Delhi District Court
State vs Jauhari Singh Etc on 10 April, 2026
DLCT110002602023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No.: DLCT11-000260-2023
CC No.: 19/2023
FIR No.: 04/2018
U/s: 7/8/13 (1)(d) of PC Act
r/w S. 120-B IPC
PS: Vigilance
STATE
Vs.
1. Jauhari Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Shiv Charan Singh,
R/o Village Nagalia, PS Jewar,
PO Jahangirpur,
Distt. Gautambudh Nagar, UP
2. Pradeep Bhardwaj,
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishore Bhardwaj,
R/o H.No. 215, Near Shiv Mandir,
Brahmin Para, VPO Burari,
Delhi-110084.
Date of Institution : 24.03.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 14.03.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.04.2026
Appearances:
For the State : Sh. Ravindra Kumar
Ld. Chief PP for the State
For Accused : Sh. Bhavook Chauhan,
Jauhari Singh Advocate.
For accused : Sh. R. K. Burman, Advocate.
Pradeep Bhardwaj
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 92
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. Table of Contents Pages
1. Brief Facts of the Case 2-12
2. Cognizance 12
3. Charge 13
4. Prosecution Evidence 13-21
5. Statements u/s 313 Cr.PC. of 21- 25
Accused Persons
6. Arguments 25-36
7. Analysis & Findings 36-84
8. Conclusion 84-85
9. Appendix-I 86-87
10. Appendix-II 88-91
11. Appendix-III 92
1. The accused persons named hereinabove were facing trial
in respect of offences punishable u/s 7/13(1)(d) of
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter called
as ‘PC Act‘] r/w S.120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1980
[hereinafter called as ‘IPC‘].
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 On 21.05.2018, complainant namely Sh. Vijay
Singh (PW2) came to Vigilance Office and met
ACP/VIU with a complaint related to corruption,CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 92
on which, ACP Vigilance called Inspector Pankaj
Sharma (PW11) to his office and instructed him to
take necessary action on the said complaint. At that
time, panch witness, namely Sh. Manish Sharma,
Sr. Assistant NDMC (PW3), was also present
there. In the presence of said panch witness, the
complainant gave handwritten complaint
(Ex.PW2/A) to Insp. Pankaj Sharma, stating therein
that he used to work at National Insurance
Company. For the past few days, there used to be
quarrels between him and his wife who used to
trouble him, due to which, he had made many
complaints to the police officials, but no action was
taken on them. Thereafter, he had filed a case
against his wife at Tis Hazari Courts and when his
wife came to know about the case, she threatened
him that she would make a false complaint against
him with the police and he would loose his job.
It further alleged that on 16.05.2018, his wife
namely Smt. Kusum Lata came to his office and
started fighting with him, on which, he made a
PCR call at 100 number; and two police officials
came there and took him and his wife to PS Bara
Hindu Rao, where they were made to sit in front of
ASI Jauhari Singh (accused no.1 herein).
Thereafter, he was sent outside and said ASI spoke
to his wife for half an hour and then, his wife was
sent outside and he was called inside and said
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 92
ASI told him that he would send him to jail for
6 months on the complaint of his wife and
demanded ₹10,000/- to hush up the matter.
It further alleged that at that time, he had ₹6,000/-
only, which was taken by ASI Jauhari Singh, who
thereafter pressurized the complainant to give
remaining amount of ₹4,000/-. The complainant
sought 2-3 days’ time to pay the remaining amount.
It further alleged that thereafter, ASI Jauhari Singh
called the complainant many times from his mobile
no.9911227950 to his mobile no.9711367682,
but he did not take the calls out of fear.
The complainant stated that he was against bribery
and therefore, he had come to the Vigilance Office
and he had brought the demanded amount of
₹4,000/- along with him and wanted action to be
taken against ASI Jauhari Singh.
2.2 After verifying the facts from the complainant,
the panch witness signed the complaint, which was
also attested by Insp. Pankaj Sharma/Raiding
Officer (RO). The complainant also handed over an
amount of ₹4,000/- consisting of two GC notes in
the denomination of ₹2,000/- each to the RO,
whose serial numbers were checked by the panch
witness, and thereafter, were recorded in
the pre-raid report. The serial numbers of the said
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 92
GC Notes, as per the prosecution case, were (1)
5BE 976455, and (2) 7KG 400419.
2.3 After applying Phenolphthalein Powder on the
above currency notes, they were made to touch
with right hand of panch witness and right hand
wash of panch witness, was taken in colourless
solution of Sodium Carbonate, on which, color of
the solution turned pink. In this way, by giving
such demonstration, the speciality/properties of
said powder were explained to the complainant and
panch witness that whosoever would touch these
GC notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder, or
would keep them at any place, then, on taking wash
of hands of such person(s) or place, in colourless
solution of sodium carbonate, it would turn pink.
Thereafter, the above powder-coated GC notes
were handed over to the complainant, with strict
instruction not to keep anything else, whereafter,
the complainant kept them in left side pocket of his
shirt. The complainant was also instructed to keep
panch witness with him, so that he (panch witness)
can clearly hear the conversation of bribe
transaction and can clearly see the bribe
transaction. The complainant was also instructed to
give the bribe amount only when asked for,
otherwise not. The panch witness was also
instructed to remain with the complainant and to
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 92
listen and watch carefully the conversation about
bribe and the transaction of bribe between the
complainant and ASI Jauhari Singh and as soon as
he is sure that the bribe amount has actually been
demanded and received, he should give signal by
moving his right hand twice over his head.
The pink colour solution, shown during
demonstration, was thrown away and the glass, as
also the hands of the panch witness and
complainant, were washed with clean water and
soap and kept dry and the bottle of Phenolphthalein
Powder was closed and was handed over to the
Duty Officer.
2.4 After completing the necessary formalities,
the raiding party consisting of Inspector Pankaj
Sharma, ASI Subhash Chander, ASI Kailash, ASI
Narender, HC Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Laxmi Narain
(driver) along with complainant and panch witness
namely Sh. Manish Sharma, left for the spot at
12:15 p.m. in government vehicle make Maruti
Van, bearing Registration no. DL-1CJ-5549.
They reached at Azad Market Red Light Chowk at
1:10 p.m., where Inspector Pankaj Sharma sent the
complainant and panch witness to PS Hindu Bara
Rao, after giving them proper instructions.
Inspector Pankaj Sharma deputed members of the
raiding party around the said PS and he himself
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 92
followed them keeping a proper distance.
The complainant and panch witness went to the
said police station accordingly. The panch witness
was also instructed that in case he is unable to give
pre-determined signal, then, he should give missed
call on the mobile.
2.5 At about 1:50 p.m., panch witness informed
Inspector Pankaj Sharma that bribe amount had
been given by the complainant, on which, Inspector
Pankaj Sharma along with his team members
immediately entered PS Hindu Bara Rao, and met
with the complainant. As soon as Inspector Pankaj
Sharma reached Duty Officer’s room with the
complainant, the complainant told him in front of
the panch witness and indicated that on the
instructions of ASI Jauhari Singh, he had given the
bribe amount of ₹4,000/- to the person wearing a
greyish T-shirt, whose name, later on, was
disclosed as ‘HC Pradeep Bhardwaj,
No.341/North’ (accused no. 2). Meanwhile,
ASI Jauhari Singh also came to the DO Room.
Thereafter, Inspector Pankaj Sharma took both-
ASI Jauhari Singh and HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, in
the room of ASI Jauhari Singh, situated on the first
floor, where, he introduced himself to both of them
and offered his personal search and that of the
members of the raiding party, but, they chose not to
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 92
conduct personal search of either of the members
of raiding party, including RO. On the instructions
of RO/Inspector Pankaj Sharma, the panch witness
had conducted the search, and bribe amount of
₹4,000/- was recovered from left fist of accused
ASI Jauhari Singh; and on comparing the serial
numbers of recovered GC notes with that of the
pre-raid report, the same numbers of GC Notes of
₹2,000/- each, which were already mentioned in
the pre-raid report, were found. Thereafter, said
two notes were taken into police custody as
evidence by Inspector Pankaj Sharma.
