Delhi High Court
Ravinder Kumar Chopra vs State C.B.I on 28 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 22.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 28.04.2026
+ CRL.A. 359/2002
RAVINDER KUMAR CHOPRA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Vishwajeet Singh,
Ms. Mugdha and Ms. Priti Verma,
Advocates.
versus
STATE C.B.I. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kant Goel, SPP with Ms.
Jyoti Goel, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (the Cr.P.C.) the first accused (A1), in
C.C. No. 42/1993 on the file of the Special Judge, Delhi, assails
the judgment dated 30.03.2002 and order on sentence dated
01.04.2002 as per which A1 and the second accused (A2) have
been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC) and further
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 1 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
A1 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (the PC Act).
2. The prosecution case is that R.K. Chopra (A1) while
working as Desk Officer, Udyog Bhawan, Department of
Industrial Development, Ministry of Industries, Government of
India, Delhi, on 06.06.1989 demanded illegal gratification of
₹50,000/- from PW2, Director, M/s. Aries Granites, Bangalore and
through the co-accused, A.S.M. Swami (A2), a retired officer,
Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi and obtained ₹10,000/- for
getting a licence issued in PW2’s favour for 100% Export Oriented
Industries for manufacture of cut and polished granites.
Accordingly, as per the charge-sheet/final report dated 29.05.1990,
A1 and A2 were alleged to have committed the offences
punishable under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of
the PC Act.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 2 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
3. Sanction for prosecution was accorded by PW1,
Director, Department of Industrial Development, New Delhi,
against A1 vide Ext. PW1/A Sanction Order dated 09.04.1990.
4. Crime no. RC No. 28(A)/89-DLI/CBI/ACB, i.e., Ext.
D1 FIR, was registered on the basis of PW2/D complaint of PW2.
After completion of investigation by PW7, a charge-sheet/final
report was filed against A1 and A2 alleging the commission of the
offences punishable under the aforementioned Sections.
5. When A1 and A2 were produced before the trial court,
all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to them as
contemplated under Section 207 Cr.PC. After hearing both sides,
the trial court vide order dated 07.10.1993, framed a Charge under
Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
which was read over and explained to A1 and A2, to which they
pleaded not guilty.
6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 8 were
examined and Exts. PW1/A-C, PW2/A-R, PW2/DA, PW2/DR,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 3 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
PW3/A, PW4/A-B, PW5/A and Mark A were marked in support of
the case.
7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2
was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.PC regarding the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of the prosecution. A1 denied all those circumstances and
maintained his innocence. He submitted that PW2, an accomplice
in the eyes of law, got him falsely implicated because the
application of the latter’s firm for licence was rejected by the
Board. The two panch witnesses being government servants are
partisan witnesses and that they have deposed out of fear of
Departmental action. The evidence of the other witnesses are
formal in nature and the evidence of the Investigating Officer (IO)
and raiding officer is that of interested witnesses.
7.1. A2 also submitted that PW2 is an accomplice in the
eyes of law. He further submitted that when he was posted as
Senior Director, AERC, he had lodged several complaints against
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 4 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
Government Exporters who indulged in various malpractices while
carrying out government exports which were controlled by specific
orders of Ministry of Textiles. PW2 was also associated with some
of the exports in his capacity as an advisor and that pressure had
been put on him to withdraw those cases or dilute the cases to
some extent. However, he refused to cooperate with the exporters
and so PW2 was in inimical terms with him and hence took the
opportunity to implicate him in the present case.
8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced in
support of the defence case.
9. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court vide the
impugned judgment dated 30.03.2002 held A1 and A2 guilty of
the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and further held
A1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)
read with 13(2) of the PC Act. Vide order on sentence dated
01.04.2002, A1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 5 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
imprisonment for a period of five years each along with fine of
₹5000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each for the offences
punishable under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(2) of
the PC Act. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
A2 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years along with fine of ₹5000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months
for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. Aggrieved, A1
has preferred this appeal.
10. CRL.A.250/2002 was filed by A2. A2 died during the
pendency of the appeal. The order dated 28.08.2020 in the said
appeal reads:
“The CBI has submitted the verification report dated
24.08.2020 under the signatures of Inspector Ravinder Kumar
Singh of the CBI/ACP, New Delhi along with the copy of the death
certificate of Mr.A.S.M.Swamy i.e. the appellant herein indicating
his demise on 14.03.2020.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 6 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
In view thereof, the CRL.A.250/2002 filed by the appellant
(since deceased) against his conviction vide judgment dated
30.03.2002 and vide order on sentence dated 01.04.2002 in RC
No.28(A)/89-DLI/CBI/ACB thus, abates and the surety stands
discharged.”
