was stated to
be level 6 with
basic pay of
55200.
60.17. Details of D-12 Ex.PW3/E PW-3 Signature of
salary drawn (Page Sh. Ved
by the accused 15) Prakash, ACP
during the (Traffic), HQ
financial year at point A
2021-22 identified.
60.18. Dismissal D-12 Ex.PW3/F PW-3 Signature of
Order bearing (Page (Colly) Sh. Ved
no. 16-19) Prakash, ACP,
720-765/HAP- Traffic (HQ) at
T (P-I/HQ), point B on
pertaining to each page and
the accused, of Sh. Dinesh
dated Kumar, HC
11.02.2022. (Ministerial) at
point 'A' on
the last page
identified.
60.19. DD No. 03, 04, D-13 Ex.PW10/1 PW-10 His own
05, 10, 18, 23, (Colly) signature &
25, 26 & 28 all stamp
dated regarding
07.02.2022 (the verification of
date of entries
verification of identified at
the complaint) point A by
reflecting the PW-10
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 29/118
duty point
(Mundka) of
accused and
other traffic
police officials
in Nangloi
Traffic Circle.
60.20. DD No. 3, 13 D-14 Ex.PW10/2 PW-10 His signature
& 19, all dated (Colly) & stamp
08.02.2022 (the regarding
date of laying verification of
of trap) entries
reflecting the identified at
duty point point A by
(Mundka) of PW-10.
accused and
other traffic
police officials
of Nangloi
Traffic Circle.
60.21. Transcription D-15 Ex.PW2/F PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
of Audio (Page PW-4 15 identified
Recording 3 - 6) PW-6 their
marked as Q-1. & signatures at
PW-24 point A to D
respectively.
60.22. Voice D-15 Ex.PW2/G PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
Identification - (Page PW-4 15 identified
cum - 1-2) PW-6 their
Transcription & signatures at
Memo related PW24 point A to D
to to Q-1 & respectively.
Q-2 dated
24.02.2022.
60.23. Transcription D-15 Ex.PW2/H PW-2 PW-2, 4, 6 &
of Audio (Page PW-4 15 identified
Recording 7-11) PW-6 their
marked as Q-2. & signatures at
PW24. point A to D
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 30/118
respectively.
60.24. Voice D-16 Ex.PW18/1 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
Identification - & identified their
cum - PW24 signatures at
Transcription point A & B.
Memo dated
28.02.2022.
60.25. Transcription D-16 Ex.PW18/2 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
of Audio & identified their
Recording PW-24 signatures at
marked as Q-1. point A & B.
60.26. The transcript D-16 Ex.PW18/3 PW-18 PW-18 & 24
of Q-1. & identified their
PW-24 signatures at
point A & B.
60.27. Forwarding D-17 Ex.PW24/1 PW-24 Signature of
letter dated the then SP Sh.
21.02.2022 K. S. Lochab
vide which the identified at
washes exhibits point A, on the
related to this letter & the
case were certificate.
forwarded by
CBI to the
CFSL for
chemical
examination to
detect presence
of
phenolphthalei
n powder,
alongwith the
authorization
certificate.
60.28. Chemical D-18 Ex.PW8/1 PW-8 Both washes
Examination as marked as
Report dated RHW & SPW
24.02.2022 gave positive
bearing no. test for
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 31/118
CFSL - phenolphthalei
2022/C-149. n as per report
on which
PW-8
identified his
signature and
stamp at point
A & B
respectively.
60.29. Forwarding D-19 Ex.PW24/2 PW-24 Signature of
Letter dated the then SP Sh.
07.03.2022 K. S. Lochab
vide which the identified at
Memory Cards point A, on the
marked as Q-1; letter & the
Q-2; S-1; S-2 certificate.
and the DVR
were forwarded
by the CBI to
the CFSL for
voice
comparison,
alongwith the
authorization
certificate by
the then SP Sh.
K. S. Lochab.
60.30. Letter dated D-20 Ex.PW7/1 PW-7 The mobile no.
08.03.2022 (Colly) 8168984937 is
alongwith registered in
CDR, CAF and the name of
Cell ID chart accused while
with respect to mobile no.
mobile No. 9350902268
8168984937 does not
certificate belong to
u/Sec. 65B of Reliance Jio.
the Indian PW-7
Evidence Act, identified his
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 32/118
1872, received signature and
by the CBI stamp on the
from the Nodal documents at
Officer of point 'A'. The
Reliance Jio CDR suggest
Infocomm Ltd. that on
07.02.2022 the
accused had
called on
mobile no.
8708484894 at
around
09:07:24 and
spoke till
09:10:29. His
location at that
time was near
Khasra no.
33/4, Village
Tikri Kalan,
Delhi-110041.
This call is
unconnected to
the present
case.
60.31. The letter dated D-21 Ex.PW1/A PW-1 PW-1
09.03.2022 identified his
vide which signature at
CAF & CDR point 'A'.
of mobile no.
9350902268
were forwarded
to the CBI by
Vodafone Idea
Ltd.
60.32. Application D-21 Ex.PW1/B PW-1 The mobile no.
form for (Colly) 9350902268
mobile No. was registered
9350902268. in the name of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 33/118
accused.
60.33. Certificate D-21 Ex.PW1/C PW-1 It certifies
u/Sec. 65B of genuinity of
the Indian the application
Evidence Act form
in support of Ex.PW1/B
Ex.PW1/B (Colly). PW-7
(Colly) identified his
signature at
point 'A'.
60.34. CDR of mobile D-21 Ex.PW1/D PW-1 It reflects that
No. (Colly) on 08.02.2022
9350902268 at 14:56:56
for the period and 15:32:11
from two incoming
07.02.2022 to calls from
08.02.2022. mobile no.
9873101900
were received
on mobile no.
9350902268
and location of
the latter
mobile number
was Village
Mundka (near
Government
School,
Mundka) at
that time.
PW-1
identified his
signature &
stamp on this
document at
point 'A'.
60.35. Certificate D-21 Ex.PW1/E PW-1 It certifies
u/Sec. 65B of genuinity of
the Indian the CDR
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 34/118
Evidence Act. Ex.PW1/D.
PW-1
identified his
signature at
point 'A'.
60.36. Forwarding D-22 Ex.PW5/A PW-5 Signature and
Letter dated (Colly) stamp of
07.03.2022 Bharti Airtel at
received by point 'A' on
CBI from every
Bharti Airtel document
Limited identified by
alongwith PW-5.
Customer Documents
Application reflect that the
Form, 2 copies mobile no.
of Aadhar Card 9873101900
of the was registered
complainant, 2 in the name of
Certificates complainant.
u/Sec. 65-B of Two calls were
the Indian made from this
Evidence Act, number on
CDR, and Cell 08.02.2022 at
ID Chart, 14:56:57 &
pertaining to 15:32:12 to
mobile number mobile no.
9873101900 9350902268.
(showing tower Location of
address of the this phone
respective during first
location and call was at
certificate Mundka, near
u/Sec. 65-B of Amar Colony,
the Indian Delhi and
Evidence Act during second
relating to the call it was at
CDR). Mundka, near
Khasra no. 614
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 35/118
and gate no. 2
of Mundka
Metro Station,
Delhi.
60.37. Letter dated D-24 Ex.PW22/1 PW-22 Signature of
21.04.2022 RTO at point A
sent to the CBI identified by
by RTO, PW-22.
Kohima,
Nagaland vide
which details
of 06 vehicles
operated by the
complainant,
which were
registered in
Nagaland, were
forwarded.
60.38. Particulars of D-24 Ex.PW22/2 PW-22 Signature &
06 Vehicles (Colly) stamp of RTO
registered in identified by
Nagaland. PW-22 at point
A on each
page. These
documents
reflect that
vehicles no.
NL01L8103,
NL01AB0248
&
NL01AB0247
were
registered in
the name of
Nisha w/o
complainant;
vehicle no.
NL01AB1284
was registered
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 36/118
in the name of
Pooja Yadav
and vehicles
no.
NL01AB1280
&
NL01AB1279
were
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav.
60.39. Letter dated D-25 Ex.PW25/1 PW-24 Endorsement
12.04.2022 & of Incharge
sent to the CBI [also PW-25 Malkhanna at
by the DTO- Ex.PW24/9 point 'A' &
cum-Secretary, (Colly)] signature of
RTO, RTO &
Bahadurgarh dealing clerk
forwarding at point 'B' &
information 'C' identified
with respect to by PW-24 &
vehicle no. PW-25
HR63C5021; respectively.
HR63D6201;
and
HR63C2051.
60.40. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/2 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63C-5021. Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Nisha w/o
complainant.
60.41. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/3 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63D-6201 Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 37/118
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of
complainant.
60.42. Registration D-25 Ex.PW25/4 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle no. [also PW-25 'A' identified
HR-63C-2051 Ex.PW24/9 by PW-25.
(colly)] Vehicle is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of
complainant.
60.43. Letter dated D-26 Ex.PW19/1 PW-19 Signature of
27.04.2022 RTO at point A
sent to the CBI identified by
by RTO, PW-19.
Gurugram
forwarding
details of
vehicle no.
HR-55W-3222
&
HR-55S-0345
60.44. Particulars of D-26 Ex.PW19/2 PW-19 Signature of
vehicles RTO at point A
bearing No. identified by
HR-55W-3222 PW-19.
& Vehicle no.
HR-55S-0345. HR55W3222
is registered in
the name of
Pooja Yadav
(sister-in-law
of the
complainant)
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 38/118
& vehicle no.
HR55S0345 is
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav,
brother of the
complainant.
60.45. Certificate D-26 Ex.PW19/3 PW-19 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of RTO at point A
Indian by PW-19.
Evidence Act
in respect of
registration
certificate of
vehicle No.
HR55W3222
60.46. Certificate D-26 Ex.PW19/4 PW-19 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of RTO at point A
Indian identified by
Evidence Act PW-19.
in respect of
vehicle No.
HR-55S-0345.
60.47. Letter dated D-27 Ex.PW26/1 PW-24 Endorsement
27.04.2022 & of Incharge
received by the [also PW-26 Malkhana at
CBI from RTO, Ex.PW24/10 point A &
Jind. (Colly)] signature of
RTA at point B
identified by
PW-24 & 26
respectively.
60.48. Registration D-27 Ex.PW26/2 PW-24 Signature &
details of & stamp at point
vehicle No. [also PW-26 'A' identified
HR-31S-1450 Ex.PW24/10 by PW-26.
(Maruti (Colly)] Vehicle is
Brezza) registered in
the name of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 39/118
Sumit
(PW-14).
60.49. Certificate D-27 Ex.PW26/3 PW-24 Signature &
u/Sec. 65B of & stamp at point
the Indian [also PW-26 A identified by
Evidence Act Ex.PW24/10 PW-26.
with respect to (Colly)]
the registration
certificate of
vehicle no.
HR-31S-1450.
60.50. Forwarding D-28 Ex.PW24/11 PW-24 Documents
letter dated (Colly) reflect that the
11.03.2022 Disciplinary &
alongwith Appointing
certified copy Authority as
of personal well as
bio-data of the authority
accused competent to
received by remove the
PW-24 from accused from
Inspector/Adm service was
n./Traffic. DCP/HQ/Traff
ic. Accused
held the
designation of
SI (Executive).
60.51. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/3 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
07.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Service record
of accused was
seized vide
this memo.
60.52. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/4 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
03.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 40/118
Some DD
entries were
seized vide
this memo.
60.53. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/5 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
09.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Documents
received from
Vodafone Idea
Ltd. were
seized vide
this memo.
60.54. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/6 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
11.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Documents
received from
Bharti Airtel
Limited were
seized vide
this memo.
60.55. Seizure memo D-29 Ex.PW24/7 PW-24 PW-24
dated identified his
09.03.2022. signature at
point 'A'.
Copies of RCs
of 12 Trucks
operated by
complainant
were seized
vide this
memo.
60.56. Letter dated D-30 Ex.PW20/1 PW-20 Signature of
26.05.2022 Admin.
written to the Officer (Toll
CBI by MCD Tax) at point A
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 41/118
(Toll Tax identified by
Department). PW-20.
Information
about entry &
exit of some
vehicles from
Delhi & route
Mundka and
nearby areas
for the year
2021-22 was
sent to CBI
vide this letter,
after
requisitioning
the same from
SDMC's
contractor M/s
Tecsidel India
Pvt. Ltd.,
GHV (India)
Pvt. Ltd. &
Sahakar
Global Ltd.
60.57. E-mail dated D-30 Ex.PW18/1 PW-18A Signature of
09.02.2022 AR at point A
vide which on each page
information of the data
related to the identified by
entry and exit PW-18A.
of 12 vehicles Record does
bearing No. not reflect any
HR55W3222; movement of
HR55S0345; the vehicles
NL01LB8103; from Tikri
NL01AB0249; around
NL01AB0248; Jan./Feb. 2022.
NL01AB0247; The movement
NL01AB1284; has been made
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 42/118
NL01AB1280; through Tikri
NL01AB1279; after the date
HR63C5021; of registration
HR63D6201; of this case.
& HR63C5051 Movements
was provided before that are
by M/s from
Tecsidel to the Bakarghad,
MCD (Toll Tax Darola and
Department) Dhansa Border
which fall in
the South West
area near
Najafgarh,
Delhi.
60.58 Certificate D-31 Ex.PW18/2 PW18A His signature
u/Sec. 65B of and stamp at
the Indian point A
Evidence Act identified by
with respect to PW18A.
the data
provided to the
MCD (Toll Tax
Department) by
M/s Tecsidel.
60.59. Letter dated D-31 Ex.PW18/3 PW18A His
09.06.2022 handwriting on
sent by the letter at
Tecsidel to the point A and
CBI, signature at
forwarding a point B
certificate identified by
u/Sec. 65B of PW18A.
the Indian
Evidence Act,
1872.