Thereafter, wash of right and left hands of accused
ASI Jauhari Singh was taken in colourless solution
of sodium carbonate, on which, the colour of
solution turned pink. The said wash of both his
hands was poured into two separate clean bottles;
the bottles were closed with the help of cork and
lid; tied with a cloth and thread and were sealed
with the seal “P.S.” and were marked Exhibit
RHW-II (right hand) and LHW-II (left hand).
2.6 Subsequent thereto, wash of right and left hands of
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, who had allegedly
taken bribe money from the complainant, on the
instructions of accused ASI Jauhari Singh, was also
taken in colourless solution of sodium carbonate,
on which, the colour of solution also turned pink.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 92
The same were also seized in the same manner as
stated hereinbefore and were marked as LHW-I and
RHW-I. Inspector Pankaj Sharma took possession
of all the said four bottles and that of the sample
seal by making separate seizures.
2.7 On receipt of information, IO/ Inspector Anil
Sharma (PW15) reached at the spot i.e.
PS Bara Hindu Rao and met with Inspector Pankaj
Sharma, who briefed him about the raid that the
accused persons were caught red handed while
accepting the bribe from the complainant.
After explaining the circumstances, Inspector
Pankaj Sharma handed over the custody of the
accused persons; and the case properties to IO,
who had conducted further investigation.
2.8 It is further the case of the prosecution that during
investigation, site plan (without scale) was
prepared at the instance of complainant; IO made
enquiries from the complainant and panch witness,
who disclosed the entire incident to him, including
that bribe of ₹10,000/- was demanded by accused
ASI Jauhari Singh from the complainant
concerning the complaint filed by his wife;
payment of ₹6,000/- to the said accused and then
repeated demand of remaining amount of ₹4,000/-
by accused ASI Jauhari Singh; and on complaint of
complainant, raid being conducted by Inspector
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 92
Pankaj Sharma and both the accused persons
namely HC Pradeep and ASI Jauhari Singh having
been caught red handed while accepting the bribe
from the complainant, after demanding the same.
2.9 Thereafter, IO took both the accused persons,
the complainant and the panch witness to the office
of Vigilance Branch at 6:15 p.m. and interrogated
the accused persons. Duty Officer/ASI Surender
Singh (PW4) handed over copy of FIR and
complaint in original to IO/Inspector Anil Sharma,
who after going through the same and in view of
investigation and the evidences collected during
investigation, he arrested both the accused persons
and prepared their respective arrest memos and
personal search memos. The exhibits were
deposited with MHC (M), PS Vigilance Branch,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and statements of
the witnesses were recorded.
2.10 During further investigation, IO got recorded
statement under S. 164 Cr.P.C of the complainant,
before concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, THC,
Delhi-04 and collected copy thereof.
2.11 During further investigation, IO got deposited
exhibits of hand wash with FSL, Rohini on
04-06-2018 for their examination and
subsequently, got collected the result on
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 92
27-06-2018, according to which, Exhibits-
RHW-1, LHW-1, RHW-II, LHW-II were found to
contain ‘phenolphthalein’ and ‘sodium carbonate’.
2.12 Further, the certified copies of ownership details,
Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Customer
Application Forms (CAFs) of relevant mobile nos.
i.e. 9711367682 and 9899948315 (of complainant
namely Sh. Vijay Singh), 9911227950 (of accused
ASI Jauhari Singh), and 8178287493 (of accused
HC Pardeep Bhardwaj) were collected from
Nodal Officer(s) of concerned Telecom Companies
and on their analysis, it was found that accused
ASI Jauhari Singh had made 5 calls from his
mobile no. 9911227950 to Mrs. Kusum Lata,
(wife of complainant/Sh. Vijay Singh) on her
mobile no. 9899948315 from 16-05-2018 till
22-05-2018 and accused ASI Jauhari Singh had
also spoken to the wife of complainant on mobile
phone on 17-05-2018 also, whereas, PCR Call was
made on 16.05.2018, which was recorded, vide
DD No.38B.
2.13 It is further the case of the prosecution that on
analysis of call detail records in respect of mobile
numbers used by accused ASI Jauhari Singh and
accused HC Pradeep, it was also revealed that on
21.05.2018 at 13:29:12 hours, when the trap was
laid, accused HC Pradeep had spoken to accused
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 92
ASI Jauhari Singh through aforesaid mobile
phones, which also stood corroborated by the
statements of complainant and panch witness.
Further, as per CDRs, the location of accused
HC Pradeep was also found at PS Bara Hindu Rao
(under Cell Tower at Pul Bangash Metro Station,
Delhi) during PCR Call, vide DD No.18A –
DD No.32A. Thereafter, the location of accused
HC Pardeep was shown at Village Burari, at about
21:07:07 hours.
2.14 Sanctions for prosecution under S. 19 PC Act in
respect of both the accused, were accorded on
01-03-2023. After completion of investigation,
both the accused persons were charge-sheeted for
the offences punishable under S. 7/13(1)(d) PC Act
and 8/13(1)(d) PC Act.
2.15 It may be noted here that both the accused persons
were granted bail during investigation.
COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of the offences punishable under S. 7/8/13(1)
(d) of PC Act was taken against both the accused persons
by Ld. Predecessor of this Court and they were summoned
to face trial, as per proceedings dated 01.04.2023.
Thereafter, both the accused persons put their appearance
before the Court.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 92
CHARGE
4. After hearing submissions made on behalf of both the
accused persons and the State, prima facie case for the
offences punishable u/s 120 B IPC, and S. 7/13(1)(d) of PC
Act read with S. 120 B IPC was ordered to be made out,
vide detailed order dated 09-06-2023, passed by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court. Accordingly, charge for the said
offences was framed against both the accused persons on
09-06-2023, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as
many as 16 witnesses during trial, after which, PE was
closed on 31.07.2025.
Material Witnesses:
6. The prosecution has examined the following material
witnesses:-
6.1 PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh is the complainant.
He proved his complaint, as Ex.PW2/A, pre-raid
report, as Ex.PW2/B, raid report, as Ex.PW2/C,
seizure memos of glass bottles containing both
hand wash of both the accused persons, as
Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E, seizure memo of
recovered GC notes from the possession of
accused, as Ex.PW2/F, arrest memos of both the
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 92
accused persons, as Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H,
their personal search memos, as Ex.PW2/I and
Ex.PW2/J, and his statement under S. 164 Cr.PC.,
as Ex.PW2/K. Apart from that, on being shown
the case properties, he also identified two GC
Notes of ₹2,000/- each, as Ex.P1 (Colly.),
exhibits pertaining to left and right hands wash of
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj and accused ASI
Jauhari Singh, as Ex.P2, P3, P4 and P5 respectively
during trial.
6.1.1 PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP
for State, as he was not disclosing the
complete facts. During such cross
examination, he admitted some of the facts
put to him, whereas, denied some other facts,
which shall be discussed hereinafter while
appreciating the evidence, led during trial
and while recording the findings.
6.1.2 PW2 was also cross-examined on behalf of
both the accused, which shall also be
discussed hereinafter.
6.2 PW-3 Sh. Manish Sharma is the panch witness.
On being shown the case properties, he identified
two GC Notes of ₹2,000/- each, exhibits pertaining
to left and right hand wash of accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj and accused ASI Jauhari Singh,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 92
as Ex.P1 (Colly.), P2, P3, P4 and P5 respectively.
6.2.1 PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. Chief PP
for the State, as he was not disclosing the
complete facts. During such cross-
examination, he admitted some of the facts
put to him, whereas, denied some other facts,
which shall be discussed hereinafter.
6.2.2 PW3 was also cross-examined on behalf of
both the accused, which shall also be
discussed hereinafter.
6.3 PW6 Sh. Shailendra Yadav, Senior Scientific
Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi is the
witness, who had conducted chemical and TLC
examination on the exhibits ‘RHC-1’, ‘LHW-1’,
‘RHW-II’ and ‘LHW-II’. He proved his detailed
report, as Ex.PW6/A. As per said report, the said
exhibits were found to contain ‘phenolphthalein’
and ‘sodium carbonate’.
6.4 PW9 ASI Rajesh Kumar, the then Head Constable
in the Vigilance Branch, Delhi, was member of the
raiding party, and is a witness to the fact that he
had taken Tehrir to PS Vigilance Branch, Delhi
from the spot i.e. PS Hindu Bara Rao and had
handed over the same to Duty Officer/
ASI Surender Singh for registration of FIR.