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/A1
submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case rests on the
demand of illegal gratification. However, the only evidence
regarding the initial demand on 05.06.1989 is the uncorroborated
testimony of PW2. There are inconsistencies in his version
regarding the amount demanded as in Ext. PW2/A complaint it
was ₹50,000/- but in the box the case of PW2 is that the initial
demand was ₹80,000/- which was finally settled at ₹30,000/-.
Further, the testimony of PW2 does not support the claim of any
telephonic demand, despite such an assertion being made in the
complaint. The prosecution has failed to explain how the meeting
at Hotel Marina on 06.06.1989 was arranged between PW2 and the
appellant/A1.
11.1. It was also submitted that the voice recording was
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 7 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
found to be of poor quality and largely inaudible, and therefore,
reliance ought not to have been placed on it. The recording lacks
evidentiary value as no proper forensic analysis was conducted, no
voice samples were obtained, and identification was made solely
by PW2, an interested witness. The chain of custody was also
compromised, and transcripts were prepared after three months,
only on 15.09.1989, without examination of the stenographer who
prepared them. Moreover, the recording does not establish any
demand for a bribe.
11.2. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the
prosecution has failed to present reliable independent witnesses.
One of the panch witness was not examined at all despite his
central role in the trap proceedings. PW4, the other independent
witness, was declared hostile and provided contradictory
statements on material aspects, including the source of currency
notes and procedural steps during the trap. The presence of PW4
after return from Hotel Marina and before the trap at YWCA is
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 8 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
doubtful, as according to PW2, only the other witness was present.
The prosecution case entirely rests on the testimony of PW2 and
PW6, both of whom are interested witnesses.
11.3. It was further submitted that there is no nexus between
A2 and the Appellant/A1. There is no credible evidence to suggest
that any money received by A2 was on behalf of the Appellant/A1.
On the contrary, A2 submitted in his Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
statement that the money received by him from PW2 was towards
consultancy charges for a separate project and not meant for the
appellant/A1. This explanation is supported by the PW2’s
testimony, wherein he acknowledged discussions regarding
consultancy fees with A2 and admitted the possibility of such
payment. Further, the alleged disclosure statement of A2 is
inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as it did
not lead to any recovery and cannot be used against the
appellant/A1.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 9 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
11.4. Lastly, it was submitted that the arrest and subsequent
search of the appellant/A1 were conducted in the absence of
independent witnesses. The testimony of the witnesses regarding
who were present during the course of these procedures are
contradictory. The presence of signatures of PW2 on the seizure
memo, who was not present, casts doubt on the documents. The
sanction for prosecution is legally unsustainable as it does not
disclose the material considered, nor does it reflect any
independent application of mind. Further, the FIR was registered at
10:30 AM, however, PW2 reached the office of the ACB only by
11:00 AM and therefore, the timing of the FIR does not align with
PW2’s version. No prior verification of the allegations was
conducted despite explicit directions. There is also inconsistency
regarding who requisitioned the independent witnesses. Therefore,
it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential
ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 10 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
benefit of doubt must therefore be extended to the appellant/A1,
goes the argument.
12. Per Contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment calling for an
interference by this Court. The fact that A1 was waiting at the
residence of A2 in the late evening corroborates the prosecution
case. Even if it is believed that the FIR was registered without
verification, prior verification is not mandatory, and the timing in
the FIR is approximate.
13. Heard both sides and perused records.
14. The only point that arises for consideration in the
present appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the impugned
judgment calling for an interference by this court.
15. I shall first refer to the evidence on record relied on by
the prosecution in support of the case. PW2 submitted a written
complaint, that is, Ext. PW2/D, dated 06.06.1989 before the office
of the Anti-Corruption (A.C.) Branch, C.B.I. in which he has
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 11 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
stated thus: – He is a Director of M/s Aries Granites (P) Ltd.,
Bangalore. They had applied to the Ministry of Industries,
Department of Industrial Development on 02.02.1989 for a licence
to put up a 100% Export oriented industries for manufacture of cut
and polished granites. The Company received a telegram from the
Desk Officer R.K. Chopra (A1) in March 1989 seeking certain
clarifications, to which clarifications were sent by the Company on
21.03.1989. Thereafter, on 05.04.1989 a letter was received from
Ministry of Industries, Department of Industrial Development and
Secretariat for Industrial Approvals (M.C. Section) rejecting the
plea for permission with liberty to represent the case within three
weeks. In the last week of April 1989 he came to Delhi and
contacted the Ministry of Commerce and came to know that R.K.