60.60. Letter dated D-33 Ex.PW21/3 PW-21 Signature of
20.05.2022 Deputy
sent to the CBI Commissioner
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 43/118
by the (Sectt.)
Transport identified by
Department of PW-21 at point
GNCT Delhi A.
forwarding
notification.
60.61. Notification D-33 Ex.PW21/1 PW-21 Signature &
No. F.19 stamp of
(183)/Tpt./Sect certifying
t./2017/70257 officer
dated identified at
03.08.2021 point A. It
pertaining to reflects that
the Transport entry of HGV,
Department. MGV & LGV
was prohibited
on Rohtak
Road from
Tikri Border to
Peeragarhi
between 7:00
AM to 11:00
AM and 5:00
PM to 11:00
PM.
60.62. Certificate D-33 Ex.PW21/2 PW-21 His signature
u/Sec. 65-B of as PCO (Sect.)
Indian identified by
Evidence Act, PW-21 at point
1872 with 'A'.
respect to the
notification
dated
03.08.2021
60.63. Forwarding D-34 Ex.PW24/8 PW-24 The letter
letter dated reflects that
07.07.2022 Insp. Anil first
vide which went for
CBI had consultation in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 44/118
received the Orthopaedic
medical on 09.02.22.
documents He was later
pertaining to admitted on
the treatment 14.02.22 &
given to Insp. underwent
Anil Kumar at medical
the Max procedure for
Hospital, Triceps
Vaishali, Tendon Repair
Ghaziabad with Bone
after he had Chip Fixation.
been hit by the
Brezza car.
60.64. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/5 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63D6201.
the Transport
Authority, Signature and
Bahadurgarh, stamp of
Haryana. Secretary /
RTA, Jhajjar at
point A & of
dealing hand at
point B
identified by
PW-25.
60.65. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/6 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63C5021.
the Transport Signature and
Authority, stamp of
Bahadurgarh, Secretary /
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 45/118
Haryana. RTA, Jhajjar at
point A & of
dealing hand at
point B
identified by
PW-25.
60.66. Certificate D-35 Ex.PW25/7 PW-24 Certificate is
u/Sec. 65B of & with respect to
the Indian [also PW-25 registration
Evidence Act, Ex.PW24/9 details of
1872, received (Colly)] vehicle no.
by CBI from HR63C2051.
the Transport
Authority, Signature and
Bahadurgarh, stamp of
Haryana. Secretary /
RTA, Jhajjar at
point 'A' & of
dealing hand at
point 'B'
identified by
PW-25.
60.67. Order dated D-36 Ex.PW23/1 PW-23 His signature
12.05.2022 identified by
whereby PW-23 at point
sanction to A on each
prosecute the page.
accused was
granted.
60.68. Forensic Voice D-37 Ex.PW16/1 PW-16 His signature,
Examination stamp &
Report dated initials
18.01.2023. identified by
PW-16 at point
A, B & C
respectively.
Report opined
that Q-1 &
Q-2 contained
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 46/118
probable
voices of the
accused & the
complainant.
60.69. Letter dated - Ex.PW22/3 PW-22 Signature of
08.10.2024 RTO, Kohima
addressed to at point A
the Court by identified by
RTO Kohima, PW-22;
Nagaland Information
pertaining to
vehicle no.
NL01AB0249
at point 'B'
also identified,
which states
that details of
this vehicle
could not be
extracted as a
NOC for its
transfer to
RTO, Dausa,
Rajasthan was
issued on
17.03.2022.
60.70. Certificate - Ex.PW22/5 PW-22 Signature of
u/Sec. 65B of (Objected to RTO Kohima,
Indian during Nagaland at
Evidence Act recording of point A,
with respect to testimony identified by
the data but PW-22.
provided by objection
RTO, Kohima, not pressed
Nagaland. at the stage
of final
arguments).
60.71. Ownership - Ex.PW22/4 PW-22 NL01L8103
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 47/118
details of (Colly) registered in
trucks bearing the name of
No. Nisha &
NL01L8103; transferred to
NL01AB1284; Ravinder
NL01AB1280; Kumar on
& 16.08.2023;
NL01AB1279. NL01AB1284
registered in
the name of
Pooja Yadav;
and
NL01AB1280
&
NL01AB1279
registered in
the name of
Ravi Yadav.
60.72. Final report -- Ex.PW24/12 PW-24 Signature of
(chargesheet) IO and SP,
dated ACB, CBI,
26.07.2022 identified by
filed in the PW-24 at
Court by points A & B
PW-24. respectively.
61. The following material objects/articles have been relied upon by
the prosecution in support of their case:-
S.No. Exhibit No. Description of the Article Proved by
61.1 Ex.P-3 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6.
S-1 containing specimen
voice of the accused.
61.2 Ex.P-4 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 &
(also S-2 containing specimen PW-15.
Ex.PW15/2) voice of the complainant.
61.3 Ex.P-7 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-16
Q-1. (signature identified at
point D) & PW-18
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 48/118
(identified voice of
accused).
61.4 Ex.P-8 Four currency notes PW-2, PW-4 & PW-6
(Colly) marked with double tick
[also in Ex.PW2/C, recovered
Ex.PW4/D from the complainant.
(Colly)]
61.5 Ex.P-9 44 currency notes PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 &
(Colly) recovered from the PW-11.
[also accused bearing numbers
Ex.PW4/B which were single ticked
(Colly)] in Ex.PW2/C.
61.6. Ex. P-10 Glass bottle containing PW-2, PW4 (signature
right hand wash of the identified at point A),
accused and marked as PW-6 (signature
RHW. identified at point B),
PW-8 (signature
identified at point C)
& PW-11 (signature
identified at point D).
61.7. Ex.P-11 Glass bottle containing PW-2, PW-4 (signature
storage space wash of the identified at point A),
Maruti Brezza Car PW-6 (signature
marked as SPW. identified at point B),
PW-8 (signature
identified at point C)
& PW-15 (signature
identified at point D)
61.8. Ex.P-12 DVR make Sony used to PW-2, PW-4 (signature
record voices during pre- identified at point A),
trap & trap proceedings PW-6 (signature
as well as specimen identified at point B),
voices marked as Ex. PW-15 (signature
DVR. identified at point C)
& PW-16 (signature
identified at point D).
61.9. Ex.P-15 Memory card marked as PW-2, PW-4, PW-6,
Q-2 containing PW-15, PW-16
conversation between (signature identified at
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 49/118
complainant and the point D) & PW-18
accused during the trap (identified voice of the
proceedings. accused).
61.10. Mark X Brass seal of the CBI PW-4.
used in pre-trap & trap
proceedings & handed
over to PW-4 post-trap.
61.11. Ex.PW8/3 The 2 cloth wrappers PW-8 who identified
(Colly) taken out from Ex.PW8/2 his signature at point
(envelope yellow in 'A' on both the cloth
colour). wrappers.
62. The following envelopes and packing material used for
putting/storing aforesaid articles were also referred by the prosecution in
support of their case:-
S.No. Exhibit No. Description Proved by
62.1. Ex.P-1 Envelope marked as PW-2, PW-4 & PW-11, who
Q-1 in CO-07/2022 in identified their signature at
which memory card point A, B & C respectively.
Q-1 was kept.
62.2. Ex.P-2 Original cover
PW-2, PW-4, PW-11 &
marked as Q-1 in PW-16, who identified their
CO-07/2022 signature at points A to D.
62.3. Ex.P-5 envelope in which PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 &
memory card marked PW-15, who identified their
as S-2 (Ex.P-4) was signature at points A to D
kept. respectively.
62.4. Ex.P-6 Packing cover of thePW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-15
memory card marked & PW-16 who identified their
as S-2 (Ex.P-4) signature at points ‘A’ to ‘E’
respectively.
62.5. Ex.P-13 Packing material of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-15
the memory card & PW-16, wherein last four
marked as Q-2 identified their signatures
from points A to D.CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 50/118
62.6. Ex.P-14 Envelope in which PW-2, PW-4 (signature
memory card marked identified at point A), PW-6,
as Q-2 (Ex.P-15) was (signature identified at point
kept. B), PW-15 (signature
identified at point C) &
PW-16 (signature identified
at point D).
62.7. Ex.PW4/A Envelope containing PW-4 (signature identified at
44 currency notes point A), PW-6 (signature
[Ex.P-9 (Colly) / identified at point B) &
Ex.PW4/B (Colly)] PW-11 (signature identified
recovered from the at point C).
accused.
62.8. Ex.PW4/C Envelope containing PW-4 (Signature identified at
4 currency notes point A), PW-6 (signature
[Ex.P-8 identified at point B) &
(Colly)/Ex.PW4/D PW-15 (signature identified
(Colly)] recovered at point C).
from the complainant.
62.9. Ex.PW4/E Envelope containing PW-4 (signature identified at
memory card marked point A), PW-6 (signature
as S-1 (Ex.P-3) identified at point B), PW-15
(His own signature identified
at point C & signature of
accused identified at point D)
& PW-16 (signature
identified at point E).
62.10. Ex.PW4/F Packing material of PW-4 (signature identified at
(Colly) memory card marked point A), PW-6 (signature
as S-1 (Ex.P-3). identified at point B), PW-15
(His own signature identified
at point C & signature of
accused identified at point D)
& PW-16 (signature
identified at point E).
62.11. Ex.PW4/G Envelope in which PW-4 (signature identified at
DVR (Ex.P-12) was point A), PW-6 (signature
put. identified at point B), PW-15
(signature identified at point
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 51/118
C) & PW-16 (signature
identified at point D).
62.12. Mark X Brass seal used to PW-4
seal the exhibits
collected from the
spot.
62.13. Ex.PW8/2 One yellow colour PW-8 who identified his
envelope sealed with signature on envelope at
the seal of ‘PSO point ‘A’.
Chemistry CFSL
NEW DELHI,
containing 2 cloth
wrappers which were
removed from the
glass bottles during
chemical
examination.
62.14. Ex.PW16/2 One yellow colour PW-16
sealed envelope from
which the brown
colour envelope
(Ex.P-1) containing
Ex.P-2 (original
packing cover) and
Ex.P-7 (Memory
Card Q-1) were taken
out.
62.15. Ex.PW16/3 One yellow colour PW-16
sealed envelope from
which the brown
colour envelope
(Ex.P-14) along with
Ex.P-13 (packing
cover) and Ex.P-15
(Memory Card Q-2)
were taken out.
62.16. Ex.PW16/4 One yellow colour PW-16
sealed envelope from
which brown colour
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 52/118
envelope (Ex.PW4/E)
containing Ex.PW4/F
(Packing) and Ex.P-3
(Memory Card S-1)
were taken out.
62.17 Ex.PW16/5 One yellow colour PW-16
sealed envelope from
which brown colour
envelope (Ex.P-5)
containing Ex.P-6
(Packing Cover) and
Ex.P-4/Ex.PW15/2
(Memory Card S-2)
were taken out.
62.18. Ex.PW16/6 One yellow colour PW-16
sealed envelope from
which brown colour
envelope (Ex.PW4/G)
containing Ex.P-12
(DVR) was taken out.
63. The following documents were put to the aforesaid material
witnesses by the prosecution but were not admitted in evidence:-
S.No. Description of the Doc. Mark No. Referred in the
Doc. No. Deposition of
63.1 The copies of D-23 Mark X PW-2.
registration
{The 12 trucks are
certificates of 12
bearing No.
trucks.
HR-63C-5021;
NL-01L-8103;
NL-01AB-0249;
NL-01AB-0248;
NL-01AB-0247 (all in
the name of Nisha w/o
complainant);
HR-55W-3222;
NL-01AB-1284 [all in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 53/118
the name of Pooja
Yadav (sister-in-law of
the complainant)];
HR-63D-6201;
HR-55S-02345;
NL-01AB-1280;
NL-01AB-1279; &
HR-63C-2051 (all in
the name of brother of
the complainant)}.
These were being
operated by the
complainant.
63.2. FIR bearing No. D-10 Mark PW-15
339/2022 dated PW15/A
[This FIR is with
08.02.2022
respect to the injuries
registered at PS
allegedly caused to
Mundka.
Insp. Anil Kumar
(member of the trap
team) by the accused by
accelerating the Brezza
Car].
63.3. The Complaint filed D-10 Mark PW-15
by PW-15 at PS PW15/B
(On the basis of this
Mundka.
complaint, FIR Mark
PW15/A was
registered).
63.4. Statement of PW-12 -- Mark PW-12
recorded u/Sec. 161 PW12/D
(PW-12 was confronted
Cr.P.C. A
with Mark PW12/DA to
prove omission of the
fact that the
complainant had
purchased 5 trucks in
his name & 2 trucks in
the name of his wife,
which he stated during
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 54/118
his examination-in-
chief, but it was not part
of his statement
recorded u/Sec. 161
Cr.P.C.)
63.5. Order No. -- Mark DX PW-4
73/12/2005 dated
(Witness denied that
15.12.2005 issued
this circular was shown
by the Central
to him by the
Vigilance
prosecution before
Commission, Govt.
coming in the witness
of India regarding
box).
'Action against
public servants,
serving as witness,
but turning hostile
in trap and other
cases of CBI'.
63.6. Medical documents D-34 Mark PW-24
received from Max PW24/A
(These documents
Hospital, Vaishali, (Colly)
reflect about injuries on
Ghaziabad
the person of Inspector
Anil Kumar &
treatment given to him).
64. The following documents were put to the witnesses by the
accused during their cross-examination:-
S.No. Description of Doc. Exhibit No. Proved Relevancy
the Doc. No. by
64.1 The forwarding — Ex.PW8/D1 PW-8 Name of the
letter dated (OSR) official of ACB,
21.02.22 CBI who brought
received from exhibits to CFSL
the CBI by the is not mentioned
CFSL along in this document.
with (PW-8
authorization volunteered to
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 55/118
certificate vide state that the
which RHW & exhibits were
SPW were brought by
forwarded for Suresh Chand
examination. Jat, PC, CBI,
which fact was
noted in his
report Ex.