He deposed that he remained outside PS Bara
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 92
Hindu Rao, where the raid was conducted.
6.5 PW11 Inspector (since retired) Pankaj Sharma,
is the Raiding Officer, who had conducted the raid
on receipt of complaint from the complainant after
completing the necessary formalities. In addition to
other documents, he proved typed proceedings on
the back side of pre-raid report, as Ex.PW11/A,
proceedings noted down on the pre-raid report
regarding reaching at PS Bara Hindu Rao, as
Ex.PW11/B, and the Tehrir, as Ex.PW11/C.
Apart from other case properties, he also identified
the sample seal, as Ex.P6 during trial.
6.6 PW15 Inspector Anil Sharma is the Investigating
Officer, who had conducted the investigation after
raid proceedings and had filed the charge-sheet in
the Court. In addition to other documents,
he proved the site plan, as Ex.PW15/A, and his
application for recording statement under
S.164 Cr.PC of the complainant moved before
Ld. MM, as Ex.PW15/B.
6.7 PW16 Sh. Sagar Singh Kalsi, the then Deputy
Commissioner of Police (DCP), North District,
Delhi is the witness, who had accorded sanctions
under S. 19 PC Act against both the accused
persons and proved Sanction dated 24.02.2023
against accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, as
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 92
Ex.PW16/A and Sanction dated 24.02.2023 against
accused ASI Jauhari Singh, as Ex.PW16/B.
Formal/Police Witnesses:
7. The prosecution has examined the following formal
witnesses:-
7.1 PW1 Sh. Pawan Singh, is the Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Idea Ltd. who deposed that certified
copies of CAFs, CDRs and all supporting
documents pertaining to mobile nos.9711367682,
9911227950 and 9899948315, were provided by
Sh. Ajit Singh, the then Nodal Officer, on receipt
of notice u/s 91 Cr.PC., to the IO and identified
signatures of said Sh. Ajit Singh thereon.
He proved said notice u/s 91 Cr.PC, as Ex.PW1/A,
attested copies of CAFs of said mobile numbers, as
Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and certified
copies of CDRs of aforesaid three mobile numbers,
as Ex.PW1/E (Colly.), Certificate under S. 65B of
Indian Evidence Act in support of CDRs of
aforesaid three mobile numbers for the period from
16.05.2018 till 22.05.2018, as Ex.PW-1/F,
forwarding letter for supply of certified copies of
CDRs, CAFs and Certificate under S. 65B of
Indian Evidence Act, as Ex.PW1/G. He also
deposed that he could identify the signatures of
Sh. Ajit Singh, the then Nodal Officer, as he had
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 92
seen him signing and writing during the course of
his duties. He was cross-examined on behalf of
accused ASI Jauhari Singh, whereas, accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj chose not to cross-examine
him despite grant of an opportunity.
7.2 PW4 SI Surender Singh, the then Duty Officer
PS Vigilance Branch, Delhi, is the witness, who
had recorded the FIR. He proved his endorsement
regarding registration of FIR on Tehrir at Portion X
to X, as Ex.PW4/A, computerized copy of FIR, as
Ex.PW4/B, his Certificate under S. 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act, as Ex.PW4/C and copy of DD
No.5A, as Ex.PW4/D (OSR).
7.3 PW5 Sh. Yatin Chawla, is the alternate Nodal
Officer, Reliance JIO Infocom Ltd. He is the
witness regarding providing of certified copies of
CAF, and CDRs pertaining to mobile no.
8178287493, which was subscribed in the name of
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj. He proved attested
copy of CAF, CDRs thereof from 16.05.2018 to
22.05.2018, and its location chart, as Ex.PW5/A,
Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively.
Besides, he also proved forwarding letter and his
certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act in
respect of call details records, as Ex.PW5/D and
Ex.PW5/E respectively. However, he deposed that
mobile no. 9868116600 was not subscribed by his
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 92
company and the telecom company could not
provide details regarding the said mobile number,
as were sought by the IO.
7.4 PW7 HC Naveen Kumar, the then Constable
[Chitha Munshi (Deployment Officer)], at
PS Bara Hindu Rao, is the witness regarding
seizure of certified copies of DD Nos. 18 A and 38
A dated 16.05.2018, and duty rosters dated
16.05.2018 and 21.05.2018 by IO from him. He
proved attested copies of above- mentioned DD
entries and duty rosters dated 16.05.2018 and
21.05.2018, as Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and
Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively.
7.5 PW8 SI Jitender Singh, I.T. Centre, PHQ, New
Delhi is the witness, who had generated detailed
bio-data of both the accused persons. He proved the
same, as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B, and also
Certificate under S.65B of Indian Evidence Act in
respect of above said records, as Ex.PW8/C.
Despite opportunity, both the accused chose not to
cross-examine the said witness.
7.6 PW10 Sh. Rohit Handa, Senior Assistant,
New Delhi Municipal Council, Palika Kendra,
Parliament Street, New Delhi, proved copy of
Order No. SO (E)/2361/SA-III/218 dated
18.05.2018 passed by Smt. Anita Dayal,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 92
the then Joint Director (Estt.) for deputing
Sh. Manish Sharma as Panch Witness in the office
of ACB on 21-05-2018, as Ex.PW10/A.
7.7 PW12 Inspector Sagar Singh, (the then
Sub-Inspector at PS Vigilance Branch, Delhi),
is the MSI (M) with whom the case properties were
deposited by IO and on the instructions of IO, who
got deposited the same with FSL, Rohini for their
examination. He proved copy of relevant page of
Register No.19 containing entry no.114,
as Ex.PW12/A; and the entry regarding deposit of
exhibits with FSL at Portion X to X and Y to Y,
in Ex.PW12/A. He also proved copies of RC
[Register No.21] and acknowledgment, as Ex.12/C.
He categorically deposed that the case properties
were not tampered with till the same remained in
his custody.
7.8 PW13 SI Naresh Kumar, the then Line Officer,
Vigilance Branch, Barakhamba Road, Delhi is
witness, who had supplied copy of logbook dated
21.05.2018 in respect of Vehicle No.DL1CJ-5549
[official vehicle used by the raiding party] and
proved copy thereof, as Ex.PW13/A.
7.9 PW14 Ct. Sandeep is the witness, who, on the
instructions from MSI (M) concerned, had taken
the case properties i.e. four sealed pulandas
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 92
(bottles) along with one forwarding letter and had
deposited the same with FSL Rohini,
and thereafter, had handed over acknowledgment
issued by FSL Rohini, to MSI (M) concerned, after
depositing the said case properties with FSL
Rohini, Delhi.
8. At this juncture, it may be noted here that as per the
proceedings dated 09-06-2023, Ld. Defence Counsel of
accused persons had submitted that they did not wish to
admit any document under S. 294 Cr.PC. However,
subsequently, admission/denial of documents was
conducted under S. 294 Cr.PC on behalf of accused
persons on 31-07-2025, during which, both the accused
persons admitted the proceedings u/s 164 Cr.PC conducted
by Ld. MM, without admitting the contents thereof.
Their separate statements were recorded in this regard.
In view thereof and also in view of statement of
Ld. Addl. PP for State, the prosecution witness mentioned
at Sr. No.9 in the list of prosecution witnesses,
was dropped and PE was closed.
STATEMENTS UNDER S. 313 CR.PC OF ACCUSED
PERSONS:
9. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate
statements under S. 313 Cr.PC of both the accused persons
were recorded by Ld. Predecessor of this Court,
wherein accused persons denied correctness of all the
incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 92
them and stated that they were innocent and had been
falsely implicated in this case.
9.1 Accused Jauhari Singh admitted that the complaint
made by wife of complainant was dealt with by
him, however, he stated that rest of the allegations
made by complainant are false. He also stated that
the Panch Witness (PW3), did not visit
PS Bara Hindu Rao on 21.05.2018. He further
stated that it is a matter of record that he had
attended a PCR call on 16.05.2018, as recorded in
DD No. 18A, however, he did not remember
number of calls made between him and
Ms. Kusum Lata on 16.05.2018. He further stated
that he might have either attended calls made by
her, or might have responded to her missed calls.