Chopra (A1) was the Desk Officer who was dealing with his
Company file, pursuant to which he met R.K. Chopra (A1) who
advised him to furnish another detailed clarification. He again
came to Delhi with his papers on the night of 04.06.1989 and on
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 12 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
05.06.1989 at 11:00 A.M., he called A1 to inform the latter that all
the necessary documents required were ready. R.K. Chopra (A1)
then asked him to meet the former for lunch at Hotel Marina in
Connaught Place at 01:00 P.M. Pursuant to the same when he met
R.K. Chopra (A1) at Hotel Marina and informed him that he had
brought the necessary documents, R.K. Chopra (A1) replied that
those details would not be sufficient for issuance of the licence and
that…..”we must enter into a business understanding”. On asking
A1 as to what sort of business understanding the former was
referring to, A1 responded by saying that if he paid ₹50,000/- (fifty
thousand rupees) as illegal gratification, the licence would be
issued within a month. When PW2 replied that it was not possible
for him to pay ₹50,000/-, R.K. Chopra (A1) said that he would
send one A.S.M. Swamy (A2) to meet him in the hotel where the
former was staying, i.e., YMCA Blue Triangle Hostel, Ashoka
Road at 07:00 P.M. who would negotiate on behalf of A1, after
which A1 left after taking down his address. Thereafter, on the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 13 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
same day evening i.e. 05.06.1989 at about 07:00 P.M. a man came
to his room in the YMCA Blue Triangle Hostel and introduced
himself as A.S.M. Swamy (A2) and said that he represented R.K.
Chopra (A1). After a few minutes of informal conversation, A2
asked regarding the application for 100% Export Oriented Unit
licence and demanded ₹80,000/- to be paid to R.K. Chopra (A1)
for getting the licence, out of which ₹40,000/- was to be paid in
advance. On 06.06.1989 morning, at about 10:00 a.m., he
contacted R.K. Chopra (A1), over telephone and informed the
latter of the meeting with A.S.M. Swamy (A2). Finally, R. K.
Chopra (A1) said that the work could not be done for less than
₹30,000/-. R.K. Chopra (A1) also asked him to meet the former
again at Hotel Marina, Connaught place at 12.30 p.m. for further
discussion, including instructions regarding the mode of payment
of the money. He is a law abiding citizen and hence action may be
taken against the aforesaid persons.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 14 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
16. PW2 when examined before the trial court to an extent
stood by his case in Ext.PW2/A. On 04.06.1989, he came to Delhi
to enquire about his application for licence. He met officials,
including G.P. Mathur, who advised him to meet R.K. Chopra
(A1), the Desk Officer handling the file. On 05.06.1989, he met
Chopra (A1), who informed him that the project had been rejected
but could be revived upon entering into a business arrangement.
(A1) initially demanded ₹80,000/-, which was later reduced to
₹30,000/-. The demand was made at Hotel Marina around 12:30 –
01:00 PM. Chopra (A1) further informed him that one Swamy
(A2), his representative, would meet him in the evening to collect
signed blank application forms and letterheads. Swamy (A2) met
him around 06:30 PM and reiterated the demand for ₹80,000/-.
PW2 expressed his inability and stated that he would consult his
co-directors. On 06.06.1989 at around 10:00 AM, he called the
office of the CBI and spoke to Amit Verma, Superintendent of
Police (the S.P.), who advised him to meet the latter in person. At
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 15 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
11:00 AM, he reached the office of the CBI. The S.P. gave
necessary directions to B.N. Jha (PW6) for the raid. On
06.06.1989, he did not contact or meet anyone before contacting
the CBI. He submitted Ext. PW2/D written complaint in his own
handwriting. Two independent government witnesses were called,
who reached the office within 15 to 20 minutes. Verma showed a
small tape recorder and explained its working to him. The tape was
played in the presence of all including the two government
officials witnesses. They were convinced that the tape was blank.
The tape was wrapped in a piece of paper and kept in his pocket.
He was directed to meet Chopra (A1) to meet at a common place
and discuss business. According to PW2, one of the government
official witnesses was Amarnath from the department of telephone,
but he was unable to recall the name of the other witness. Pre-trap
proceedings were recorded vide Ext. PW2/E memo.