PW8/1 from the
chain of custody
sheet which was
part of his office
file that he was
carrying along).
Ld. Defence
counsel did not
propose to check
the file or make
custody sheet a
part of the
Court's record.
64.2 Worksheet -- Ex.PW8/D-2 PW-8 The worksheet
prepared by (OSR) gives detailed
PW-8 during analysis of the
examination of samples
RHW & SPW examined in
in the CFSL, alongwith
Laboratory. Spectrum Peak
Pick Report /
Spectrum Point
Pick Report of
RHW, SPW &
standard
solution.
64.3 Copy of the -- Ex. PW-16 This document
forwarding PW16/DA reflects
letter dated (Colly) endorsement of
07.03.22 (OSR) CFSL at the first
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 56/118
received by the page showing
CFSL from that the sealed
CBI alongwith parcels were
authorization received in
certificate vide physics division
which Q-1, on 08.03.22.
Q-2, S-1, S-2
and DVR were
sent for
forensic
examination.
64.4. Authorization -- Ex. PW22 Signature of
letter dated PW22/D1 RTO Kohima
06.02.2025 by identified by
RTO, Kohima, PW-22 at point
Nagaland, in A.
favour of Smt.
Moatula, AO,
to represent
RTO in the
Court.
64.5. Search list -- Ex. PW24 PW-24 had
containing PW24/DA carried out this
details of search &
properties identified his
seized by the signature at point
CBI during 'A'. None of the
search articles seized
proceedings vide this list are
carried out in relevant for this
the house of judgment.
accused.
Statement of Accused:
65. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused u/Sec.
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He was also given liberty to file written statement as per
Section 313 (5) Cr.P.C. however accused did not avail this opportunity.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 57/118
66. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him
during recording of his statement u/Sec. 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. He stated that the
trap money & handwash were planted upon him and he was falsely
implicated in this case. Accused also pleaded that the documents and
evidence used against him had been fabricated. He defended himself stating
that whenever he booked commercial vehicles for traffic violations, he was
threatened by various leaders of Transport Unions. The vehicles of
complainant having been registered outside Delhi, were not permitted to ply
on the roads of Delhi. The complainant was apprehensive that his vehicles
shall be booked for traffic violation. Hence, he implicated him falsely in the
present case. The accused also stated that the expert reports relied upon by
the prosecution were false. It is the case of the accused that the sanction for
prosecution was granted against him by an incompetent authority because it
is the Commissioner of Police who was authorized to grant sanction against
him and not the Additional Commissioner of Police. The accused stated that
he was promoted to the post of SI by the Commissioner of Police and not
by the Additional Commissioner of Police, hence, the sanction for
prosecution granted against him by the Addl. CP was invalid.
Defence Evidence
67. The accused summoned and examined five witnesses in order to
prove his defence. Details of these witnesses are as below:-
S.No. Name of Witness Examined If cross- Role Description
as examined
67.1. Rishikant Gaur DW-1 Yes He was summoned for
proving the RTI reply
dated 12.10.2023CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 58/118
bearing No.
TPT/AS/STA/2023/RT
I/93746 sent to him by
the Transport
Department : STA
Branch, Govt. of NCT
of Delhi.
67.2. WHC Sangita DW-2 Yes She was summoned to
prove the RTI reply
dated 12.10.2023
bearing No.
607/2023/6011/RTI
Cell/Traffic (Head
Quarter), New Delhi,
sent to the accused
from the office of
PIO : (Traffic) : Head
Quarter, Delhi.
67.3. SI Sunil Kumar DW-3 Yes He had produced the
original DD register
from Nangloi Traffic
Circle and Burari
Traffic Circle and
proved various DD
entries.
67.4. Er. DW-4 Yes He was examined
Chumbenthung through Video
Odyuo Conference to prove
the RTI reply dated
22.07.2024 sent to the
accused vide letter
bearing No.
RTO-K/Estt.-5/Part-I/2
017/965-67 by the
office of RTO,
Kohima, Nagaland.
67.5. Amit Saharan DW-5 Yes He was summoned to
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 59/118
prove the RTI reply
bearing No. 269/RTA
dated 10.06.2024 sent
to the accused by RTA,
Jhajjar at Bahadurgarh,
Haryana.
68. The following documents were proved by the witnesses of
defence during the recording of their testimonies:
S.No. Description Doc. Exhibit No. Prove Relevant
of the Doc. No. d by Deposition
68.1. RTI reply — Ex.DW1/A DW-1 Transport
dated Department
12.10.2023 disclosed vide this
bearing No. reply that other
TPT/AS/ST states registered
A/2023/RTI/ vehicles were not
93746 allowed to be
operated locally in
Delhi. Signature of
PIO identified at
point A & B.
68.2. RTI reply — Ex.DW2/A DW-2 Copy of promotion
dated (3 sheets) Order dated
12.10.2023 06.08.2019, vide
bearing No. which the accused
607/2023/60 was promoted to
11/RTI the rank of SI (Ex.)
Cell/Traffic w.e.f. 26.07.2019,
(Head was sent through
Quarter), this reply.
New Delhi.
68.3. DD No. 27 -- Ex.DW3/A DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
31.01.2020 to him by one
pertaining to Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-3078
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 60/118
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.4. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/B DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
01.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1LX-0715
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.5. DD No.37 -- Ex.DW3/C DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to Fauzi claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1M-8190
Circle. that had been
challaned & having
membership of
Transport
Association.
68.6. DD No.36 -- Ex.DW3/D DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
10.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-1550
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 61/118
68.7. DD No.34 -- Ex.DW3/E DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
11.02.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Pradeep claiming
Nangloi to be owner of
Traffic vehicle no.
Circle. HR-55Q-2586 that
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.8. DD No.35 -- Ex.DW3/F DW-3 Accused record
dated (Colly) that he was
20.12.2019 (2 sheets) threatened by
pertaining to (OSR) occupant of vehicle
Nangloi no. DL-1LY-3639
Traffic when he had
Circle. booked it for traffic
violation.
68.9. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/G DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
23.12.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-404A-3078
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.10. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/H DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
05.01.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. DL-1LR-5696
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 62/118
traffic violation.
68.11. DD No. 32 -- Ex.DW3/I DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
06.01.2020 to him by one
pertaining to Pradeep claiming
Nangloi to be owner of
Traffic vehicle no.
Circle. RJ-02GB-2958 that
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.12. DD No. 27 -- Ex.DW3/J DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
07.01.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-14HT-1120
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.13. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/K DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) that he was
11.01.2020 (2 sheets) threatened by one
pertaining to (OSR) Yadav when he
Nangloi challaned vehicle
Traffic no. HP-12M-4081
Circle. for traffic violation.
68.14. DD No.15 -- Ex.DW3/L DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
13.01.2020 threatened &
pertaining to manhandled by one
Nangloi Ajay & Aman
Traffic when he challaned
Circle. vehicle no.
HP-9CAQ-7097
for traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 63/118
68.15. DD No.34 -- Ex.DW3/M DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
21.11.2020 to him by one
pertaining Harish Gupta
Burari claiming to be
Traffic owner of vehicles
Circle. no. UP-84T-7238;
DL-1M-1070; &
UP-25DT-2227
that had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.16. DD No.38 -- Ex.DW3/N DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
25.02.2020 threatened by Taj
pertaining to Mohammad for
Nangloi booking vehicle
Traffic no. UP-25DT-2227
Circle. for traffic
violations.
68.17. DD No.36 -- Ex.DW3/O DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
27.02.2020 (3 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak & Nain
Nangloi Singh claiming to
Traffic be owners of
Circle. vehicle no.
DLIMA0405 that
had Om Motors
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.18. DD No.29 -- Ex.DW3/P DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.03.2020 (2 sheets) to him by one
pertaining to (OSR) Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 64/118
Traffic no. UP-17AT-3031
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.19. DD No.21 & -- Ex.DW3/Q DW-3 Accused records
24 dated (Colly) about threats given
17.03.2020 (3 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-23T-9870
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation. He also
records about
threats by one
Hawa Singh for
booking vehicle
no. DL-1LX-6804
for violations.
68.20. DD No.41 -- Ex.DW3/R DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
17.03.2020 threatened by the
pertaining to occupants of
Nangloi vehicle bearing No.
Traffic DL-4ER-5044
Circle. when it was
booked for traffic
violation.
68.21. DD No.24 -- Ex.DW3/S DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
04.09.2019 threatened by the
pertaining to driver of vehicle
Nangloi no. DL-8CA-6845
Traffic when it was
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 65/118
Circle. booked for traffic
violation.
68.22. DD No. 16 -- Ex.DW3/T DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
13.09.2019 to him by one Nain
pertaining to Singh claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no.
Circle. HR-55AB-8815
that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.23. DD No. 24 -- Ex.DW3/U DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) that he was
15.09.2019 (5 sheets) threatened by a
pertaining to (OSR) mob of 200 people
Nangloi when vehicle no.
Traffic TN-37-DW-0682
Circle. was booked for
traffic violations.
68.24. DD No. 31 -- Ex.DW3/V DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
27.11.2019 (3 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-21BN-6426
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violations.
68.25. DD No. 30 -- Ex.DW3/W DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
30.11.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
(inadverently (OSR) Mohan claiming to
noted as be owner of vehicle
11.09.2019 no. HR-73A-5841
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 66/118
in the & HR-63C-8587
testimony) that had Brijmohan
pertaining to mark and had been
Nangloi challaned by the
Traffic accused for traffic
Circle. violation.
68.26. DD No. 34 -- Ex.DW3/X DW-3 Accused records
dated (Colly) about threats given
03.12.2019 (2 sheets) to him by one Brij
pertaining to (OSR) Mohan claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. UP-22AT-1469
Circle. that had Brijmohan
mark and had been
challaned by the
accused for traffic
violation.
68.27. DD No.32 -- Ex.DW3/Y DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) that he was
19.12.2019 threatened by
pertaining to driver Mohd. Wazir
Nangloi when vehicle no.
Traffic DL-1LT-3891 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.28. DD No.31 -- Ex.DW3/Z DW-3 Accused records
dated (OSR) about threats given
05.11.2019 (2 Sheets) to him by one
pertaining to Deepak claiming to
Nangloi be owner of vehicle
Traffic no. RJ-40GA-1096
Circle. that had Om
Motors mark and
had been challaned
by the accused for
traffic violation.
68.29. DD No.34 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AA that he was
13.08.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 67/118
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic DL-8CP-0997 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.30. DD No.9 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AB that he was
17.08.2019 (OSR) threatened by
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic DL-1LY-7219 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.31. DD No.18 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AC that he was
04.06.2019 (OSR) threatened by a
pertaining to person who was
Nangloi following vehicle
Traffic no. HR55U114 in a
Circle. Brezza Car when
the said vehicle
was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.32. DD No.17 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AD that he was
10.03.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
pertaining to driver when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic HR-2OW-5577
Circle. was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.33. DD No.25 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AE that he was
27.09.2019 (OSR) threatened by the
pertaining to occupants when
Nangloi vehicle no.
Traffic HR-12AJ-3404
Circle. was challaned for
traffic violation.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 68/118
68.34. DD No.23 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AF that he was
28.09.2019 (Colly) threatened by
pertaining to (3 sheets) driver when
Nangloi (OSR) vehicle no.
Traffic HR-55Q-0527 was
Circle. challaned for
traffic violation.
68.35. DD No.28 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AG that he was
30.09.2019 (OSR) threatened on
pertaining to mobile phone again
Nangloi for booking vehicle
Traffic no. HR-55Q-0527
Circle. for traffic violation.
68.36. DD No.33 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AH that he was
07.10.2019 (Colly) threatened by the
pertaining to (3 sheets) driver of vehicle
Nangloi (OSR) no. HR-56A-7038
Traffic challaned for
Circle. traffic violation.
68.37. DD No.33 -- Ex. DW-3 Accused records
dated DW3/AI that the driver
14.10.2019 (Colly) threatened him in
pertaining to (3 sheets) the name of
Nangloi (OSR) Mundka Transport
Traffic Association when
Circle. vehicle no.
UP-32HN-1836
was challaned for
traffic violation.
68.38. RTI reply -- Ex.DW4/1 DW-4 RTO, Kohima,
dated replied that a
22.07.2024 vehicle must be
bearing No. produced before
RTO-K/Estt. Registering
-5/Part-1/201 Authority for
7/965-67. inspection, to be
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 69/118
issued with a
fitness certificate at
the time of
registration as well
as during
subsequent
renewals as per
Sec. 56 of the
Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
Signature of RTO
identified at point
A.
68.39. RTI reply -- Ex.DW5/1 DW-5 Same reply, as in
bearing No. Ex.DW4/1, given
269/RTA by RTO,
dated Bahadurgah.
10.06.2024 Signature of RTO
identifed at point
A.
Final arguments
69. On completion of trial, final arguments were advanced by the
prosecution and defence.
70. The detailed arguments of each side shall be discussed in the
latter part of this judgment, while appreciating the evidence and discussing
reasons.
71. Briefly stating, Sh. Ashutosh Tripathi, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI,
contented that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He argued that the accused was charged for the offence
punishable u/Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
the ‘PC Act‘) for which the prosecution was required to prove ‘obtainment /
acceptance’ of bribe. It was contended that by proving the demand &
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 70/118
acceptance of bribe, prosecution has been able to prove ‘obtainment’ and
thus the accused is liable to be convicted. Ld. Sr. PP relied upon the
testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 & PW-15 in support of his
contentions and stated that these eye witnesses had corroborated each other
in material particulars. He also referred to Section 20 of the PC Act and
contended that once demand and acceptance was proved, the intention will
have to be presumed by the Court and it was for the accused to rebut the
said presumption which he had failed to do. Ld. Sr. PP reiterated that the
accused was liable to be convicted for the offence charged.
72. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Defence Counsel opposed contentions of
the prosecution vehemently. Defence argued that the allegtion of demand
was bereft of material particulars as no date & time of first demand was
mentioned in the complaint. There were material contradictions in the
testimonies of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 & PW-15. The documents relied
upon by the prosecution were ante-dated and ante-time. Those documents
were not proved as per law. Site plan was hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. No
videography of the so called verification or trap proceedings were
conducted by the CBI which was in violation of Rule No. 14.16 of CBI
(Crime) Manual-2005. Mere recovery of money was not sufficient. The
handwash of the complainant was not obtained by the trap team in order to
show that he had handled the tainted money during the trap proceedings. No
such document was brought on record which could suggest that the
complainant had been authorized by his family members to operate and
manage the trucks owned by them. In support of these contentions, Ld.
Defence Counsel relied upon various judgments which are noted as below:-
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 71/118
(v) Ram Avtar v. State5;
(vi) Subodh Anand v. C.B.I.6;
(vii) S. K. Bhatia v. Central Bureau of Investigation7;
(viii) Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab8;
(xi) Raosaheb v. State of Maharashtra11;
(xiii) Abdul Rashid Ansari v. State of U.P.13
(xiv) C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala14;
73. Ld. Defence counsel also contended that the investigation in this
case was not carried out properly by the IO. The investigation was biased
and defective, benefit of which the accused was entitled to have. Ld.
Counsel contended that the arrest procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 16 was not followed that raised a
doubt on the story of prosecution.
74. Ld. Defence counsels further contended that the prosecution had
failed to prove foundational facts related to the present case, hence, the
1 2022/DHC/005401.
2 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal) 562.
3 2025 INSC 868.
4 2014 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 161.
5 1994(1) C.C. Cases 105 (HC).
6 2024: DHC : 4395.
7 2019 [4] JCC 3423.
8 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 403.
9 2014 (3) LRC 377 (Del).
10 2011 [3] JCC 1687.
11 1994 CRI. L. J. 3792.
12 185 (2011) DLT 479 (Delhi).
13 1994 Crl. L.J. NOC 37 (ALL.).
14 (2009) 3 SCC 779.
15 1980 SCC (Cri) 159.
16 1996 (4) Crimes 233 (SC).
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 72/118
presumption u/Sec. 20 of the PC Act was not available to their benefit. It
was contended that the prosecution was bound to prove foundational facts
beyond reasonable doubt and for rebuttal of presumption, the accused was
required to prove his defence only on the balance of probability. Ld.
Counsel referred to the various DD entries proved on record by DW3 and
contended that there was sufficient material to show that the complainant
had good reasons to implicate the accused falsely. It was vehemently argued
by the Ld. Defence counsel that the accused was able to prove his defence
on the balance of probability. Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the
following judgments in support of the aforesaid contentions:-
(ii) State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao
Wankhede18;
(iv) Pyare Lal v. State20;
(v) V. Kannan v. State Represented by the Inspector of
Police21;
(vi) State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C. B. Nagaraj22;
75. Ld. Defence counsel questioned the sanction for prosecution
granted by the Additional Commissioner of Police against the accused for
two reasons, firstly, that the authority which granted the sanction was
incompetent and secondly, that the authority did not apply its mind before
granting sanction. It was contended that the sanction for prosecution was
bad in the eyes of law for the aforesaid reasons and the accused was entitled
17 JT 2001 (5) SC 532.
18 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 217.
19 2025 (4) RCR (Criminal) 822.
20 I (2008) DMC 806.
21 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal) 212.
22 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 249.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 73/118
to be acquitted. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the following judgments
in support of the aforesaid contentions:-
(ii) State of T.N. v. M.M. Rajendran24
(iii) Joginder Singh Malik v. CBI25
(iv) Ram Krishan Prajapati v. State of U.P.26
(v) Davinder Singh v. State27
76. The reports of experts i.e. PW-8 and PW-16 were challenged by
the Ld. Defence Counsel on the grounds that – there was no proof that the
custody of the exhibits was proper because chain of custody was not proved
by the prosecution; the reports of experts were unreasoned; the experts were
not competent to furnish the reports because they were lacking requisite
qualification; and that the voice report was based on mere probability. It
was contended that the expert reports given by PW-8 and PW-16 were not
reliable and the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt on that account
as well. Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the following judgments in
support of aforesaid contentions:-
(iv) Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh31;
(v) Ajay Gupta v. State Thr. CBI 32
23 JT 1997 (7) S.C. 695.
24 1998 SCC (Cri) 1000.
25 2022/DHC/005401
26 2000 SCC (Cri) 687.
27 MANU/PE/0265/1974.
28 2020 (2) RCR (Criminal) 795.
29 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 813.
30 1980 SCC (Cri) 683.
31 AIR 1986 SC 3.
32 295 (2022) DLT 182.
33 2025 (3) RCR (Criminal) 706.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 74/118
(vii) P. C. Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation34;
(viii) Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar v. State of Maharashtra35;
(ix) Sudhir Chaudhary Etc. v. State (NCT of Delhi)36;
(x) Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur37;
77. The call detail records relied upon by the prosecution were also
challenged by the Ld. Defence counsel stating that the same were not
proved as per law because the certificates u/Sec. 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act provided alongwith the call detail records were defective. Ld.
Defence Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Ashwani v. State38 in support of the said contention.
78. The written arguments on similar lines, as above, were also filed
on behalf of the accused which have been perused.
79. Rebuttal arguments were advanced by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI
stating that the contentions raised by Ld. Defence counsel were baseless
and without merits. It was reiterated that all the witnesses to the verification
and trap proceedings were reliable and they had corroborated each other on
material particulars. Ld. Sr. PP contended that the sanction for prosecution
was proper. The investigation was conducted thoroughly and reports of the
expert witnesses were reliable. Prosecution vehemently argued that the
foundational facts i.e. demand and acceptance of the bribe amount had been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prosecution was entitled to avail
benefit of Section 20 PC Act which provides for presumption on the point
of mens rea. Prosecution urged that the authority which had granted
sanction for prosecution was competent. Provisions of the Delhi Police Act,
34 277 (2021) DLT 282.
35 (2011) 4 SCC 143.
36 AIR 2016 SC 3772.
37 AIR 1982 SC 1043.
38 Crl. A. No. 323/2018 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 08.10.2018.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 75/118
1978 as well as the rules framed thereunder were referred to in order to
show competency. The objection on validity of sanction was opposed on the
ground that it should have been raised by the accused at the initial stage
itself and he should not be allowed to raise it at the stage of final
determination. Ld. Sr. PP relied upon the following judgments in support of
his contentions:-
(iii) Sohrab and Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh41;
(viii) Appabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat46;
(ix) Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh47;
(x) State of Andhra Pradesh v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and
Anr.48;
(xi) Raj Kumar v. State of Delhi 49;
(xiii) Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra 51;
(xiv) K. C. Ramesh v. State of Karnataka 52;
(xv) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and
Anr.53;
39 AIR 1998 SC 1474.
40 AIR 1985 SC 1092.
41 AIR 1972 SC 2020.
42 MANU/SC/0480/2012.
43 MANU/SC/0104/2015
44 AIR 2005 SC 2790.
45 AIR 1983 SC 753.
46 AIR 1988 SC 696.
47 AIR 2014 SC 1256.
48 AIR 2004 SC 2042.
49 MANU/DE/0941/2015
50 2012 CriLJ 1451.
51 AIR 2001 SC 147.
52 MANU/KA/2916/2014.
53 AIR 2012 SC 1185.
54 2015 CriLJ 3403.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 76/118
80. In response to the contention regarding the stage at which
sanction for prosecution could have been challenged, Ld. Defence Counsel
argued that the accused was within his rights to challenge the sanction for
prosecution at any stage. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda55 was relied upon in support
of the said contention.
Analysis and Reasons for Decision:
81. I have considered the rival contentions. Record has been perused.
Legal Provisions
82. The accused in this case has been charged for the offence
punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act. The said section reads as below:-
“7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed —
Any public servant who, —
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to
obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with
the intention to perform or cause performance of
public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear
or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by
himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an
undue advantage from any person as a reward for
the improper or dishonest performance of a public
duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either
by himself or another public servant; or
(c) perform or induces another public servant to
perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or
to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation
of or in consequence of accepting an undue
advantage from any person,55 2023 INSC 669.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 77/118
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine.”
83. It is clear on the reading of Section 7 of the PC Act that in order
to bring home the guilt for the said offence, the prosecution is required to
prove ‘obtainment’ or ‘acceptance’ of ‘undue advantage’ by a ‘public
servant’. Such obtainment / acceptance should be ‘with intention’ to
‘perform’ or ’cause performance’ of ‘public duty’ ‘improperly’ or
‘dishonestly’ or to ‘forbear’ or ’cause forbearance’ to perform such duty.
84. Section 20 of the PC Act provides for presumption and reads as
below:-
“20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue
advantage —
Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under
section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant
accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to
obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue
advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or attempted
to obtain that undue advantage, as a motive or reward under
section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public
duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another
public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage
without consideration or for a consideration which he knows
to be inadequate under section 11.”
85. The reading of Section 20 above makes it clear that once
‘obtainment’ is proved by the prosecution, it shall be presumed that the said
obtainment of undue advantage was as a motive or reward for performance
or forbearance to perform public duty.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 78/118
86. The term ‘obtainment’ has been explained by the Hon’ble higher
courts in several cases including in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi)56. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case that
‘obtainment’ constituted ‘demand’ and ‘acceptance’ of bribe. It is thus
required to be seen if the prosecution has been able to prove ‘demand’ and
‘acceptance’ of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
Demand of Bribe
Proved Facts: Unflinching Testimony & Corroboration
87. It is the case of prosecution that the accused had demanded a sum
of Rs.24,000/- from the complainant in order to allow the 12 trucks
operated by him to pass through Mundka during no entry timings.
88. The complainant himself had appeared in the witness box to prove
the said demand. He was examined by the prosecution as PW-2. He proved
the complaint Ex.PW2/A in his examination-in-chief, wherein he had
specifically alleged about the aforesaid demand. The CBI had verified this
complaint and the verification proceedings were proved by PW-2 as well as
by PW-4/IW-1. The complainant specifically deposed that during
verification proceedings he had requested the accused to reduce the bribe
amount which was not acceded. Complainant has also deposed that he had
requested the accused to allow him to send the bribe amount through his
driver the next day, but this request too was rejected by the accused, who
directed the complainant to come and deliver the bribe amount personally.
This version of PW-2 is corroborated from the version of PW-4/IW-1, who
is the decoy witness/shadow witness. He had accompanied PW-2 to the spot
on the day of verification. IW-1/PW-4 deposed that he had heard the
56 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 79/118
conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused.
PW-11, the verification officer, deposed that both PW-2 & PW-4 had
narrated about the aforesaid to him soon after the demand had been made
and they both had corroborated each other. These facts are also recorded in
the verification memo Ex.PW2/B which is a contemporaneous document.
89. The demand made by the accused to the complainant during
conversation at the time of verification proceedings was recorded in the
DVR through memory card marked as Q-1. This memory card was played
in the Court at the stage of final arguments. The transcript of this
conversation is available on Court record and relevant portion of the same,
indicating demand, reads as below:-
“संदीप यादव: – राम राम साहब
जगमाल सिंह (Accused): राम राम भई सुनाओ
संदीप यादव: बस ठीक है जी
जगमाल सिंह: बताओ भई
संदीप यादव: के करोगे
जगमाल सिंह: 24 है वो 24 ही देने पड़ें गे ईब ते थम अकड गए थम……
(अस्पष्ट) मैं के करू
संदीप यादव: मैं न अकड्या मैं आपके अकड़ के किद जायेंगे साहब बालक आपके
जगमाल सिंह: अब 12 गाडी है No Entry में चला रहे हो 12 हाईवा ट्रोले है 24
मैंने कह दिए TI मेरे ते मुंह बना रहा है उडे न्यू बोला मेरे बिना न ले बता मैं के
करु।
संदीप यादव: बाबूजी जब बालक है आपके हम
जगमाल सिंह: तब …… इतने ते करने पड़ें गे
संदीप यादव: और दो पॉइं ट भी तो
जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट
संदीप यादव: हां जी
जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट…. मानता नहीं है.
संदीप यादव: आप तो करोगे हांजी अंकल जी आप तो करोगे
जगमाल सिंह: इनते करले बेटे, जो भी तेरा ठीक बैठता है 24 का मतलब 24 है
मैंने कल बता दी , उनते कि ये बात है।
संदीप यादव: तो कीमें तो गुंजाइश कर दो
जगमाल सिंह: हैCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 80/118
संदीप यादव: गुंटी में तो गुंजाइश गाड़ी खड़ी है सुबहे वह ते आपते बात बताओ
जगमाल सिंह: चला क्यों नहीं लेते मैंने तो कही थी चला लो फ्री में
संदीप यादव: नू नू नू कीते चलाइया जो काम करने था उससे डर लगता
जगमाल सिंह: भई ये बात तो मैंने तेरे तो पहले कही थी कि चला लो मैं नहीं देखता
…..अस्पष्ट कही थी मैने
……..