The evidence on record would show that
co-accused Pradeep Bhardwaj was not even present
at PS Bara Hindu Rao at the relevant time. He also
stated that contents of DD No.18A, 38B dated
16.05.2018, duty rosters and bio data, are matter of
record. Regarding sanction, he stated that
PW16 was not competent to grant sanction under
S. 19 PC Act for prosecution against him and that
the said sanction had been granted by him without
application of mind and thus, the same was invalid
in law. He also stated that the prosecution
witnesses are interested witnesses and had deposed
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 92
falsely against him. He further stated that it was a
false and frivolous case and he was innocent.
He has not committed any offence. The entire case
against him was instituted on the basis of false and
fabricated allegations made by the complainant and
that the investigating agency had also not
conducted the investigation in fair and impartial
manner. He further stated that on 16.05.2018, when
the complaint of dispute between the complainant
and his wife, had been marked to him, PW2 was
misbehaving and using foul language against his
wife in his presence, pursuant to which, he had
made him to sit in a squatting position.
The complainant had made false complaint against
him out of vengeance. The evidence on record
would show that complaint was drafted by the
complainant on the instructions of police officials
at PS Vigilance on 18.05.2018.He had neither
demanded, nor accepted any illegal gratification
from the complainant at any point of time, nor
there was any recovery of alleged money effected
from him. PW3 was not even present at
PS Bara Hindu Rao on 21.05.2018 and no
document had been prepared at PS Bara Hindu Rao
on 21.05.2018 and subsequently, various memos
and documents had been prepared at PS Vigilance.
However, he chose not to lead any evidence in his
defence.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 92
9.2 Accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj stated in his
statement that this is a false and fabricated case and
he is innocent. He stated that he has not committed
any offence and the entire case against him was
instituted on the basis of false and fabricated
allegations made by complainant and also that the
investigation agency had also not conducted the
investigation in fair and impartial manner.
He further stated that he did not know what
transpired between the complainant and accused
ASI Jauhari Singh. The GC notes were not handed
over to him in the manner, as alleged, however,
PW2 had handed over two GC notes to him while
shaking his hand with him and he told PW2 to give
them to the concerned person and not to him.
However, he also chose not to lead any evidence in
his defence.
10. It may be noted here that post recording of statements
under S. 313 Cr.PC of accused persons,
Court Witness namely HC Surender Kumar was examined
on 09.02.2026, who produced Personal File/ Character
Roll of accused Jauhari Singh, containing Office Order
No.68842-920/CB-IV/PHQ dated 13.11.2016, according to
which, the said accused was designated as ASI (Executive)
(Special Grade) by worthy Commissioner of Police in view
of Policy No. F.No.3/17/2016/HP-I/Estt./4394-4400 dated
28.10.2016. Thus, additional statements under S.313 Cr.PC
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 92
of both the accused persons were recorded, wherein they
adopted their same defence/explanation, as they had
already stated in their previous statements
under S.313 Cr.PC recorded on 12.08.2025, and chose not
to lead any defence evidence.
11. I have already heard Sh. Ravindra Kumar, Ld. Chief Public
Prosecutor for State, Sh. Bhavook Chauhan, Ld. Counsel
for accused Jauhari Singh and Sh. Rakesh Kumar Burman,
Ld. Counsel for accused Pradeep Bhardwaj. I have also
gone through the material available on record, including
the evidence led during trial, as also the written
submissions filed on behalf of accused Jauhari Singh and
the authorities cited at the Bar.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF BOTH THE
SIDES
12. After referring to the case of the prosecution, as mentioned
in the charge-sheet and the evidence led during trial,
Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State argued that
accused Jauhari Singh, who was posted at PS Bara Hindu
Rao at the relevant time, had demanded bribe amount of
₹10,000/- from the complainant namely Sh. Vijay Singh
(PW2) on 16.05.2018 to hush up the complaint made
against him by his wife and had accepted ₹6,000/- as bribe
money from him, and said accused was pressurizing him to
pay the balance bribe amount of ₹4,000/- and hence, the
complainant had approached the Vigilance Branch,
ACB and made complaint (Ex.PW2/A) against him.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 92
He contended that pursuant thereto, a raid was conducted
and upon demand for illegal gratification made by said
accused and on his instructions, the complainant had given
bribe amount of ₹4,000/- i.e. two GC notes of
denomination of ₹2,000/- each, to accused
Pradeep Bhardwaj, on which, both the accused were
caught red handed. He submitted that the bribe amount was
recovered from the possession of accused Jauhari Singh
and hand-wash of both the accused persons turned pink,
while using colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate.
He further contended that FSL Result regarding hand wash
of both the accused persons clearly establish the presence
of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate. He also
submitted that the raid proceedings have been described in
detail in his deposition by the complainant; and the
testimonies of panch witness (PW3) and Raid Officer
(PW11) duly corroborate the version of the complainant.
He further argued that the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses examined during trial and the documents proved
by them, cumulatively proves the guilt of both the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence, they are liable
to be held guilty for the offences they are charged with. He
also contended that minor variations are quite natural and
considering the age of the complainant and the time gap
after which his testimony was recorded, his testimony
should not be viewed with suspicion. He, therefore, urged
that both the accused persons should be convicted in this
case.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 92
13. The main arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel of accused
Jauhari Singh are adumbrated here as under:-
13.1 Sanction Order dated 24.02.2023 [Ex.PW16/B]
granted by PW16 namely Sh. Sagar Singh Kalsi,
the then DCP, under S. 19 PC Act for prosecution
of accused Jauhari Singh is invalid in law, as he
was incompetent to grant such sanction and it is
settled position of law that when sanction for
prosecution under S. 19 PC Act is granted by a
person not authorized in law, the same, being
without jurisdiction, would be a nullity and the
order, vide which the Court took cognizance on
such invalid sanction would be illegal and
therefore, such proceedings would be void ab
initio, in support of which submission, reliance was
also placed on cases titled as ‘G.S. Matharoo v.
CBI’ reported as 2012 (1) AD (Cri.) (DHC), 564;
‘MCD v. Ved Prakash Kanoji‘ bearing WP(C)
5544/2011, ‘State through CBI v. Ravinder Singh‘,
reported as 57 (1995) DLT 506, ‘General Officer’s
Commanding, Rashtriya Rifles v. CBI’ reported as
(2012) 6 SCC 228, and ‘State Inspector of Police,
Vishakhapatnam v. Surya Sankaram Karri‘,
reported as (2009) 8 SC 617, however, Ld. Counsel
fairly did not press said argument in view of the
testimony of Court Witness namely HC Surender
Kumar and Personal File/ Character Roll of said
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 92
accused, containing Office Order
No.68842-920/CB-IV/PHQ dated 13.11.2016 [Ex.
CW1/A] produced by him, as it would clearly
demonstrate that said accused was designated as
ASI (Executive) (Special Grade) by Commissioner
of Police, but was not promoted to the post of ASI
by the order of Commissioner of Police. Hence,
this Court need not delve upon the said argument
any further;
13.2 The prosecution agency has failed to obtain
sanction for prosecution of said accused under
S.197 of Cr.PC and therefore, even the cognizance
taken by the Court in respect of offence punishable
under S. 120-B IPC, is illegal and consequently, the
proceedings held pursuant thereto, would be void
ab initio. In support thereof, reliance is placed upon
the case titled as ‘State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Sheetla Sahai‘, reported as (2009) 8 SCC 617;
13.3 S. 154 Cr.P.C. mandates registration of an FIR on
receipt of information of a cognizable offence. It is
submitted that although allegations levelled against
the accused by the complainant in his complaint
Ex.PW2/A, were cognizable offences, yet, the
investigating agency failed to register the FIR and
proceeded to conduct searches and seizures and no
explanation whatsoever is coming forth for the
exigency for non-registration of the FIR and thus,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 92
the failure of the investigating agency to register
the FIR before conducting the investigation of the
alleged cognizable offences, carrying out searches
and making seizures, would vitiate the
investigation as illegal and such material shall be
inadmissible in evidence. In this regard, Ld.