16.1. He then along with the raid team proceeded to
Hotel Marina, where they arrived at about 12:30 PM. PW6 and the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 16 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
two panch witnesses sat on a table facing him and the accused,
which was at a distance of about 06 to 08 feet away. Just before
01:00 PM, Chopra (A1) arrived at the hotel. They exchanged
greetings, and he switched on the tape. He told Chopra (A1) that
Swamy (A2) had visited his hotel in the evening between 06:30 –
07:00 PM on 05.06.1989 and had demanded ₹80,000/-. Chopra
(A1) after negotiations agreed to do the job for ₹30,000/- which
was to be paid to Swamy (A2), who would meet him on the same
day at around 06:00 PM.
16.2. After the meeting Chopra (A1), he along with the
team returned to the office of the CBI where he handed over the
audio cassette to PW6 who sealed it in his presence as well as in
the presence of the shadow witness Amarnath. The trap was
arranged for the evening. Again, a blank cassette was given to him.
Amarnath, the shadow witness, was instructed to remain with him
and watch and hear the proceedings. Currency notes amounting to
₹10,000/- provided by him were treated with phenolphthalein
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 17 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
powder, and their serial numbers were noted. He along with the
raiding team proceeded to his hostel room. By about 06:30 – 07:00
PM, Swamy (A2) arrived at his room at the YMCA Hostel. He
switched on the tape recorder. He invited Swamy (A2) to come
inside the room and offered him a seat. He introduced Amar Nath,
the panch witness as his brother’s friend. He told Swamy (A2) that
due to short notice, he was unable to arrange the required amount
and that he could only arrange ₹10,000/-. Swamy (A2) replied that
he had come to collect the money on behalf of Chopra (A1). He
then handed over the currency notes of ₹10,000/- to Swamy (A2).
At his request, Swamy (A2) counted the notes. On receiving the
pre-arranged signal, the CBI team entered the room. PW6 caught
hold of both hands of Swamy (A2). PW6 challanged Swamy (A2)
that he had received bribe of ₹10,000/- on behalf of Chopra (A1).
The hand wash of Swamy (A2) taken turned pink. Swamy (A2)
disclosed to PW6 that Chopra (A1) was waiting for him at the
former’s residence to receive the money. The entire raid team,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 18 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
along with Swamy (A2) , proceeded to the latter’s residence at
Rajouri Garden, Delhi where they reached at about 08:30 PM. He
along with Swamy (A2) and PW6 entered the residence. Chopra
(A1) on seeing Swamy (A2) asked “have you collected the money
from Mr. Rajendran”.
16.3. PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that 20
days after the raid, the transcript of his conversation with A2 had
prepared. PW2 deposed that he was unaware as to whether there
was any order of the Court permitting PW6 to break open the seal
of the audio cassette. PW2 admitted that he was aware that Swamy
(A2) was a retired Government official from the Ministry of
Commerce and was working as a consultant. Swamy (A2) had told
him that he was working for Companies in Hyderabad and also for
John Myers Granites Ltd. Swamy (A2) had suggested that he could
prepare a project report for obtaining a licence. During his
conversation with Swamy (A2), there was no discussion regarding
filling up of fresh applications for the grant of licence pertaining to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 19 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
their project. However, there was discussions to the effect that
Swamy would prepare a fresh representation for the revival of the
already rejected application. Swamy (A2) said that he would
charge fees for consultation and services rendered in that regard.
Discussions also took place regarding the mode of payment of
consultancy charges. Swamy (A2) said that he would accept the
payment in instalments. On being asked about his consultancy
charges, Swamy (A2) initially stated that his charges would be
₹30,000/- and that depending upon the nature of the project, his
charges might vary from ₹30,000/- to ₹50,000/-. Swamy (A2) did
not specifically state the amount of the initial instalment. PW2
further admitted that during the said discussion, Swamy (A2)
demanded ₹10,000/-, and he accordingly handed over ₹10,000/- to
him, which the latter kept in his handbag.
17. PW4 posted in NIC, Planning Commission, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi deposed that on 06.06.1989 he
was deputed on duty to the office of the CBI, CGO Complex,
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 20 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
Lodhi Road. He reported at about 11:00 AM. When he reached the
office of the CBI, PW2, along with another witness from the
MTNL were already present in the room of PW6. He was
introduced to PW2 and the complaint was shown to him. An
official of the CBI brought ₹10,000/- from the bank to be used for
the raid and the number of the said currency notes was noted
down. At this juncture, the prosecutor is seen to have requested
permission to “cross-examine” PW4 on the ground that the latter
was resiling from his previous statement. The request is seen
allowed. On further examination by the prosecutor, PW4 admitted
that the other independent witness in the team was Amar Nath. The
prosecutor then brought out the prosecution case by putting several
leading questions to PW4.