संदीप यादव: सुबह सुबह गाड़ी के हाथ भेजु कै से करू
जगमाल सिंह: न आगे तमे आना पड़े गा भाई गाडी गुडी के बात नहीं बनेगी
संदीप यादव: क्योंकि गाडी खाली हो के जाए मैं पैसे दे दूं
जगमाल सिंह: उन ढोरे नहीं पार परे यार तुमने खुद आना पड़े गा है भई
संदीप यादव: बीस बीस……. करवा दूँ
जगमाल सिंह: न न बीस तो थोडे रह जाएंगे मेरे धोरे ते चार जाएंगे तमने मेरे बूढे की
तनख्वाह बढ़िया न लग रही
संदीप यादव: न न न
जगमाल सिंह: सही में चार जाएंगे मेरे ढोरे ते ले के जाएगा इतना कं जर है वो तमने
बेरा है मैंने भी बेरा है नाम का
संदीप यादव: तो सुबह गाड़ी आवगी गाड़िया ने मत रोक दिनो सुबह
जगमाल सिंह: नहीं तन्ने गाडी न रोकते हम
संदीप यादव: सुबह आवगी गाड़ी में मैं आऊं गा 10-11 बजे से
जगमाल सिंह: तेरा जी करे जब आ जाइए गाड़ी न रोका”
90. The aforesaid conversation between complainant and the accused
on 07.02.2022 clearly reflects that the accused was demanding a sum of
Rs.24,000/- from the complainant in order to allow his 12 vehicles to ply
during the no entry timings. The aforesaid conversation also reflects that the
accused had insisted that the bribe amount be delivered to him personally
by the complainant.
91. The demand of bribe amount is also reflected in the conversation
pertaining to the trap proceedings which was recorded in Q-2. The said
memory card was played in the Court and transcript of that conversation is
part of Ex.PW2/H. The relevant portion reflecting demand from the
complainant reads as below:-
“सदीप यादव: राम राम साहब
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 81/118
जगमाल सिंह (Accused): राम राम और सुनाओ
संदीप यादव: वो करवा देते क्या बताओ
जगमाल सिंह: बैठ के हो गया…. (अस्पष्ट) न्यू बता
जगमाल सिंह: के गाड़ी है
संदीप यादव: 12 गाड़ी है जी
जगमाल सिंह: 24 बताई थी क्लियर
संदीप यादव: आप बताओ
जगमाल सिंह: तू 24 कह रहा था
संदीप यादव: जी Discount कर दो कर दो
जगमाल सिंह: नहीं भाई TI धोरे करवा दे सारी छटवा दे
संदीप यादव: TI धोरे मेरी पकड़ होती तो मैं TI धोरे न चला जाता आपके धोरे क्यों
आता
जगमाल सिंह: TI ते…… अस्पष्ट
संदीप यादव: न न न आपपे कर कु रा दो
………………………………………………..
संदीप यादव: चलो बताओ साहब इब
जगमाल सिंह: हूं बताना बुताना कु छ ना है…. एक तो फोन जेब में डाल ले
संदीप यादव: न न गाड़ी नम्बर कै से क्यू फिर
जगमाल सिंह: गाड़ी नम्बर
संदीप यादव: मैं लिख के दे दूं
जगमाल सिंह: …….
संदीप यादव: चार पांच छह सात आठ ठीक है जी बीस है ये
जगमाल सिंह: न भाई पूरे दे यू…इतना मत दबावे वो ले जाएगा मेरे धोरे सारे
संदीप यादव: चलो हजार और 21 ले लो
जगमाल सिंह: 22 करदे फिर तेरे न है जी करता तो एक गाड़ी तू आपणी राख
ले
संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी
जगमाल सिंह: नम्बर दे गाड़ी के
संदीप यादव: गाड़िया नम्बर का
संदीप यादव: लिख के दे दू आपते
जगमाल सिंह: लिखके देवे लिखवा देवे परे ते
संदीप यादव: गाड़ी किद खड़ी कर रहे हो तुम
जगमाल सिंह: जा लिख लेCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 82/118
संदीप यादव: यहाँ Whatsapp कर दू आप धोरे बताओ जैसे कहूं वैसे लिख के या
वैसे करू पर्ची बना के करु या वैसे करू
जगमाल सिंह: लिख लिख
संदीप यादव: वो तो फिर मैं लिख के दे दूँ आपते पर्ची बनाके
संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी ठीक है आजा”
92. Complainant had deposed regarding the demand made during the
trap proceedings in his testimony also. His testimony reflects that the
complainant had requested the accused to reduce the demanded amount of
Rs.24,000/- to Rs.22,000/- which the accused agrered to. The complainant
thereafter handed over a sum of Rs.22,000/- to the accused. This amount
had already been treated with phenolphthalein powder in order to lay the
trap and catch the accused red handed.
93. The conversations recorded in the DVR corroborate the testimony
of complainant (PW-2) in material particulars. The version of complainant
is supported by the testimony of PW-4/IW-1 too. The call detail records are
also consistent with the testimony of the complainant. These call detail
records are Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/D (Colly). The complainant
deposed that on 08.02.2022 (the day of trap), when he went to deliver the
bribe amount to the accused alongwith the trap team, in order to catch the
accused red handed, he had made two calls to the accused. The accused did
not disclose about his location during the first call while during the second
call he asked the complainant to meet him at the Mundka Red Light Metro
Station. Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/D (Colly) clearly show that two
calls were actually made by the complainant to the accused on 08.02.2022
at 14:56:56 and 15:32:11. The mobile number of the complainant which
was used to make these calls is 9873101900 and mobile number of the
accused on which the calls were made is 9350902268. Location of these
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 83/118
two mobile numbers were also found to be near Mundka at the time of calls.
The customer application forms with respect to the aforesaid mobile
numbers which are Ex.PW5/A (Colly) and Ex.PW1/B (Colly) sufficiently
prove that the aforesaid mobile numbers were registered in the name of the
complainant and the accused respectively. These two documents thus lend
credence to the testimony of the complainant.
94. The testimony of complainant is also corroborated by PW-14 who
is owner of the Brezza Car from which the accused was apprehended & the
bribe amount recovered. The Complainant (PW-2) had deposed that the
demand and transaction of bribe amount on the day of trap i.e. 08.02.2022
had taken place inside the Maruti Brezza Car of Grey Colour. This Car
belonged to PW-14. Ownership of the Car was proved by PW-26 who relied
upon Ex.PW26/2 in support of his testimony. Ex.PW26/2 consist of the
registration details of Brezza car make Maruti bearing No. HR-31S-1450
suggesting that the car was owned by PW-14. He deposed that on
08.02.2022 after 2:00PM/2:30PM he had handed over his Maruti Brezza
Car to the accused on his request. Hence, it is clear that on 08.02.2022 after
2:30 PM the accused was having custody of the Maruti Brezza Car
belonging to PW-14. Hence, probability that the accused was sitting in that
car at the time of demand and transaction of the bribe amount increases and
this lends additional credence to the testimony of complainant/PW-2.
95. The testimony of complainant is further supported by the report of
PW-16 & testimony of PW-18. PW-16 is the Voice Examination Expert who
had examined the conversations recorded in Q-1 and Q-2. PW-18 is the
Senior Officer of the accused who had worked with him in Nangloi Traffic
Circle and thus was in a position to identify his voice.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 84/118
96. PW-16 proved the Voice Examination Report Ex.PW16/A which
states that Q-1 and Q-2 contained the probable voice of accused. PW-18
identified the voice of accused in the Court when Q-1 and Q-2 were played
in his presence. The complainant had identified the voice of his own & the
accused in his testimony since he is the maker of Q-1 & Q-2. It is because
the DVR through which Q-1 & Q-2 were recorded was being carried by
him during the verification proceedings and the trap proceedings. The
testimony of expert witness and senior officer of the accused regarding
identification of his voice thus lends further credibility to the testimony of
the complainant.
Minor Contradictions: Effect
97. Ld. Prosecutor contended that the unflinching testimony of PW-2
corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses and the other
supporting material, like, the call detail records, expert’s report etc.
strengthen the case of prosecution and are sufficient to prove demand of
bribe amount by the accused.
98. Ld. Defence Counsel however vehemently opposed this
contention of Ld. Prosecutor & contended that the testimony of the
complainant was full of contradictions. Further, the testimony was not
corroborated by independent witnesses and they had rather contradicted
each other on material particulars while deposing in the Court. Various
contradictions were pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel from the
testimony of the complainant & the independent witnesses. These included
as follows: (i) the complainant failed to disclose the date & time of first
demand & did not show any authority letter to support his case that he was
authorized to operate the trucks; (ii) the prosecution did not prove that the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 85/118
DVR and memory cards allegedly used in voice recordings were issued by
the concerned department of CBI; (iii) the CBI did not take official vehicle
while going for verification proceedings; (iv) Q-1 and Q-2 as well as the
DVR were not deposited in the Malkhana timely; (v) the complainant could
not tell registration number of the vehicle in which the team had travelled to
the spot; (vi) the verification officer was not empowered to take any other
officer to the spot because it is not so reflected in the endorsement of the SP
on the complaint Ex.PW2/A at point B; (vii) there are contradictions in the
testimony of team members on the point of time at which they had reached
Mundka; (viii) there are contradictions regarding recording of introductory
voice of the complainant in the memory cards; (ix) presence of PW-4 on the
spot is doubtful because there are contradictions in his testimony regarding
the calls made by him to the CBI officials; (x) there are contradictions
regarding the sealing of DVR; (xi) there are contradictions in the testimony
of complainant on the point of signing of the verification memo twice on
the last page which shows that the document is ante dated; (xii) there are
again contradictions on the point of time spent in preparing the pre-trap
memo; (xiii) there are contradictions on instructions given regarding
negotiating the reduced amount; (xiv) there are contradictions as to who
applied phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes; (xv) the pre-trap
memo was signed by the complainant as per his own testimony with
malkhana stamp over it, which was possible only if the document was ante-
time; (xvi) the complainant deposed that he was supposed to meet the
accused at 11:00 AM for delivering the bribe amount but he went in the
after noon thereby suggesting that the complainant was deposing falsely
regarding delivery of the bribe amount; (xvii) the call detail records were
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 86/118
not proved as per law because the certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act was not drafted properly and was filed only by putting
particulars in the already existing proforma; (xviii) the report of the voice
expert was not reliable because he admittedly did not possess requisite
qualification regarding voice examination; (xix) the voice sample was not
taken as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir Chaudhary
(supra); (xx) the spectrograph report was not attached; (xxi) the chain of
custody of exhibits was not proved; (xxii) there were contradictions
regarding seizure of the Brezza car because PW-2 & PW-4 deposed that the
car was seized, PW-14 deposed that he had seen the car in the office of CBI
but PW-15 denied these claims completely, stating that the car was never
seized in this case; (xxiii) the washes were not taken in the presence of
PW-2 and other witnesses because their signature on the samples were not
there; (xxiv) signatures on the samples were proved in a leading form by
showing the same to PW-4, 6 and 11 first and thereafter putting the
question; (xxv) the transcripts of Q-1 and Q-2 as well as voice identification
proceedings were not proved as per law.
99. It is the settled law that testimony of witnesses is required to be
appreciated as a whole and not in parts. It is also the settled law that the
Courts are not to adopt a hair splitting tendency while appreciating the oral
testimony of the witnesses. The testimonies cannot be broken down in
meals & pieces. Not every contradiction is worth considering. The Courts
are required to assess the testimonies keeping broader probabilities in mind
and ignore minor improvements and contradictions which do not go to the
root of the matter. Only such contradictions, which pertain to material
particulars, are to be given due attention. If the contradictions do not pertain
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 87/118
to material particulars, the same should be ignored. It is the known fact that
witnesses depose on the basis of their perception of the events that unfolded
in front of them. Our memories are not infallible and people are bound to
forget minute details with lapse of time. These are the prime reasons why
contradictions occur in the testimony of eye-witnesses on events related to
the same facts. So long the witnesses have corroborated each other in
material particulars, they are to be considered as credible and their
testimonies cannot be thrown out merely because of the minor
contradictions, like, on the point of exact time taken in conducting the
proceedings, time taken to reach at the spot, the number of vehicles in
which the team had travelled, signing of various documents etc.
100. The contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel in the
testimony of material witnesses are minor and do not go to the root of the
matter. The witnesses who were part of verification/trap team have
categorically deposed that the verification proceedings were conducted on
07.02.2022 and trap was carried out on 08.02.2022. They have also broadly
corroborated each other on the procedure that was followed for carrying out
the verification proceedings, pre-trap proceedings and post-trap
proceedings. Their testimonies are in sync and corroborated by the
contemporaneous documents, like the verification memo and the recovery
memo. In such circumstances, the witnesses cannot be held incredible
merely for the reasons that there are minor inconsistencies in their
testimonies.
101. Regarding seizure of Brezza car, PW-15 deposed that the car was
not seized in this case. PW-2 & PW-4, on the contrary, said that the car was
seized. It is not reflected from the testimony of PW-2 & PW-4, if they
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 88/118
understood the legal meaning of seizure. Seizure for them may have meant
taking possession of the vehicle which indeed was taken because allegedly
the accused had hit Insp. Anil Kumar, one of the members of the trap team,
by accelerating the Brezza car and escaping from the spot. A FIR (Mark
PW15/A) was registered at PS Mundka in this regard on the basis of
complaint (Mark PW15/B) and the Brezza car was given to the police
officials of PS Mundka. In such a scenario, this contradiction in the
testimonies of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-15 is immaterial & insufficient to shake
foundation of the present case.
102. PW-14 deposed that he had seen his Brezza car in the compound
of CBI. He was re-examined by Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI on this aspect during
which he deposed that no registration number had been issued for his car till
08.02.2022 and therefore it was not possible for him to identify his car with
certainty. He deposed that he saw a grey colour Maruti Brezza car standing
in the compound of CBI and thought that it was his car. Hence, sufficient
explanation was given by PW-14 regarding the contradiction which thus
lost significance. Even otherwise, ownership of PW-14 over Brezza car was
proved by exhibiting the registration certificate. His testimony, alongwith
the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15, proves that the
Brezza car was in the custody of accused on the day of trap i.e. 08.02.2022.