Counsel has relied upon judgments in cases titled
as ‘N. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Karnataka‘ bearing
Crl. Petition No.5500/2013 decided on 23-01-2020;
‘P N Chandrashkar v. State of Karnataka’ bearing
Crl. Petition No. 7589/2019 decided on
28-06-2021; ‘Sarvesh v. State of Karnataka‘,
bearing Crl. Petition No. 100653/2020 decided on
10-09-2020 and ‘Suvarna v. State of Karnataka‘,
bearing Crl. Appeal No. 10054/2022 decided on
09-10-2024;
13.4 The prosecution has failed to prove ” demand” of
bribe amount by the said accused, which is an
essential ingredient of Section 7 of PC Act. It is
settled law that mere recovery of currency
notes/bribe amount without proof of demand would
not establish the offences u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) of
PC Act;
13.5 There are material contradictions, improvements
and embellishments in the testimony of the
complainant over his initial complaint; and the
testimony of complainant is not worthy of reliance.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 92
Moreover, the testimony of complainant is not
corroborated in material particulars;
13.6 Even the panch witness has not supported the
allegation of any demand having been made by the
said accused at the spot. Even otherwise, there are
contradictions in the testimonies of the raiding
team members, including the complainant, panch
witness, Raiding Officer on material aspects
relating to recovery of bribe money and the
hand-wash proceedings conducted during raid.
Further, the prosecution has not even been able to
prove acceptance of bribe amount by the said
accused. Thus, neither demand nor acceptance of
bribe amount by the said accused, has been
established on record and hence, he is entitled to be
acquitted of the offences he is charged with. In
support of such submissions, reliance is placed
upon judgments in the matters of ‘Panalal Damodar
Rathi v. State of Maharashtra‘ reported as AIR
(1979) SC 1191; ‘State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan
Lal Verma‘, reported as (2013) 14 SCC 153;
‘Mukut Bihari & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan’
reported as (2012) 11 SCC 641; and ‘ B. Jayaraj v.
State of Andhra Pradesh‘ reported as (2014) 13
SCC 55;
13.7 The alleged incriminating statements attributed to
the accused persons while they were in the custody
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 92
of the police, shall be inadmissible under S.26 of
the Indian Evidence Act, for which, reliance is
placed upon judgment in the case of ‘Toofan Singh
v. State of Tamil Nadu’ reported (2021) 4 SCC 1.
The statements made by the witnesses attributing
any alleged demand or acceptance by the said
accused, shall be inadmissible as hearsay evidence,
in support of which submission, reliance is
made on case titled as ‘Kalyan Kumar Gagoi
v. Ashutosh Agnihotri‘ reported as (2011) 2 SCC
532;
13.8 The complaint made by wife of the complainant,
was closed on 16.05.2018 vide DD No.38A,
which is an admitted position on record, and
therefore, accused ASI Jauhari Singh was,
in any event, not in a position to hush up the
complaint and/or to get a favourable outcome in
favour of the complainant herein and thus,
the essential ingredient of S.7 PC Act regarding
motive for accepting illegal gratification,
is not proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. In this regard, reliance is
placed upon judgment in case titled as
‘Satpal Singh v. State of Delhi‘ reported 2016 SCC
Online Del 754;
13.9 Since the accused was not in a position to abuse his
position as a public servant, therefore, no offence
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 92
under S.13 (1)(d) PC Act is made out;
13.10 While referring to the relevant cross-examination
of PW3, wherein he had deposed that seizure
memos Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F were
prepared in the Vigilance office, Ld. Defense
Counsel submitted that proceedings are sham and
the memos were manipulated and ante dated. He
further submitted that Memos/Panchnamas are not
substantive piece of evidence and relied upon
judgments in case of ‘Rajesh v. State of MP’
reported as (2023) 15 SCC 521 and ‘Kanu Ambu
Vish v. State of Maharashtra‘ reported as (1971) 1
SCC 503;
13.11 While pointing out certain contradictions in the
testimony of PW2/complainant, Ld. Defense
Counsel further argued that there is no evidence
that either accused Jauhari Singh himself;
or accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj on behalf of
accused ASI Jauhari Singh, had demanded or
accepted money from the complainant on
16.05.2018, as PW2 in his examination-in-chief has
categorically deposed that one police official had
told him that accused Jauhari Singh had demanded
money to hush up the matter and he gave ₹6,000/-
to that police official for giving it to said accused,
however, when he was cross-examined by the
prosecution then only, he admitted the suggestion
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 92
that said accused had demanded ₹10,000/- and
accepted ₹6,000/- from him, whereas, during his
cross-examination, he stated that accused Jauhari
Singh did not make demand of ₹10,000/- on
16.05.2018 and that there was a Sikh person, who
had asked him for money. It is, thus, submitted that
not only the testimony of complainant has not been
corroborated qua the allegations of demand and
acceptance of bribe amount on 16.05.2018, but also
there are material contradictions and variations
within his own testimony and the complaint;
13.12 While referring to the relevant portions of
cross-examination of Investigating Officer/PW15,
it is submitted that no investigation is carried out
by him to prove that both the accused persons and
the complainant were present together at the same
time at PS Bara Hindu Rao on 16.05.2018, rather,
the evidence on record would show that accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj had left PS Bara Hindu Rao
much prior in time before arrival of accused
ASI Jauhari Singh and thus, the allegation of
demand and acceptance on the said date, is false;
13.13 Similarly, while referring to the relevant portions
of cross-examination of witnesses examined by
prosecution during trial, Ld. Defense Counsel
submitted that there are material contradictions and
inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 92
regarding demand, acceptance, and recovery of
bribe amount from the possession of accused
persons on 21.05.2018, when the raid was
conducted;
13.14 PW3 i.e. the panch witness never joined the raid
proceedings and was not present at the spot on
21.05.2018 and therefore, his testimony is full of
contradictions and cannot be relied upon for any
purpose;
13.15 Regarding motive, it is vehemently argued that on
16.05.2018, said accused had made the
complainant (PW2) to sit in squatting position
(murga banaya) as he was misbehaving with his
wife at that time and thus, the said accused had
grudge against said accused for having made him
to sit in the squatting position, and therefore, he
made a false complaint against accused to wreak
vengeance;
13.16 As regards FSL Result, Ld. Counsel submitted that
phenolphthalein test is not conclusive proof of the
fact that there is demand, and it does not, on its
own, establish acceptance of illegal gratification, in
support of which submission, he also relied upon
judgment of our own Hon’ble High Court in case
titled ‘Anil Kumar Verma v. State‘ bearing Crl. A.
No.148/2009 dated 24.04.2015; and
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 92
13.17 The star witnesses of prosecution i.e. the
complainant (PW2) and. the panch witness (PW3)
were cross-examined on behalf of prosecution and
thus, the confronted portions were not proved in
accordance with law. In support of such
submission, reliance is placed upon the cases titled
as ‘Ramesh v. State‘ reported as (Del), 1986 Crl.
L.J 1101; ‘State (Delhi Administration) v.
Harish Kumar & Ors.‘ reported as 1974 ILR (Del)
198; ‘Naresh Aneja @ Naresh Kumar Aneja v.
State of Uttar Pradesh‘, reported as 2025 (2) SCC
604; and ‘Somasundaram v. State‘ reported as
(2020) 7 SCC 722; ‘Mahabir v. State of Haryana’
reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 184.
Accused Pradeep Bhardwaj:
14. While adopting the aforesaid arguments advanced on
behalf of accused ASI Jauhari Singh, Ld. Defence Counsel
for accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj submitted that there is
no evidence on record regarding demand and acceptance of
bribe money by said accused either on 16.05.2018 and/or
on 21.05.2018 and thus, essential ingredients of offences
under S. 7/13(1)(d) of PC Act are not proved. He further
submitted that no recovery whatsoever was effected from
the possession of said accused. Even otherwise, it is settled
law that mere recovery of currency notes without proof of
demand would not establish an offence u/s 7 as well as
13(1)(d) of PC Act. He also contended that neither PW2
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 92
i.e. the complainant himself, nor PW3 i.e. the panch
witness, has deposed anything against the said accused in
any manner. He, therefore, submitted that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the said accused and
hence, urged that said accused may be acquitted in
this case.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
15. Firstly, this Court shall deal with the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of both the sides in respect of the
offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under S.120B
IPC charged against both the accused persons.