17.1. PW4, in his cross-examination admitted that when he
reported at the office of the CBI, PW2 and PW6 had already left
for Hotel Marina. They returned by about 12:00 or 12:30 PM, and
then in his presence an audio cassette was played in the office of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 21 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
the CBI. However, no transcript was prepared. PW4 admitted that
when the cassette was played the audio was not properly audible.
At the YMCA Hostel, he remained downstairs with the other
members of the trap party. On receiving the pre-determined signal
over telephone from PW2, he was asked by PW6 to accompany the
latter to the room of PW2. He denied the suggestion that when
PW6 confronted A2 for having demanded and accepted bribe from
PW2, A2 had denied the allegations and said he had only received
his consultancy charges. He denied the suggestion that, on being
challenged, A2 had not responded by saying that he had received
the money from PW2 on behalf of A1. After the day of the raid, he
was called to the office of the CBI, on which day an audio cassette
was played and its transcript prepared. On that day, panch witness
Amar Nath was present, but PW2 was absent. PW4 was unable to
recall if, during the pre-raid proceedings, the sample voice of PW2
had been recorded.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 22 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
18. PW6, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), deposed that on
06.06.1989 at about 10:30 AM, he was directed by Anil Verma,
the S.P., to take necessary action on the complaint of PW2. He
discussed the matter with PW2. After satisfying himself about the
genuineness of the allegations, he called two panch witnesses,
namely, Amar Nath, Assistant Engineer, Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Limited and B.S. Rana (PW4) from Life Insurance
Corporation. He spoke about the various steps taken during the
pre-raid, raid and post raid formalities. PW6 during his
examination more or less stands by the prosecution case.
19. PW1, Director, Department of Industrial Development,
New Delhi, deposed that she had gone through the materials in the
case and, after considering the allegations against the accused and
the circumstances, granted sanction for prosecution of A1 vide
Ext. PW1/A Sanction Order.
20. PW8, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption
branch is stated to have conducted the initial investigation in the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 23 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
case. PW7, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti-Corruption
branch, deposed that when he took over, the entire investigation
had already been completed by PW8 and so he prepared the final
report and submitted the same before the court.
21. The prosecution relies on the testimony of PW2, PW4
and PW6 to prove the case. The question is, whether the same is
sufficient/satisfactory to establish the prosecution case? According
to PW2, on 06.06.1989, at around 10:00 a.m., he spoke to Amit
Verma, Superintendent (SP), CBI and conveyed his grievance. As
directed by the SP, he proceeded to the office of the CBI, where he
reached by about 11:00 AM. He then held discussions with the SP.
Thereafter, he reduced his complaint into writing, that is, Ext.
PW2/D. Thereafter the formalities in connection with his
complaint were completed by the officials concerned. However,
the FIR in this case is seen registered at 10:30 a.m. So, was the
crime registered even before PW2 had lodged his complaint? No
clarification has been sought by the prosecutor in the re-
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 24 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
examination to the aforesaid testimony of PW2.
22. According to PW2, the amount of ₹ 10,000/- to be
offered as bribe during the trap was brought by him and handed
over to PW6. But PW4, one of the panch witness, deposed that an
official of the CBI had brought the amount from the bank. Further,
going by the version of PW2, on 06.06.1989 at 12:30 PM, when
the meeting at Hotel Marina, Connaught Palace, Delhi took place
between him and A1, both the panch witnesses and PW6 the TLO,
were present and that they sat at about a distance of 06 to 08 feet
away from him. But, according to PW4, before he reached the
office of the CBI at 11:00 a.m., PW2 and the TLO had already left
for the hotel and they came back by around 12:00-12:30 p.m.
23. According to the prosecution, there are two audio cassette
recordings, one in which the conversation between PW2 and A1
and thereafter between PW2 and A2 had been recorded. The trial
court declined to rely on the first audio tape conversation between
PW2 and A1 due to poor audio quality and as many portions of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 25 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
cassette was inaudible. However, the trial court proceeded to rely
on the second audio tape which is supposed to have recorded the
conversation between PW2 and A2. However, it is clear from the
transcript that is alleged to have been prepared regarding the said
conversation, the same is also not fully audible at several portions.