103. There is hardly any contradiction on the aspect of timing at which
the complainant had gone to deliver the bribe amount to the accused. It is
not the case of complainant that he had promised to go at a particular time
and had actually gone to deliver the bribe amount at that time only. The
complainant accepted that though he had promised to go at 11:00 AM but
he went after 03:00 PM. It is understandable because before sending the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 89/118
complainant to the spot, preparations for laying the trap were made. The
transcripts Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H coroborate the complainant because
these reflect that the complainant though had promised to go at 11:00 AM
but he went to deliver the bribe amount after 3:00 PM. The time at which
complainant went to the spot to deliver the bribe amount is also reflected in
the Call Detail Records [Ex.PW5/A (Colly)]. The fact that the complainant
had promised to go at 11:00 AM but went after 3:00 PM is hardly of any
consequence. The testimony of PW-2 and other witnesses is consistent on
this aspect and does not favour the defence in any manner.
104. The plea taken by the defence that the call detail records were not
proved as per law because admittedly the certificates u/Sec. 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act furnished by PW-1 & PW-5 were filled in already
drafted proforma, is also inconsequential. Both PW-1 & PW-5 were cross-
examined on this aspect. They deposed that the proformas were available in
their office computer because these had been drafted by their legal team. I
do not find anything wrong in using proforma in order to draft the
certificate as per language required by the law as long as the person drafting
it understands the meaning and implications. No such fact was brought out
during the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-5 that would suggest non-
understanding of the meaning and context of the language by these
witnesses.
105. Ld. Defence Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Ashwani (Supra) to contend that filling up a certificate
u/Sec. 65B of the Evidence Act in a proforma would render the electronic
evidence inadmissible. I have gone through the said judgment of Hon’ble
High Court. In the said case the Hon’ble High Court refused to accept the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 90/118
certificate u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act because the person
proving the certificate had deposed that he had no technical knowledge of
the master server, its operation or maintenance etc. It was in this
background that the Hon’ble High Court had held that the certificate u/Sec.
65B of the Indian Evidence Act furnished by the witness was not
admissible. In the present case, no question was put to PW-1 or PW-5 which
would suggest lack of knowledge of the master server on their part. PW-1 in
fact categorically deposed that he had been provided an exclusive key to
obtain data from the master server, thereby reflecting that he was dealing
with the server in some capacity. In such a scenario, the certificates
furnished u/Sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by PW-1 & PW-5 cannot
be discarded. These certificates are proper and hence the CDRs relied upon
by the prosecution are admissible in evidence.
106. Coming to the report regarding voice examination, it is a matter of
record that PW-16 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not hold
any formal qualification in voice examination. However, he deposed that he
had a vast experience in this field thereby indicating that he was a skilled
person who acquired skills by experience and not by having a formal
qualification. PW-16 is Government Examiner and his qualification to
conduct voice examination cannot be challenged so lightly. He is working
in a Government laboratory and doing voice examination regularly which
itself is sufficient to assume that he must be having requisite expertise. I
understand that during his cross-examination PW-16 also admitted that his
report was not supported by spectrographic examination sheets. It is the
settled law that testimony of an expert is of an advisory nature. The Court
can decide whether to accept the report furnished by an expert or not, only
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 91/118
on the basis of reasons given by the expert in support of the conclusion
drawn by him. In this case, the spectrographic examination sheets on the
basis of which conclusion of similarity in the questioned and sample voice
was drawn, are not available. Hence, there is hardly any material before this
Court to hold if the report Ex.PW16/A furnished by PW-16 is reliable or
not. This certainly puts the Court at caution and prompts it to look for
corroboration.
107. Corroboration to the report of PW-16 is found in the testimony of
PW-18. The said witness is a Senior Officer from Traffic Police who had
worked with the accused. This fact is not disputed by the accused at all.
PW-18 appeared in the Court and identified the voice of the accused in Q-1
as well as Q-2. He also identified the transcripts of Q-1 and Q-2. He
categorically deposed that these trnascripts were made in his presence.
These transcripts are Ex.PW18/2 and Ex.PW18/3. These are identical to
Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H. The accused did not challenge PW-18 on the
aspect of his capacity to identify the voice of accused and only a few
suggestions in this regard were given. The testimony of PW-18 is
corroboratory to the testimony of PW-16 and both these testimonies
together, along with the testimony of PW-2 who is the maker of Q-1 and
Q-2, are sufficient to prove that the questioned voices in Q-1 and Q-2 are
that of the accused. The prosecution has proved Q-1 and Q-2 as per law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh (Supra) holding as
below:-
“32. Thus, so far as this Court is concerned the conditions
for admissibility of a tape-recorded statement may be
stated as follows:
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 92/118
1) The voice of the speaker must be duly identified by the
maker of the record or by others who recognise his voice.
In other words, it manifestly follows as a logical corollary
that the first condition for the admissibility of such a
statement is to identify the voice of the speaker. Where the
voice has been denied by the maker it will require very
strict proof to determine whether or not it was really the
voice of the speaker.
2) The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement has to be
proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory
evidence-direct or circumstantial.
3) Every possibility of tampering with or erasure of a part
of a tape-recorded statement must be ruled out otherwise it
may render the said statement out of context and,
therefore, inadmissible.
4) The statement must be relevant according to the rules of
Evidence Act.
5) The recorded cassette must be carefully sealed and kept
in safe or official custody.
6) The voice of the speaker should be clearly audible and
not lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances.”
108. The Ld. Defence Counsel sought to challenge the credibility of
Q-1 and Q-2 by contending that (i) the custody chain was not proved by the
prosecution as per law; (ii) the prosecution did not prove the date on which
Q-1 and Q-2 along with the samples S-1 and S-2 were received in the
laboratory; (iii) the prosecution also did not prove on which date the
samples had been handed over to PW-16 and during the interim period with
whom the samples were lying; (iv) the date of opening of the samples was
not mentioned in the report of the expert either.
109. In order to appreciate these contentions, I have perused the
testimony of PW-16 and his report Ex.PW16/1 once again. PW-16
categorically deposed in his testimony that Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2 were
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 93/118
received in the laboratory on 08.03.2022. This fact is reflected from
Ex.PW16/DA (Colly) also. He further deposed that he had received the
exhibits on 13.01.2023. This deposition was made by him on the basis of
chain of custody sheets available in his file which he was carrying on the
date of his examination. The witness further deposed that till 13.01.2023 the
exhibits remained in the custody of Sh. Jayesh Bhardwaj, SSA Physical
Division, CFSL.
110. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that Jayesh Bhardwaj was not
examined by the prosecution in order to prove that the samples remained
intact while those were in his custody.
111. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has sufficiently covered
the issue of safe custody during the examination-in-chief of PW-16. This
witness categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief in the second para
at page 1 that when he received the parcels those were sealed with the seal
of CBI and the seals were tallied with the specimen seal impressions. He
also deposed that the seals were found intact. PW-16 was not cross-
examined by the accused on this aspect at all. His testimony is sufficient to
suggest that the samples were received by him in sealed condition and the
seals of CBI were found intact. This suggests that samples remained in safe
custody. The chain of custody does not remain an issue in such a scenario in
my considered opinion.
112. So far missing signature on DVR, memory cards and other
exhibits are concerned, it is a matter of record that these exhibits were
identified by all the witnesses. Mere fact that signature of some of the
witnesses are not available on the exhibits, is not sufficient to put their
testimony under the cloud of doubts. Their testimonies corroborate in
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 94/118
material particulars i.e. identification of the exhibits & the contents thereof.
Hence, these cannot be brushed aside lightly.
113. The issue that the DVRs and the memory cards were not
deposited in the malkhana timely, is also of no consequence because the
brass seal used in sealing these articles was handed over to PW-4
immediately after putting the seal. PW-4 categorically deposed about this in
his examination-in-chief and also produced the brass seal which was then
taken on court’s record. PW-4 is an independent witness. No reason has
been shown by the accused why he would falsely implicate him. There is no
averment regarding any previous enmity. PW-4 is an independent person in
a Government job and totally unconnected to CBI. Ld. Defence Counsel, by
showing Mark PW/DX to the independent witnesses, sought to prove that
they were threatened with serious consequences to their service by showing
this circular and thus were made to depose in favour of CBI. Such an
argument is too far fetched. CBI is an independent agency and had no prior
interface with the accused. There is no reason why CBI would do the
unthinkable by first catching hold of a person and implicating him in a false
case of demanding bribe and then threatening independent Govt. Officials
by showing them Mark PW/DX in order to coerce them to depose in their
favour. The testimony of PW-4 regarding custody of seal being with him is
credible and reliable. The contention of defence challenging this credibility
is devoid of merits.
114. The contention of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding non proving of
authorization certificate in favour of complainant from the registered
owners of the trucks is also too technical. It is the case of prosecution that
the 12 trucks regarding which bribe was sought by the accused were owned
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 95/118
by the family members of the complainant. This fact was sufficiently
proved by the CBI by calling witnesses from the various transport
departments where the trucks had been registered and proving that those
were registered in the name of brother, sister-in-law and wife of the
complainant. These witnesses from the transport department are PW-19,
PW-22 and PW-25. PW-12 (brother of the complainant) himself appeared in
the witness box and deposed that his brother i.e. the complainant was
operating the trucks owned by him and his wife. There thus remains no
doubt that the complainant was managing the transport business and
operating trucks belonging to his family. PW-12 was questioned regarding
genuinity of the fitness certificates related to the trucks. In fact, the accused
examined witnesses like D-1, D-4 & D-5 to prove that the fitness
certificates held for the trucks operated by the complainant were fake.
However, this was not the issue in this trial at all. Even if the fitness
certificates were not obtained as per procedure, this would have no bearing
on the present trial which relates to demand and acceptance of bribe. This
fact can only suggest that the trucks operated by the complainant were not
plying on the roads of Delhi as per law. Such a fact would rather give an
additional occassion to the accused to demand bribe for forbearance to
perform his duty of booking the trucks for traffic violation. The facts
aforesaid therefore rather support the prosecution.
115. Non-disclosure of the date of first demand in the complaint is also
inconsequential because the demand otherwise also was sufficiently proved
through verification & trap proceedings.
116. In my considered view, the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence
Counsel to challenge credibility of the witnesses proving demand of bribe
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 96/118
are devoid of merits for reasons aforesaid. The prosecution has been able to
prove the first ingredient of the offence u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, i.e. ‘Demand
of bribe’ by the accused from the complainant, beyond reasonable doubt in
view of the discussion made hereinabove.
Acceptance of Bribe
117. The second constituent of ‘obtainment’ to complete the offence
prescribed u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, is acceptance of the bribe amount by the
accused. On this point also the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
PW-2 and PW-4. PW-2 categorically deposed that inside the Brezza car,
after negotiating the bribe amount, he had handed over a sum of Rs.22,000/-
to the accused. PW-4 corroborated PW-2 on this aspect by deposing that he
was standing at some distance from Brezza car and could see that the
complainant had handed over money to the accused inside the car. The
cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-4 on this aspect did not yield much to
the contrary.
118. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that PW-4 was not reliable and
his testimony was not corroborating the testimony of PW-2. He contended
so for two reasons. Firstly, because PW-4 was not inside the car but was
standing outside. Hence, he could not have heard the conversation & cannot
be said to have knowledge of the context in which money, if any, was
handed over by the complainant to the accused. Secondly, PW-4 deposed in
his testimony that he was standing at a distance of about 50 meters from
Brezza car, which was a large distance and it was therefore not possible for
PW-4 to see what was happening inside the car.
119. It is own case of prosecution that PW-4 had not heard the
conversation that took place between PW-2 & the accused. Hence, PW-4 of
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 97/118
course would not know in what context the money was handed over. PW-4
however categorically deposed that during pre-trap proceedings they were
informed about the purpose of laying the trap and he was also made to go
through the contents of the complaint Ex.PW2/A. Hence, PW-4 was aware
of the reasons why complainant was sent to hand over money to the
accused. His unawareness is merely limited to the actual conversation that
had taken place inside the Brezza car. On that aspect, the transcript of Q-2
(Ex.PW2/H) is sufficient to corroborate the testimony of PW-2. Voice
recording having been duly proved and compared with the transcript, no
doubt remains that the money was handed over to the complainant to fulfill
the demand of bribe being made by the accused.
120. So far the contention regarding distance is concerned, it is the
claim of prosecution that PW-4 was standing at a distance of about 50 feet.
The defence did not examine PW-4 to understand what he really meant
when he said 50 meters and was he even aware how much distance 50
meter was. In such a scenario, the testimony of a witness cannot be belied
merely because he deposed that he was standing 50 meters away. The
witness categorically deposed that he was able to see what was happening
inside the car and his testimony could not be shaken by the defence on that
aspect. Hence, in my considered view, his testimony that PW-2 had handed
over money to the accused inside the Brezza car is credible and can be
relied upon. This testimony is also in corroboration with the transcript of
Q-2 (Ex.PW2/H).
121. The tainted currency in the sum of Rs.22,000/- was recovered
from the accused by the trap team consisting of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11
and PW-15. These witnesses corroborated each other in material particulars
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 98/118
regarding the recovery. The currency that was recovered from the accused is
Ex.P-9 (Colly) / Ex.PW4/B (Colly). It was identified by all the aforesaid
witnesses. The witnesses had also identified the pre-trap memo (Ex.PW2/C)
in which unique numbers of the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein
powder were mentioned. The numbers of currency notes recovered from the
possession of the accused matched with the numbers mentioned in the pre-
trap memo and those were single ticked. Testimony of none of the witnesses
could be shaken by the defence on this aspect of recovery of Rs.22,000/-
from the storage space of Brezza car at the pointing of the accused. The
testimonies of eye-witnesses are in corroboration on this aspect so far
material particulars are concerned.