16. As per the case of prosecution, both these accused persons,
while performing their duties as Assistant Sub-Inspector
[ASI] and Head Constable [HC] at PS Bara Hindu Rao,
had hatched criminal conspiracy on 16-05-2018, whereby
they agreed to do an illegal act by asking the complainant
namely Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2) to do setting for hushing up
the complaint of his wife Smt. Kusum Lata and in
pursuance thereto, accused Jauhari Singh had demanded
₹10,000/- from the complainant and accepted ₹6,000/-
from him in the presence of accused Pradeep Bhardwaj,
with direction to give remaining bribe amount of ₹4,000/-
within 2-3 days thereof.
17. Before proceeding to discuss the facts of the present case
and the evidence, as has come on record, it would be
apposite to discuss the legal position in respect of offence
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 92
of criminal conspiracy and abetment of a corruption
offence under the relevant unamended laws.
a) Legal Framework:
b) Section 120B IPC:
18. Criminal conspiracy, as defined under Section 120A and
punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code
(IPC), is a distinct and substantive offence. Criminal
conspiracy is an independent and separately punishable
offence. The crime is complete with the agreement itself,
and no overt act is necessary for a conviction under
Section 120B IPC.
19. The foundation of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the
agreement between two or more persons. It is the ‘ meeting
of minds’ to achieve a common illegal objective. While a
criminal thought alone is not punishable, the moment it is
shared and agreed upon by another, it transitions into a
criminal conspiracy. The offence is complete as soon as
the agreement is made.
20. Thus, the ingredients of criminal conspiracy are:-
I. An agreement between two or more persons.
II. The agreement must relate to doing or causing to be
done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not
illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
21. Crucially, the law does not require any overt act to be
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 37 of 92
committed in furtherance of the conspiracy to establish the
guilt under Section 120B. The unlawful agreement itself
constitutes the crime. As has been reiterated by the Apex
Court in ‘Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India‘, (1993) 3 SCC
609, the conspiracy is a continuing offence that begins
with the formation of the agreement and lasts until the
objective is achieved or abandoned.
22. By its very nature, conspiracy is hatched in secret and
executed in darkness. It is extremely rare for the
prosecution to have access to direct evidence of the
unlawful agreement. Recognizing this, the courts have
consistently held that a conspiracy can be, and often must
be, proven by circumstantial evidence.
23. As affirmed by the Apex Court in cases like ‘ State (NCT
of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu‘, (2005) 11 SCC 600 and
‘Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI‘, 2009 INSC 1421, Courts
must infer the existence of a conspiracy from the
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
A coordinated series of acts by different individuals can
lead to a legitimate inference that they were acting in
pursuance of a common plan.
24. The evidence must establish an unbroken chain of events
that points irresistibly to the existence of a conspiracy.
Mere suspicion, or the fact that some accused knew each
other, is insufficient.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 38 of 92
Doctrine of Agency under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act:
25. Once the prosecution establishes reasonable grounds to
believe that a conspiracy exists, Section 10 of the
Indian Evidence Act is triggered. This introduces the
‘doctrine of agency’, which holds that each
conspirator is an agent of the others, in execution of the
common plan.
26. Under this doctrine, anything said, done, or written by any
one of the conspirators in reference to their common
intention becomes a relevant fact against all the other
conspirators. It is not necessary for every conspirator to
have been involved from the start or to know all the other
members or details of the plan. Once a conspiracy is
established, every member is liable for the acts of their
co-conspirators done in furtherance of the common goal.
This principle makes every member jointly responsible for
the acts of their co-conspirators that are incidental to the
original purpose.
27. In the case of ‘R. Venkatakrishnan v. CBI‘, (2009)
11 SCC 737, Hon’ble Apex Court has explained that while
arriving at a finding as to whether the said offence has
been committed or not, Court may take into consideration
the circumstantial evidence. While however, doing so,
it must bear in mind that meeting of the minds is essential;
mere knowledge or discussion would not be sufficient to
bring home the offence.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 39 of 92
28. In the aforesaid backdrop, the facts of the present case
need to be considered in order to ascertain if there was a
conspiracy, i.e. an agreement between the accused persons
to achieve the illegal object.
29. Firstly, I shall deal with the legal argument advanced by
Ld. Counsel of accused Jauhari Singh that in the absence
of Sanction under S. 197 Cr.PC qua offence punishable
under S. 120-B IPC, cognizance taken by Court in respect
of offence of criminal conspiracy, is void ab initio.
However, said argument is devoid of any merit for the
simple reason that sanction under S. 197 Cr.PC is required
only in respect of an act done or performed by public
servant in discharge of his/her official duty and/or under
the colourable exercise of such duty, but not otherwise.
30. In the case in hand, the allegations against both the
accused persons are that they had hatched criminal
conspiracy to do an illegal act i.e. asking the complainant
Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2) to do setting for hushing up
complaint of his wife Smt. Kusum Lata and for the said
purpose, accused Jauhari Singh had demanded and
accepted illegal gratification from him in the presence of
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj. The act of public person in
asking some public person (complainant) to negotiate the
matter with him and to pay illegal gratification for that
purpose, cannot be termed as an act done or performed in
discharge of official duty and/or even under the colourable
exercise of duty, by any stretch of imagination. For this
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 40 of 92
reason, the cited case of Sheetla Sahai ( supra) relied on
behalf of accused Jauhari Singh, would not be applicable
to the facts of the present case. Hence, the aforesaid
argument is hereby rejected.
31. Now coming to the merits of the case. In order to bring
home the guilt of accused persons for proving the charge
of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution has examined
complainant namely Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2), as its star
witness during trial. According to the case of prosecution,
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj was present at the time when
the accused Jauhari Sngh allegedly made demand of
₹10,000/- from the complainant as a bribe to hush up the
matter and/or having received ₹6,000/- from him on
16-05-2018. That being so, PW2 was the most material
witness of the prosecution for the purpose of proving the
charge in respect of said offence.
32. Pertinently, in his written complaint (Ex.PW2/A), the
complainant Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2) alleged that he had
made PCR call at 100 number on 16-05-2018, on which,
two police officials came to his office and took him and his
wife at PS Bara Hindu Rao, where accused Jauhari Singh
had demanded illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- from him
in order to hush up the complaint of his wife and also
received bribe amount of ₹6,000/- from him and
pressurized him to pay the remaining bribe amount of
₹4,000/- within 2-3 days thereafter. However, his
testimony is found to be completely at variance vis-a-vis
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 41 of 92
such allegations made in the written complaint. While
entering into witness box, PW2 testified that one police
official had told him that accused Jauhari Singh was
demanding ₹10,000/- as a bribe to hush up the matter and
he had handed over the amount of ₹6,000/- to that police
official for giving it to accused Jauhari Singh. He also
deposed that he had assured the said police official that he
would give remaining amount of ₹4,000/- within 2-3 days.
33. It was only during his cross-examination on behalf of
State, PW2 admitted that accused Jauhari Singh had told
him that he would sent him (complainant) to jail for six
months on the complaint of his wife, otherwise, he should
pay ₹10,000/- to him (said accused) to hush up the matter,
and also that since he was having ₹6,000/ – in his pocket at
that time, same was taken by accused Jauhari Singh.
However, PW2 again changed his version during his
cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Jauhari
Singh recorded on the same day itself, inasmuch as, he
testified that he did not remember the name of police
official who had asked him on 16-05-2018 that accused
Jauhari Singh was demanding the bribe amount of
₹10,000/- to hush up the matter. He categorically testified
during such cross-examination that accused Jauhari Singh
did not make any demand of bribe of ₹10,000/- on
16-05-2018. PW2 further testified that the police, who had
asked him on 16-05-2018 that accused Jauhari Singh was
demanding bribe amount of ₹10,000/-, was a Sikh person.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 42 of 92
In view of such testimony, Court finds considerable force
in the argument advanced on behalf of accused Jauhari
Singh that there is no direct evidence regarding demand of
illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- by accused Jauhari Singh
from the complainant and/or payment of partial bribe
amount of ₹6,000/- to the said accused by him.
34. In so far as accused Pradeep Bhardwaj is concerned, the
entire testimony of PW2 is found to be silent as against
said accused. During his chief examination, PW2 nowhere
testified that accused Pradeep Bhardwaj was present at
PS Bara Hindu Rao on 16-05-2018, when illegal
gratification was allegedly demanded from him.