So the same logic applied for the first audio cassette will have to
be applied to the second one too. Further, admittedly when the
seal of the audio cassettes was broken and the transcript prepared,
no order from the Court concerned had been taken. The tapes were
all along with the CBI. It is not clear as to who was in possession
of the seal that is alleged to have been used for sealing the packets
containing the audio cassettes. Moreover, according to PW2, when
the transcript of the conversation was prepared 20 days after the
raid, the panch witnesses were present. However, if PW4 is to be
believed, he along with the other witness, namely Amarnath were
very much present, but PW2 was absent. Admittedly, no sample
voice of either A1 or A2 had been taken and hence no comparison
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 26 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
of the sample voices with the voices heard in the audio cassette
was done. Obtaining an expert opinion on this aspect would have
certainly gone a long way in substantiating the case. However, for
reasons best known to the investigating officer, no such step is
seen taken.
24. The other panch witness, namely, Amarnath was also not
examined. It is seen from the records that he was present on a few
days before the trial court, but for some reasons he could not be
examined. Later, it was reported that he was unavailable as he had
settled abroad. However, no coercive step is seen taken by the trial
court to secure his presence. It is true that evidence has to be
weighed and not counted. Therefore, merely because one of the
witnesses is not examined, that would not automatically lead to an
acquittal. However, in the light of the aforesaid anomalies, the
examination of Amarnath, the alleged recovery witness, would
certainly have been advantageous to the prosecution.
25. At the risk of repetition, I refer to a portion of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 27 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
testimony of PW2 which reads:-
” During my conversation with accused Swami, we did not discuss
filling up of new applications for grant of licence pertaining to our project.
However, there was a discussion to the effect that Mr. Swami would prepare
fresh representation for the revival of our application for licence already
rejected. Accused Swami did say that he would charge fee for consultation
and services rendered in this regard. He further talked about the mode of
payment of consultancy charges etc. It was also discussed that accused
Swami would accept payments of consultancy charges in installments. On
my enquiry about consultancy charges, initially accused Swami said that his
charges would be ₹ 80,000. He also stated that depending upon the nature
of the project, his charges may raise from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000. Accused
Swami did not ask me specifically about the initial payment of installment of
consultancy charges. It is correct that when these talks were going on,
accused Swami, demanded Rs. 10,000 and I gave Rs. 10,000 to him.
Thereafter, accused Swami, kept said money in some bag, where I kept my
handbag.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Again, no clarification is seen sought by the prosecutor during the
re-examination of PW2. So, was it consultancy charges demanded
by A2 Swami that had been handed over by PW2 on the said day?
Doubts certainly arise in the light of the aforesaid testimony of
PW2.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 28 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
26. Yet another inconsistency seen in the testimony of PW2
is regarding the telephone call he is alleged to have made on
06.06.1989 to A1 during which call, the rendezvous at Hotel
Marina in the afternoon of the said day is alleged to have been
fixed. Going by Ext. PW2/A complaint, PW2 on 06.06.1989 at
10:00 AM rang up A1 over phone at which time A1 told him quite
categorically that the work could not be done for anything less
than ₹30,000/- and had also asked the former to meet the latter at
12:30 PM in Hotel Marina, Connaught place where they could
have further discussions including the mode of payment. But PW2,
in the box has no such case. He deposed that on 06.06.1989 he
never called anybody before he spoke to Anil Verma, the S.P.,
CBI. If that be so, how was the meeting on 06.06.1989 with A1
fixed? Apart from the testimony of PW2, there is only the
testimony of PW4, one of the panch witnesses, who also does not
fully support the prosecution case. It is true that merely because a
witness is partially hostile to the prosecution case, that is no
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 29 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
ground to disbelieve him entirely. If the remaining portions of his
testimony is credible and inspires confidence in the mind of the
court, can certainly be relied on. However, the admissions and
inconsistencies in the testimony of PW2; the non-examination of
the other panch witness; the hostility of PW4 etc., raise several
doubts in the mind of this court. There is no doubt that a grave or
strong suspicion has been made out against the appellant/A1. But,
suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
27. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the evidence on
record to be unsatisfactory to find the appellant/A1 guilty of the
offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I
find that the trial court erred in relying on the aforesaid
unsatisfactory evidence to conclude regarding the guilt of the
accused.