122. All the aforesaid witnesses also deposed about recovery of
Rs.2,000/- from PW-2. The unique numbers of these currency notes also
matched with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo and double
ticked. PW-2 categorically deposed that Rs.2,000/- remained with him
because on his insistence the accused had reduced the bribe amount from
Rs.24,000/- to Rs.22,000/-. This fact regarding reduction of the bribe
amount is also reflected in the transcript Ex.PW2/H, which reads as below:-
“जगमाल सिंह: 22 करदे फिर तेरे न है जी करता तो एक गाडी तू
आपणी राख ले
संदीप यादव: ठीक है जी
जगमाल सिंह: नम्बर दे गाड़ी के
संदीप यादव: गाड़िया नम्बर का
संदीप यादव: लिख के दे दूँ आपते
जगमाल सिंह: लिखके देवे लिखवा देवे परे ते
संदीप यादव: गाड़ी किद खड़ी कर रहे हो तुम
जगमाल सिंह: जा लिख ले
संदीप यादव: यहाँ Whatsapp कर दू आप धोरे बताओ जैसे कहूं वैसे लिख
के या वैसे करू पर्ची बना के करू या वैसे करू
जगमाल सिंह: लिख लिखCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 99/118
संदीप यादव: वो तो फिर मैं लिख के दे दूं आपते पर्ची बनाके ”
123. The complainant / PW-2 had made a request for reduction of bribe
amount on the day of verification also which too is reflected in the
transcript of Q-1 (Ex.PW2/F) in the following words:-
“जगमाल सिंह: अब 12 गाड़ी है No Entry में चला रहे हो 12 हाईवा
ट्रोले हैं 24 मैंने कह दिए TI मेरे ते मुंह बना रहा है उड़े न्यू बोला मेरे बिना
न ले बता में के करू
संदीप यादव: बाबूजी जब बालक है आपके हम
जगमाल सिंह: तब ….. इतने ते करने पड़ें गे
संदीप यादव: और दो पॉइं ट भी तो
जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट
संदीप यादव: हां जी
जगमाल सिंह: अस्पष्ट…. मानता नहीं है
संदीप यादव: आप तो करोगे हांजी अंकल जी आप तो करोगे
जगमाल सिंह: इनते करले बेटे, जो भी तेरा ठीक बैठता है 24 का मतलब
24 है मैंने कल बता दी उनते कि ये बात है।
संदीप यादव: तो कीमें तो गुंजाइश कर दो
जगमाल सिंह: है
संदीप यादव: गुंटी में तो गुंजाइश गाड़ी खड़ी है सुबह ते आपते बात बताओ
जगमाल सिंह: चला क्यों नहीं लेते मैंने तो कही थी चला लो फ्री में
संदीप यादव: नू नू नू कीते चलाइया जो काम करने था उससे डर लगताजगमाल सिंह: भई ये बात तो मैंने तेरे तो पहले कही थी कि चला लो मैं नहीं
देखता…… अस्पष्ट कही थी मैने
संदीप यादव: वो तो ठीक बात है आपकी देख लो अंकलजी कि मैं
गुंजाइश कर दो और के
जगमाल सिंह: बेटे उसमें गुंजाइश कोए ना होती तो मैं कर देता
संदीप यादव: कर दो बालक हैं आपके छोटे बालक है
जगमाल सिंह: मैं दूसरे तीसरे न बताता न करता
124. The aforesaid transcripts and testimony of PW2 clearly spell out
the reason why Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the complainant. The
recovery of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant is in complete consonance
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 100/118
with the case of prosecution also and there is no reason for the Court to
disbelieve the prosecution on this aspect.
125. The accused had handled the currency notes used for trapping
him. This stands proved from the report of chemical examination of his
right hand’s wash. The report is Ex.PW8/1. Handwash of the accused was
taken as complainant had alleged that he had handled the bribe money using
his right hand. The wash was obtained by the CBI on the spot itself and was
sent for chemical examination. The storage space from which money was
recovered at the instance of the accused was also washed and was sent for
chemical examination. The first solution was found to be light pink in
colour while the second one was pink. The expert (PW-8) opined that there
were traces of phenolphthalein in both the solutions thereby proving
sufficiently that the accused had handled the treated currency.
126. The report of chemical examiner has been challenged by the
defence on the grounds, that firstly, the custody chain of samples was not
proved by the CBI and, secondly, that the process adopted for examining
the samples was not elucidated in the report.
127. The aforesaid contentions of Defence are devoid of merits in my
considered opinion. PW-8 specifically deposed during his examination that
as per chain of custody sheet available in his file, the samples were
delivered to him by one Suresh Chand Jat, PCO, CBI. The said custody
sheet was available in the file of PW-8 that he carried to the Court but
defence did not offer to bring it on record during their cross-examination.
PW-8 specifically deposed in his examination-in-chief that the samples
received by him were in sealed condition, bearing the seal of CBI and the
seals were found to be intact. He was not cross-examined on this aspect by
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 101/118
the defence. Merely because the person who carried the samples to CFSL
was not examined is not sufficient to say that the chain of custody was not
proved. Once PW-8 has deposed that seal of the sample that he received
was found intact and the CBI had proved that the said seal was not available
with any other person except PW-4, in my considered opinion, safe custody
of the sealed samples stands sufficiently proved. In this regard, testimony of
PW-4 can be referred again and is to the similar effect as discussed while
discussing the chain of custody of Q-1, Q-2, S-1 and S-2.
128. The chemical examination report (Ex.PW8/1) specifically
mentions at point no. 7 about the process (TLC) that was followed in
examining the presence of phenolphthalein in RHW and SPW. PW-8 had
also placed on record the worksheets related to the procedure carried out by
him during his cross-examination in the Court. Worksheets Ex.PW8/D2
reflect that TLC (Thin Layer Chromatography) Examination was used to
conduct the process. PW-8 admitted during his cross-examination that
standard solution of phenolphthalein was required to be used to carry out
TLC examination. The worksheets Ex.PW8/D2 reflect that standard
phenolphthalein solution was indeed used to compare the results achieved
during examination of RHW and SPW. It was on the basis of comparison
with the result obtained with standard solution that the expert (PW-8) had
concluded that the solution contained phenolphthalein. The third sheet of
Ex.PW8/D2 reflects examination done on standard solution and the first
two sheets pertain to RHW and SPW respectively. The results are
comparable because these suggest that the peak point in case of standard
solution was achieved at 552.60 while in case of RHW and SPW it was
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 102/118
551.80 and 552.20 respectively. A comparison of the three sheets therefore
clearly suggests that both RHW and SPW contained phenolphthalein.
129. Ld. Defence counsel contended that as per testimony of PW-8,
admittedly, the silica jel plates used for carrying out TLC examination were
not preserved and photographs of the examination results were not taken.
Preservation of silica jel plates in each case may have financial implications
for the laboratory, which thrives on public funds. The infrastructural
requirement may also be an hindrance. Hence, preservation in each case
may not be practically possible. Absence of photographs is also immaterial
because worksheets reflecting the curve achieved by each solution are
available on record. It will be too harsh to assume that an independent
Government appointed expert will go beyond the ambit of his duties to
prepare a report that was completely supportive of the case of prosecution.
An expert is a neutral person. These is nothing on record to suggest that he
had some direct or indirect interest in success of the case of prosecution. In
case defence alleges so, it was for the defence to show reasons for the same
which has not been done.
130. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the basis of cross-examination of PW-8,
contended that it was an admitted fact that the chemical examination was
carried out by one Bharat Bhushan, the Senior Scientific Assistant in the
chemistry department, but the said person was not examined in the Court.
While PW-8 admits to this effect in his cross-examination he also says that
he too had carried out the chemical examination alongwith Bharat Bhushan
and had signed the report thereafter. It is sufficient to reflect direct
involvement of PW-8 in carrying out the chemical examination and the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 103/118
mere fact that he was assisted by a colleague who was not examined in the
Court, is not sufficient to raise a doubt on his testimony.
131. Ld. Defence Counsel sought to challenge the trap proceedings
reflecting acceptance of bribe amount by the accused on the strength of
Rule 14.16 of the CBI (Crime) Manual-2005. It was contended that the said
rule provides for videography and photography of the pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings which was not done and hence the case of prosecution is
doubtful. The said Rule reads as below:-
“14.16 As far as possible, the crime scene, steps during
the course of investigation such as pre-trap and post-trap
proceedings, search proceedings should be photographed
as well as videographed. In case, the photographs are
taken by conventional method, the negatives must be
preserved. In the event of digital still photography and
videography, the images may be downloaded/transferred,
in the presence of witnesses, to a ‘write only’ compact
disk (CD) or ‘write only’ digital video disk (DVD) for
preservation. This would prevent the independent
witnesses turning hostile during the course of trial. In all
important cases of disproportionate assets/recoveries,
search proceedings should also be videographed so that
the Court may appreciate the evidence collected by CBI
about the luxurious lifestyle of the accused or the
circumstances under which a particular recovery was
made. A memorandum be prepared to this effect by the
I.O. on the spot in the presence of witnesses.”
132. Rule 14.16 does not make videography and photography of the
pre-trap and post-trap proceedings mandatory. It provides that
photography/videography be carried out only so far as it is practicable. On
this point, I agree with the submissions of Ld. Prosecutor who contended
that it was not possible to videograph or photograph the trap or recovery
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 104/118
proceedings, firstly, because that would have made the accused conscious
and chances of failure of the trap proceedings would have increased and
secondly, because trap & recovery were carried out at a busy road under
hostile circumstances as accused was attempting to escape. These reasons
are sufficient to hold that photography/videography was not practicable &
its absence therefore is not sufficient to doubt the case of prosecution.
133. The probability of accused being present on the spot on
08.02.2022 was proved by the prosecution through the testimony of PW-9,
PW-10 and PW-13. These witnesses deposed that on 07.02.2022 and
08.02.2022 the accused was posted in Nangloi Traffic Circle and on those
days he was on duty at the Mundka Red Light point. His availability on the
spot at the time of verification proceedings and the trap proceedings was
also proved by the said witnesses. They are official witnesses from the
Traffic Department of Delhi Police and their testimonies cannot be doubted.
Accused also did not throw any serious challenge to the testimony of these
witnesses.
134. It is the case of prosecution that when the trap team was signalled
by PW-2 regarding transaction of the bribe amount, they went near the
Brezza car and asked the accused to come out. However, the accused
accelerated the car and escaped. In that process, the accused had hit
Inspector Anil Kumar who was part of the trap team and caused injuries in
his hand.
135. Ld. Defence Counsel contended that case of the prosecution to
this effect stood demolished because the prosecution did not prove accident
or injuries by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It was contended that
neither the medical report from Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad was
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 105/118
proved by examining any witness from the hospital nor the original report
was placed on record. Since the report was only a photocopy, it was never
admitted in evidence. Defence contended that Insp. Anil Kumar was also
not produced in the witness box to prove the injuries caused to him.
136. In my considered view, the facts related to injuries caused to Insp.
Anil Kumar are not directly in issue in this case. The medical report was
referred by the prosecution to only show the conduct of the accused post-
trap. The accused tried to escape when caught red handed and such a
conduct of the accused is a relevant fact u/Sec. 8 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 as it points towards his culpability. This conduct was sufficiently
proved through the testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-11 and PW-15,
well corroborated by the letter Ex.PW24/1 received by PW-24, the
investigating officer, from Max Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, detailing the
injuries caused to Insp. Anil Kumar and the treatment given to him on
09.02.2022, a day immediately after the day of trap.
137. Ld. Defence counsel had also sought to challenge the testimonies
of prosecution’s witnesses regarding recovery of tainted money (bribe) from
the accused by averring, firstly, that before taking out money from the
storage space of the Brezza car, the CBI team did not offer to give their
personal search and secondly, that handwash of the complainant was not
taken to prove that he had handled the tainted money.
138. The bribe money, as per the case of prosecution, was recovered on
pointing out of the accused from the storage space inside the car and not
from the person of the accused. None of the CBI officer was sitting inside
the car before recovery of the bribe amount. Hence, non-offering of
personal search by the CBI officers was hardly of any consequence.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 106/118
Similarly, handling of bribe amount by the complainant is proved by PW-4,
an independent witness, and therefore non-obtaining of his hand wash is
also of no consequence. The testimony of PW-2/complainant regarding
handling of bribe amount stood sufficiently corroborated from the
testimony of PW-4. He has been found to be a reliable witness, because not
only his testimony stands corroborated for various reasons already
discussed hereinabove, he is an independent witness having no prejudice
towards the accused to depose falsely.
139. Recovery of the bribe amount was further challenged by the Ld.
Defence Counsel on the ground that the site plans were not proved by the
prosecution as per law because maker of the site plans, namely, Inspector
Satish Bana was not examined in the Court. Even if that be so, the site plans
can only have corroborative value in some circumstances. Hence, despite
ignoring the site plans, there is sufficient material on record which
corroborates the testimony of complainant (PW-2). Absence of proper proof
of site plans is thus of no consequence.
140. For reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered view that
‘acceptance’ of bribe amount by the accused has also been sufficiently
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.
Presumption regarding Mens rea
141. The prosecution has proved sufficiently that the accused had
demanded an undue advantage, i.e. a sum of Rs.24,000/-, from the
complainant and accepted a sum of Rs.22,000/- in lieu of the said demand.
‘Demand’ and ‘acceptance’ are two essential constituents to prove
‘obtainment’ of undue advantage. Once ‘obtainment’ is proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, a presumption arises in favour of the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 107/118
prosecution u/Sec. 20 of the PC Act. According to this presumption
requisite mens rea i.e. obtainment of undue advantage as motive or reward
to perform or forbearance to perform public duty shall be presumed.