Further, PW2 categorically denied during his
cross-examination conducted on behalf of State that it was
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj, who had asked him on
16-05-2018 to hush up the matter after setting with
accused ASI Jauhari Singh; or that he had given ₹6,000/-
on 16-05-2018 in the presence of accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj.
35. Apart from above, the testimony of PW15 i.e. IO/Inspector
Anil Sharma is also relevant in this regard. During his
cross-examination dated 04-06-2025 conducted on behalf
of accused Jauhari Singh, he deposed that accused Jauhari
Singh had made the complainant to sit for long hours in PS
Bara Hindu Rao and accused Pradeep Bhardwaj was also
present there, as his location corroborates the said fact.
However, after going through the judicial record, the said
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 43 of 92
witness deposed that accused Pradeep Bhardwaj was
assigned duty for service of summons etc. on 16-05-2018,
and accused Jauhari Singh had departed from PS Bara
Hindu Rao, vide DD No.18A at about 3:07 p.m. and had
returned back to said PS, vide DD No.38-B at about 8:05
p.m. on 16-05-2018.
36. During his further cross-examination conducted on
31-07-2025 on behalf of accused Jauhari Singh, PW15
testified that he had called for Cell ID Location Charts of
mobile numbers of complainant, his wife and accused
Jauhari Singh through notice under S.91 Cr.PC and Cell ID
Location Charts were available in the Computer System of
PS Vigilance, however, said Cell ID Location Charts were
not placed on record. However, on being shown the
contents of charge-sheet, PW15 admitted that tabulated
chart of Cell Tower location of mobile no. 8178287493
being used by Pradeep Bhardwaj, revealed that said
accused was present at Village Wazirabad, Delhi
at about 7:45 p.m. on 16-05-2018.
37. It is important to note that no investigation was conducted
by IO/Inspector Anil Sharma (PW15) to collect relevant
record regarding arrival and departure of accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj in/from PS Bara Hindu Rao on
16-05-2018. This fact assumes important in the backdrop
of categorical admission on his part that location of mobile
number of said accused at around 7:45 p.m. on
16-05-2018, was at Village Wazirabad, Delhi and also in
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 44 of 92
view of the fact that accused ASI Jauhari Singh had
allegedly called the complainant to PS Bara Hindu Rao at
around 8:05 p.m. when he had returned back to said PS on
that day. It is a matter of fact that Village Wazirabad,
Delhi is situated at somewhat long distance from PS Bara
Hindu Rao and thus, it would not have been possible for
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj to reach at PS Bara Hindu
Rao within the short span of 15-20 minutes, so as to be
present in said PS at the time when demand for illegal
gratification of ₹10,000/- was allegedly made from the
complainant on 16-05-2018.
38. Likewise, PW15 though claimed that Cell ID Chart was
available in the Computer System of PS Vigilance,
however, he did not file the same alongwith the
chargesheet. Again no explanation whatsoever has been
furnished by him for not doing so. Had it been the situation
where IO would have collected relevant documents
showing arrival and departure time of accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj from/to PS Bara Hindu Rao; and Cell ID
Location Chart of mobile numbers of said accused, same
would have easily pointed out about his location at the
time of alleged demand and acceptance of bribe on that
day. In the absence thereof, there is no positive evidence
on record showing that both the accused persons and the
complainant were presnt together at PS Bara Hindu Rao on
16-05-2018 at any point of time. Rather, evidence as is
available on record, goes to show that accused HC Pradeep
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 45 of 92
Bhardwaj had already left PS Bara Hindu Rao much prior
in time before arrival of accused ASI Jauhari Singh to said
PS on that day.
39. The falsity of the testimony of PW15 has been fortified
ffrom the fact that during his initial deposition, he stated
that reply (Ex.PW1/G) of Vodafone Idea Ltd. was not
supplied to him, however, at later stage, PW15 is shown to
have given vague and false reply that Cell ID Location
Chart was available in the computer system of
PS Vigilance, but was not placed on record. However,
charge-sheet is found to be completely silent about this
fact. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to indicate
Cell Tower IDs were available at PS Vigilance, but at the
same time, PW15 (IO of the case) has mentioned Cell
Tower Location of mobile number of accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj in tabulated chart in the chargesheet.
Then, he again changed his stated during his
cross-examination when he admitted that he had acquired
information about Tower Location of mobile number
of accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj from the
mobile company
40. No doubt, PW1 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer,
Vodafone Idea Ltd. has exhibited attested copies of CAFs
of mobile connection nos. 9711367682, 9911227950 and
9899948315, as Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/D respectively. Out
of said three mobile numbers, mobile nos. 9711367682 and
9911227950 are claimed to be subscribed in the name of
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 46 of 92
complainant namely Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2) and third
mobile no. 9899948315 is claimed to be subscribed in the
name of accused Jauhari Singh. Further, PW1 has
exhibited certified copies of CDRs of aforesaid three
mobile numbers for the period from 16.05.2018 till
22.05.2018 as Ex.PW1/E (Colly.), as also Certificate under
S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/F. However,
said certificate is not admissible in evidence for three
reasons – Firstly, said certificate is not issued by PW1
himself. Rather, it is claimed to have been issued by Sh.
Ajit Singh, the then Nodal Officer of the said company.
Indisputably, Sh. Ajit Singh has not been examined as
prosecution witness during trial. Secondly, said certificate
does not conform to the essential requirements of
S.65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as, it does not
provide the relevant details of the computer system and the
printer through which printouts of CDRs of the said three
mobile numbers were generated, the date of generation
thereof, etc. Thirdly, said certificate has been issued only
in respect of CDRs of said three mobile numbers and not
in respect of Cell ID Chart of either of the said three
mobile connection numbers, for which reason, Cell ID
Location Chart of mobile connection numbers of accused
persons or even for that matter, of complainant and his
wife Ms. Kusum Lata, as shown in tabulated chart in
the charge-sheet, could not be proved in accordance
with law.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 47 of 92
41. Likewise, Cell ID Chart Location (Ex.PW5/C) in respect
of mobile number 8178287493 subscribed in the name of
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj, is not admissible in
the eyes of law, inasmuch as, Certificate under
S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act [Ex.PW5/E] proved by
PW5 Sh. Yatin Chawla, Alternate Nodal Officer, Reliance
JIO Infocom Ltd., has been issued only in respect of CDRs
of said mobile number and nothing beyond that. Moreover,
said certificate also lacks material particulars like
specification of computer system and the printer through
which printouts of the CDRs were generated by him and
the date thereof. Thus, the prosecution cannot be allowed
to rely upon either table containing details of alleged
location of accused, as mentioned in the charge-sheet
and/or Cell ID Location chart [Ex.PW5/C] of mobile
number of accused Pradeep Bhardwaj, as an admissible
piece of evidence in its favour and against the accused
persons. While saying so, Court is fortified by the decision
of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ‘Anvar P. V. v. P. K.
Basheer & Ors.‘ reported as [2014] 11 S.C.R. 39, wherein
it has been held as under:-
“xxxx
13. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic
record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and
65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the
admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these
provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic
form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the
Section starts with a non-obstante clause. Thus,
notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act,
any information contained in an electronic record which isCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 48 of 92
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or
magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed
to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under
sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or
production of the original. The very admissibility of such a
document, i.e., electronic record which is called as
computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four
conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the
specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence
Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should
have been produced by the computer during the period
over which the same was regularly used to store or process
information for the purpose of any activity regularly
carried on over that period by the person having lawful
control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic
record or of the kind from which the information is
derived was regularly fed into the computer in the
ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the
computer was operating properly and that even if it was
not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks
had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its
contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a
reproduction or derivation from the information fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
14. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is
desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining
to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate, which identifies the
electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the
electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the
device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions
mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a
responsible official position in relation to the operation of
the relevant device.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 49 of 92
15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state
in the certificate that the same is to the best of his
knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate
must accompany the electronic record like computer
printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc
(VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is
sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced
in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the
source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks
pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as
evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to
tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without
such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of
electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
16. xxx
17. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the
proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if
requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are
not complied with, as the law now stands in India.
Xxxx
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted
herein before, being a special provision, the general law
on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section
65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia
specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail
over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take
note of Sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility
of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no
application in the case of secondary evidence by way of
electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections
65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on
admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to
electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu
case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position.