28. Before I conclude, I refer to certain patent
infirmities/illegalities committed by the trial court. The 161
statements of the prosecution witnesses are seen marked as Exts.
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 30 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
PW2/DB; Mark A; Ext. PW6/DA etc. This in complete ignorance
of the provisions of Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. The statements
made under Section 161 are statements made to the police during
the course of investigation and the same cannot be used except for
the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C. Under
the proviso to Section 162 (1) Cr.P.C., such statements can be used
only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the
manner indicated in Section 145 of the Evidence Act and for no
other purpose. They cannot be used for the purpose of seeking
corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in
Court. (See Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012;
Satpal v. Delhi Administration, 1976 (1) SCC 727 and Delhi
Administration. v. Lakshman Kumar 1985 KHC 741: (1985) 4
SCC 476).
28.1. The wholescale marking of the statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. without resorting to the procedure contemplated under
Section 145 of the Evidence Act has been deprecated in Bhagwan
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 31 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 214; Mohanan v. State
of Kerala, 1989 KHC 603: ILR 1990 (3) Ker 801 and
Thankappan Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 1990 KHC 5: ILR
1990 (2) Ker 22)
29. Further, coming to Ext. PW2/K, which is stated to be the
“disclosure statement” of A2. It reads:-
” RC No 28 (A)/89 DLI
Disclosure Memo (Under Section 27 I.E.Act)
In the presence of signatories to this memo including independent witnesses
Shri Amar Nath, AE Cables MTNL Lakshmi Nagar Telephone Exchange
Delhi and Shri Balwant Singh Rana, LDC, NIC, Planning Commission, A
Block, CGO complex New Delhi, accused Shri A S M Swamy s/o Shri A R S
Iyer r/o 118C, DDA flats, MIG, Rajouri Garden, Near Subhash Nagar
More, New Delhi arrested in the above said case in police custody, today i.e
6-6-89 at about 7 PM voluntarily disclosed as under
“The bribe money of Rs 10,000/- which I had accepted from one Shri
S. Rajender on the directions of Shri R.K. Chopra, Desk Officer,
Ministry of Industry, Udyog Bhavan, N. Delhi today will be collected
by Shri R.K. Chopra from my residence in Rajouri Garden after 8.30
p.m today.”
Hence the disclosure Memo is prepared accordingly in Room No 307 at 2nd
floor of Y.M.C.A Hostel, Ashoka Road, N Delhi.
(Signature)
Dy.S.P.,CBI
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 32 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
A.C.B.N. Delhi”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. According to the appellant/A1, “the aforesaid disclosure
memo found admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act by
the trial court as a discovery of a fact is improbable since –
a. In the alleged voice recording sought to be relied upon by the
Prosecution A2 – ASM Swamy clearly stated that he would not be
meeting the appellant on 06.06.19890.
b. Even otherwise, the disclosure is inadmissible in terms of
Sections 25-27 IEA since it did not lead to any recovery. In any
case, the disclosure made by A2 – ASM Swamy cannot be used
against the appellant in view of Section 30 IEA.”
30.1. The learned Special Public Prosecutor asserted that the
aforesaid disclosure statement is certainly admissible because on
the basis of the disclosure statement given by A2 Swami, the fact
that A1 was waiting in the house of the former is a fact discovered,
and hence admissible in evidence.
31. I am afraid I disagree with the aforesaid arguments. The
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 33 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
finding of the trial court that the aforesaid disclosure statement is
admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is apparently a
perverse finding for the following reasons. Section 27 of the
Evidence Act reads –
“27. How much of information received from accused may
be proved.–Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as
discovered inconsequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.”
31.1. This Section is an exception to Sections 25 and 26,
which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or
a confession made by a person who is in police custody unless it is
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows
that part of the statement made by the accused to the police
“whether it amounts to a confession or not” which relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus, even a
confession statement before the police, which distinctly relates to
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 34 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
the discovery of a fact may be proved under Section 27. The extent
of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of
the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate.
The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as
to the past user, or the past history of the object produced is not
related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
Information supplied by a person in custody, ” I will produce a
knife concealed in the roof of my house ” leads to the discovery of
the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to
his knowledge and the knife is proved to have been used to the
commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very much
relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added ‘with
which I stabbed a’, these words are inadmissible since they do not
relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.