142. Once such a presumption arises, reverse burden of proof operates
and the onus shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption. It is the
settled law that a presumption can be rebutted by the accused on the basis
of preponderance of probability and he does not have to prove his defence
beyond reasonable doubts.
143. The accused did not lead any evidence to rebut the aforesaid
presumption however. He examined 5 witnesses but only to prove that he
was falsely implicated because he had been receiving threats from the
Transporters’ Association. Accused sought to prove that the trucks operated
by the complainant did not fulfill the legal parameters regarding fitness
certificate or registration.
144. These facts are hardly of any consequence because the accused
failed to show any connection of the complainant with any of the
Transporters’ Association. He also could not connect the complainant with
any of the threats that he had received in the year 2019 and 2020, as noted
in the DD entries proved on record. It is already observed in the preceding
paragraphs that the mere fact that the trucks were non-compliant on legal
parameters is not sufficient to discredit the case of the prosecution. Non-
compliance rather gave an additional occasion to the accused to demand the
bribe in order to forbear performance of his public duty to stop such trucks
from plying on the road and book them for violation of traffic rules.
145. The testimony of PW-21 is sufficient to prove that the Rohtak
Road between Peeragrahi to Tikri Border (which also consists of Mundka
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 108/118
area) was a no entry zone for heavy goods vehicles from 05:00 AM to 11:00
AM and from 05:00 PM to 7:00 PM. The accused was demanding money to
allow the complainant to ply his trucks through Mundka during the
prohibited timings. This stands sufficiently confirmed from the transcripts
Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/H which have already been quoted in the preceding
paragraphs. Hence, not only presumption, rather there is clear evidence to
suggest that the accused was demanding bribe as a reward for forbearing
performance of his public duty.
146. The testimony of PW-18A and PW-20, who have proved the
record regarding entry of trucks operated by the complainant through Tikri
Border, also suggest that during the period when bribe amount was
demanded, the trucks of complainant were not entering through Tikri border
but through Dhasa Border, Darula Border and Bakargarh, all of which lie in
south-west zone near Najafgarh. This again lends credence to the story of
prosecution that the accused demanded money as a reward for forbearing
performance of his public duty by allowing the trucks of the complainant to
pass through Mundka and thus from Tikri border. The evidence on record
strengthens the presumption in favour of prosecution and lends crredibility
to the case of prosecution.
147. The accuse has failed to rebut this presumption by leading cogent
and reliable evidence. Rather the evidence led by the prosecution
strengthens the presumption. This fulfills the third and last ingredient of the
offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act.
148. For discussion above, in my considered opinion the case of the
prosecution, so far commission of offence punishable u/Sec. 7 PC Act is
concerned, stands proved beyond reasonable doubts. The defence of the
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 109/118
accused is lame and baseless. The accused has neither been able to prove
false implication nor has been able to rebut the presumption u/Sec. 20 of the
PC Act.
Public Servant and Requisite Sanction
149. It is clear from a reading of Section 7 of the PC Act that only a
public servant can be convicted of the said offence. Section 19 of the PC
Act provides that for prosecuting a public servant for the offence punishable
u/Sec. 7, previous sanction of the competent authority is necessary. Section
19 reads as below:-
“19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have
been committed by a public servant, except with the
previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013]-
(a) in the case of a person [who is employed,
or as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed]
in connection with the affairs of the Union and
is not removable from his office save by or
with the sanction of the Central Government,
of that government:
(b) in the case of a person [who is employed,
or as the case may be, was at the time of
commission of the alleged offence employed]
in connection with the affairs of a State and is
not removable from his office save by or with
sanction of the State Government, of that
government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the
authority competent to remove him from his
office.”
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 110/118
150. The accused never disputed that he was a public servant on the
date of commission of offence. Even otherwise, this fact stands sufficiently
established from the testimony of PW-3 who had proved the service record
of the accused. The accused was serving in the rank of SI when he was
arrested in this case. This fact is also proved by PW-3. Even otherwise,
there is no dispute on any of these facts either.
151. The dispute is with respect to the sanction, which has been
challenged by the defence mainly on two grounds: (i) that the sanction was
granted by an incompetent authority; (ii) that the sanction was granted
without application of mind.
152. It is the case of defence that the accused was promoted to the rank
of SI by the Commissioner of Police. Hence, by virtue of Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, it was only the Commissioner of Police who could
have removed him from service. Since only the Commissioner of Police
was competent to remove the accused, sanction for his prosecution u/Sec.
19 of the PC Act could also have been granted by the Commissioner of
Police only and not by the Additional Commissioner of Police.
153. The accused relied upon his promotion order [Ex.DW2/A (Colly)]
in support of his contention that he was promoted by the Commissioner of
Police. This Order is dated 06.08.2019 and has been signed by the DCP
(Establishment) for Commissioner of Police. It is the case of defence that
since the Order has been signed by the ‘DCP’ for ‘Commissioner of Police’,
it is the Commissioner of Police who becomes the appointing authority.
154. The aforesaid contention of the defence can be examined by
referring to the provisions of Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the Rules framed
thereunder.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 111/118
155. Section 6, Section 7, Section 8 and Section 12 of the Delhi Police
Act, are relevant in this regard and read as below:-
“6. Commissioner of Police. – For the direction and
supervision of the police force in Delhi, the Administrator
shall appoint a Commissioner of Police who shall exercise
and perform such powers and duties and perform such
functions as are specified by or under this Act.”
“7. Additional Commissioner of Police. – (1) The
Administrator may appoint one or more Additional
Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Additional Commissioner of Police shall —
(a) assist the Commissioner of Police in the exercise
of his powers and the performance of his duties in
such manner and to such extent, and
(b) exercise such powers and perform such duties of
the Commissioner of Police and within such local
limits,
as the Administrator may, by general or special
order, specify.”
“8. Deputy, Additional Deputy and Assistant
Commissioner of Police. – (1) The Administrator may
appoint one or more Deputy Commissioner of Police or
Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police or Assistant
Commissioner of Police for the purpose of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Act and
subject to any general or special orders made by the
Administrator in this behalf, every Deputy Commissioner of
Police or Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police or
Assistant Commissioner of Police shall, under the order of
the Commissioner of Police, exercise such of the powers
(except the power to make regulations) and perform such of
the duties of the Commissioner of Police and within such
local limits as may be specified in such orders.”
(Emphasis supplied)
“12. Appointment of subordinate ranks. – Subject to such
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 112/118
general or special orders in writing as the Administrator may
make in this behalf, —
(a) Inspectors of Police may be appointed by the
Additional Commissioner of Police; and
(b) Sub-Inspectors of Police and other officers
of subordinate rank may be appointed by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Additional Deputy Commissioners
of Police, Principal of the Police Training College or of the
Police Training School, or any other police officer of
equivalent rank.”
(Emphasis supplied)
156. The rules framed under Section 147(1) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978,
are also relevant, specifically, the Delhi Police (Promotion and
Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter ‘the promotion rules’) and the Delhi
Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter ‘ the
appointment rules’).
157. The Rules 8 & 9 of the promotion rules read as below:-
“8. Constitution of Departmental Promotion Committee –
Fitness of personnel for promotion to various ranks in
different grades/cadres shall be judged by departmental
promotion committees, which shall be constituted by the
Commissioner of Police as under:
(i) For promotion of confirmed Constable to the rank of
Head Constable, promotion of confirmed Head Constables to
the rank of Asst. Sub-Inspector and promotion of confirmed
Asstt. Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector, the
promotion panel should be drawn by the Departmental
Promotion Committee, consisting of one Joint Commissioner
of Police and two Deputy Commissioner of Police to be
nominated by the Commissioner of Police.
(ii) For promotion of confirmed Sub-Inspectors to the rank
of Inspector. The promotion panel should be drawn by the
Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of Special
Commissioner of Police (Admn.) and two JointCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 113/118
Commissioners of Police to be nominated by Commissioner
of Police.”
“9. Centralized processing and issue of orders –
Promotion of all categories in various ranks shall be done
centrally by Police Head Quarters. After names have been
approved by the concerned Departmental Promotion
Committee, orders for promotion, when required shall be
issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Estt.) in
respect of Sub-Inspectors, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Head
Constables and Constables, and for Inspectors by
Additional/Joint Commissioner of Police (HQ) as the
appointing authorities.”
(Emphasis supplied)
158. Rule 3(i) & Rule 4 (i) of the appointment rules are further relevant
and read as below:-
“3. Definitions.
(i) “Appointing Authority” in relation to Inspector of
Police means the Additional Commissioner of Police and in
relation to the subordinate police officers below the rank of
Inspector means the Deputy Commissioner of Police
including the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Principal/P.T.S. or any other officer or equal rank. (ii)
Competent authority means the Commissioner of Police or
any other police officer specifically authorised by him under
these rules to appoint a police officer of subordinate rank of
Delhi Police. (ii-a) “Employees” means non-gazetted
employees of the Delhi Police Force. (iii) Probation means
of period of trial of a person appointed temporarily or in an
officiating capacity against temporary or permanent post of a
police of subordinate rank.”
“4. General.
(i) Appointing authorities – The following authorities
shall be competent to make appointment to various
subordinate ranks of Delhi Police –
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 114/118
Class of Authority to The extent
Police whom the of
Officers power of delegation
appointment is
delegated
(i) Inspector Addl. C.P. Full powers
subject to the
rules framed
hereunder.
(ii) Sub-Inspr. (i) DCP Do
(ii) Addl. DCP
(iii) Principal/PTS
(iv) Any other
officer of
equivalent
rank.
(iii) ASI Do Do
(iv) H.C. Do Do
(v) Constables Do Do
159. On a combined reading of the aforementioned sections of the
Delhi Police Act, the appointment rules and the promotion rules, it is clear
that a DCP is appointed by the Administrator of GNCT of Delhi in order to
exercise such of the powers and perform such of the duties of the
Commissioner of Police as may be specified. This clarity comes from a
combined reading of Section 6 & Section 8 of the Delhi Police Act. A DCP
exercises the powers and performs the duties of Commissioner of Police by
virtue of the aforementioned sections as per Delhi Police Act and the
delegated legislation that consist of rules framed under the said Act; the
Orders issued thereunder etc. Section 12 provides that a DCP is also the
appointing authority for the members of Delhi Police in the rank of Sub-
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 115/118
Inspector, Head Constable and Constable. This is reiterated in Rule 3 & 4 of
the appointment rules also. The promotion rules specify that the panel for
promotion is to be drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
as specified in Rule 8. Once the names are approved by the DPC, Orders for
promotion to the rank of SI & HC are required to be issued by the DCP,
being the appointing authority.
160. It is clear from above that the Order Ex.DW2/A (Colly) was
signed by the DCP in accordance with Rule 9 of the promotion rules, in his
own independent capacity as appointing authority. The DCP signed this
Order for Commissioner of Police because as per the Delhi Police Act a
DCP exercises such powers of Commissioner of Police as may be specified
& Rule 9 is one such specific instance where power of Commissioner of
Police has been delegated to the DCP. The DCP signed Ex.DW2/A (Colly)
under delegated legislation and therefore had acted for Commissioner of
Police however the power to sign this Order had been bestowed upon him
by the sheer fact that he was the appointing authority as per Section 12 of
the Delhi Police Act.
161. The defence did not prove by leading cogent and reliable evidence
that the promotions were in fact approved by the Commissioner of Police.
The office Notings pertaining to the promotion process adopted by the
Police Headquarter was not proved on record either. Rule 8 & 9 of the
promotion rules clearly provide that promotion shall be recommended by
the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) and the promotion orders
shall be signed by the DCP. The rules do not provide for any requirement of
obtaining approval of the Commissioner of Police. Whether such approval
was actually obtained, has not been proved by the defence. The
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 116/118
presumption u/Sec. 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 thus arises in favour
of the prosecution that the official work was regularly performed, which
means that it was performed as per Rule 8 & 9 of the promotion rules. This
being so, DCP was the appointing authority of the accused even when he
was promoted to the rank of SI and sanction granted by the Additional
Commissioner of Police, who is higher in rank, is thus valid and has been
granted by a competent authority.
162. The second contention of the defence that there was non-
application of mind in granting sanction is also not substantiated from the
record. PW-23 is the sanctioning authority who was cross-examined in
detail by the accused. During cross-examination, the sanctioning authority
had categorically deposed that he had received relevant documents along
with the request for sanction. He was questioned if he had heard the audio
recordings which he denied but deposed that transcripts had been received.
PW-23 also denied having received the draft order. The transcripts of audio
conversations are perfectly in tandem with the recordings which were
played in the court also and were compared with the transcripts. Hence, the
fact that audio recordings were not sent to the sanctioning authority is
hardly of any consequence. No part of cross-examination of PW-23 reflects
non-application of mind. The contention of Defence in this regard is
therefore baseless and devoid of merits.
163. In my considered opinion the prosecution has been able to prove
that the sanction for prosecution, which is Ex.PW23/1, was granted by a
competent authority after due application of mind. The sanction is thus
valid in the eyes of law.
CBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 117/118
Decision
164. For reasons discussed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove all the necessary
ingredients of the offence punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act, beyond
reasonable doubts. The accused has been found guilty of the offence
punishable u/Sec. 7 of the PC Act and is therefore convicted accordingly.
Digitally
Announced in the Open Court signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI KLER
on 09.03.2026 KLER Date:
2026.03.23
15:36:18
+0530
(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts,
New Delhi
Certified that this judgment runs into 118 pages and all the pages
have been signed by me. Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
JYOTI KLER
KLER Date:
2026.03.23
15:36:33
+0530(Jyoti Kler)
Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18,
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New DelhiCBI v. Jagmal Singh Page 118/118