(See K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 35 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
1962 SC 1788).
31.2. In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, AIR
1999 SC 1293, the Apex Court relying on the dictum in Pulikuri
Kottaya, AIR 1947 PC 676 held that the discovery of fact referred
to in S.27 of the Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the
fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered and the
knowledge of the accused as to it. The ratio in Pulikuri
Kottaya (Supra) has received unreserved approval in successive
decisions of the Apex Court and to name a few – in Jaffar
Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, (1969) 2 SCC 872;
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1962
SC 1788; Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka
(1983) 2 SCC 330; Shamshul Kanwar v. State of U.P. (1995) 4
SCC 430; State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC
675 and also in several other later decisions.
31.3. The manner of proving the disclosure statement under
S.27 of the Evidence Act has been the subject matter of
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 36 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
consideration by the Apex Court in various judgments, some of
which are being referred to. The statement which is admissible
under S.27 is the one which is the information leading to
discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the
same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the
police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the
accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has
to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the
accused and the prosecution that information given should be
recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information
must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in
S.27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if
any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any
information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a
guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The
information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 37 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information.
No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is
confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates
to the fact thereby discovered”. But the information to get
admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or
incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be
consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused
led the police and the witnesses to the place where he had
concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given.
(Bodh Raj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45).
31.4. In Babu Saheba Goudar Radragoudar v. State of
Karnataka, 2024 KHC 6222: AIR 2024 SC 2252, it has been
held that the statement of an accused recorded by a police officer
under S.27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of
confession of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer
during interrogation which has been taken down in writing. The
confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 38 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in
evidence as laid down by this Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125. Thus,
when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness box for
proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate
what the accused stated to him. The Investigating Officer
essentially testifies about the conversation held between himself
and the accused which has been taken down into writing leading to
the discovery of incriminating fact(s).
31.5. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, 1983 (1) SCC 143, it was held that if evidence
otherwise confessional in character is admissible under S.27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer
to state and record who gave the information; when he is dealing
with more than one accused, what words were used by him so that
a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected
to the person giving the information so as to provide incriminating
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 39 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
evidence against that person.
32. Therefore, it is only that part of the statement which
distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact that is admissible. It
would also be apposite to refer to the dictum in Joseph v. State of
Kerala, ILR 1997 (3) Kerala 632, which was a case involving
offences punishable under Section 457, 379 read with Section 34
IPC. One piece of evidence the prosecution relied on in the said
case was a recovery alleged to have been made at the instance of
the accused. After the arrest of the accused in the said case, the
prosecution alleged that he had given a statement to the effect, that
if he is taken to a shop, he would point out the person to whom he
had sold the necklace. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court
in Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1976
SC 483, Jaffar Hussain Dastagir v. State of Maharashtra, 1971
NLJ Criminal 212 and Himachal Pradesh Administration v.
Shri Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975, it was held that the
aforesaid statement is inadmissible as any statement to be
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 40 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
admissible under Section 27 of the IEA must lead to a discovery of
fact which was found wanting in the disclosure statement of the
accused. The “fact discovered” means not only the physical object
produced but also the place from which it is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to this. Only such portion of the
information given as is distinctly connected with the recovery is
admissible against the accused and that the discovery of fact must
relate to the commission of some offence and the essential
ingredient to the Section is that the information given by the
accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct
outcome of such information. What should be discovered is a
material fact and the information that is admissible is that which
has caused that discovery so as to connect the information and the
fact with each other as the cause and effect. That information
which does not distinctly connect with the fact discovered or that
portion of the information which merely explains the material
being discovered is not admissible under Section 27 of the
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 41 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
Evidence Act and cannot be proved. A witness cannot be said to be
discovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act though the
statement of the accused may be taken into consideration as
conduct relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
33. Reference to yet another decision would be profitable in
the circumstances of the case. In A.P. Chandran v. the CB CID,
Wayanad CRL.A. No. 1575 of 2006, High Court of Kerala
(2023 : KER : 12855), one of the accused persons was alleged to
have stated that if he is taken, he would point out the residence of
another accused. Relying on Joseph (supra), it was held that the
same was not a statement which is admissible under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act.
34. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the
materials of record is insufficient to find the appellant/A1 guilty of
the offences charged against him beyond reasonable doubt and that
he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
35. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant/A1 is
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 42 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58
acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.PC of the Charge under Section
120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the PC Act. He shall be set at liberty and his bail bond shall stand
cancelled.
36. Application(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 28, 2026
Rs/mj
Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 359/2002 Page 43 of 43
Signed By:KOMAL
DHAWAN
Signing Date:28.04.2026
12:02:58