It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic
record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted
in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are
satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the
same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of
Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document,
without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that
electronic record, is inadmissible.
23. The appellant admittedly has not produced any
certificate in terms of Section 65B in respect of the CDs,
Exhibits-P4, P8, P9, P10, P12, P13, P15, P20 and P22.
Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 50 of 92
the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using
songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground.
xxxx”
42. In another case of ‘Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors.‘ reported as [2020] 7 S.C.R.
180; it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court, as under:-
“xxxxx
20. Proof of electronic record is a special provision
introduced by the IT Act amending various provisions
under the Evidence Act. The very caption of Section 65-A
of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 and 65-B is
sufficient to hold that the special provisions on evidence
relating to electronic record shall be governed by the
procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act. That is a complete code in itself. Being a special law,
the general law under Sections 63 and 65 has to yield.
21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu a two-Judge
Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider an issue
on production of electronic record as evidence. While
considering the printouts of the computerized records of
the calls pertaining to the cellphones, it was held at para
150 as follows: (SCC p. 714) “150. According to Section
63, “secondary evidence” means and includes, among
other things, ‘copies made from the original by
mechanical processes which in themselves insure the
accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such
copies’. Section 65 enables secondary evidence of the
contents of a document to be adduced if the original is of
such a nature as not to be easily movable. It is not in
dispute that the information contained in the call records is
stored in huge servers, which cannot be easily moved and
produced in the court. That is what the High Court has
also observed at para 276. Hence, printouts taken from the
computers/servers by mechanical process and certified by
a responsible official of the service-providing company
can be led in evidence through a witness who can identify
the signatures of the certifying officer or otherwise speak
of the facts based on his personal knowledge. Irrespective
of the compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B,
which is a provision dealing with admissibility of
electronic records, there is no bar to adducing secondary
evidence under the other provisions of the Evidence Act,CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 51 of 92
namely, Sections 63 and 65. It may be that the certificate
containing the details in sub-section (4) of Section 65-B is
not filed in the instant case, but that does not mean that
secondary evidence cannot be given even if the law
permits such evidence to be given in the circumstances
mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely, Sections 63
and 65.”
It may be seen that it was a case where a responsible
official had duly certified the document at the time of
production itself. The signatures in the certificate were
also identified. That is apparently in compliance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act. However, it was held that irrespective of the
compliance with the requirements of Section 65-B, which
is a special provision dealing with admissibility of the
electronic record, there is no bar in adducing secondary
evidence, under Sections 63 and 65, of an electronic
record.”
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted
hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on
secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65
of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia
specialibus non derogant, special law will always prevail
over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take
note of Sections 59 and 65-A dealing with the
admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have
no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of
electronic record; the same is wholly governed by Sections
65-A and 65-B. To that extent, the statement of law on
admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to
electronic record, as stated by this Court in Navjot Sandhu
case, does not lay down the correct legal position. It
requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic
record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted
in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65-B
are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc., the
same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of
Section 65-B obtained at the time of taking the document,
without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that
electronic record, is inadmissible.
23. The appellant admittedly has not produced any
certificate in terms of Section 65-B in respect of the CDs,
Exts. P-4, P-8, P-9, P-10, P-12, P-13, P-15, P-20 and P-22.
Therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence. Thus,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 52 of 92
the whole case set up regarding the corrupt practice using
songs, announcements and speeches fall to the ground.
Xxxxx
34. Despite the law so declared in Anvar P.V. (supra),
wherein this Court made it clear that the special provisions
of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are a
complete Code in themselves when it comes to
admissibility of evidence of information contained in
electronic records, and also that a written certificate under
Section 65B(4) is a sine qua non for admissibility of such
evidence, a discordant note was soon struck in Tomaso
Bruno (supra). In this judgment, another three Judge
Bench dealt with the admissibility of evidence in a
criminal case in which CCTV footage was sought to be
relied upon in evidence. The Court held:
“24. With the advancement of information
technology, scientific temper in the individual and
at the institutional level is to pervade the methods
of investigation. With the increasing impact of
technology in everyday life and as a result, the
production of electronic evidence in cases has
become relevant to establish the guilt of the
accused or the liability of the defendant. Electronic
documents stricto sensu are admitted as material
evidence. With the amendment to the Evidence Act
in 2000, Sections 65-A and 65-B were introduced
into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence.
Section 65-A provides that contents of electronic
records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria
provided in Section 65-B is complied with. The
computer generated electronic records in evidence
are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner
specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act.
Sub-section (1) of Section 65-B makes admissible
as a document, paper printout of electronic records
stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a
computer, subject to the fulfilment of the
conditions specified in sub- section (2) of Section
65-B. Secondary evidence of contents of document
can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence
Act. PW 13 stated that he saw the full video
recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera,
but he has not recorded the same in the case diary
as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence
was present in it.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 53 of 92
25. The production of scientific and electronic
evidence in court as contemplated under Section
65-B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the
investigating agency and also to the prosecution.
The relevance of electronic evidence is also
evident in the light of Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v.
State of Maharashtra [(2012) 9 SCC 1], wherein
production of transcripts of internet transactions
helped the prosecution case a great deal in proving
the guilt of the accused. Similarly, in State (NCT
of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the links between the
slain terrorists and the masterminds of the attack
were established only through phone call
transcripts obtained from the mobile service
providers.”
35. What is clear from this judgment is that the judgment of
Anvar P.V. (supra) was not referred to at all. In fact, the
judgment in State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600 was
adverted to, which was a judgment specifically overruled by
Anvar P.V. (supra). It may also be stated that Section 65B(4)
was also not at all adverted to by this judgment. Hence, the
declaration of law in Tomaso Bruno (supra) following Navjot
Sandhu (supra) that secondary evidence of the contents of a
document can also be led under Section 65 of the
Evidence Act to make CCTV footage admissible would be in
the teeth of Anvar P.V., (supra) and cannot be said to be a
correct statement of the law. The said view is accordingly
overruled
xxxx”.
43. Be that as it may, it is the own case of the prosecution that
both the accused persons were posted in PS Bara Hindu
Rao during the relevant period. That being so, there was
nothing unusual for them to be present in said PS at the
same time, either on 16-05-2018 or even on the subsequent
date of 21-05-2018. For the similar reason, it was quite
natural for both these accused persons to make calls to
each other, in connection with discharge of their official
duties while being posted in the same police station during
the relevant period.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 54 of 92
44. In so far as the allegations in respect of offence of
criminal conspiracy leveled against these accused in
respect of alleged incident of 21-05-2018 is concerned,
it may be noted that though, PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh has
testified that on 21-05-2018, when he had handed over
2 GC notes of ₹2,000/- each, to accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj, said accused had returned back said GC notes to
him for giving the same to accused Jauhari Singh,
upon which, he gave those GC notes to accused Jauhari
Singh, however, said portion of his testimony, is not only
found missing in his written complaint (Ex.PW2/A),
but is also not mentioned in his statement under S.161
Cr.PC (Mark PW2/X1) recorded during investigation.
In fact, PW2 has admitted during cross-examination on
behalf of accused ASI Jauhari Singh that he had not stated
in his statement made before police that accused HC
Pradeep had returned the bribe amount to him while saying
to give it to accused Jauhari Singh. He also denied that
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj had inquired ‘ saab ka kaam
kar laya’ from him on 21-05-2018.
45. Applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex
Court in the above referred decisions to the facts of the
present case, and in view of the discussion made herein
above, this Court is of the view that it would not be safe to
arrive at the conclusion that both the accused persons had
conspired together and/or agreed to do an illegal act or any
act through illegal means within the meaning of
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 55 of 92
S.120B IPC; or that both of them, in pursuant to said
criminal conspiracy, had demanded or accepted any illegal
gratification from the complainant on 16-05-2018 or even
on 21-05-2018. Accordingly, it is held that the prosecution
has miserably failed to establish the charge in respect of
the offence of criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused persons.
46. This brings me down to the next charge in respect of
offences under S. 7 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act r/w
S.120B IPC framed against the accused persons.
47. Before proceeding to examine the facts of the present case
and to appreciate the evidence-oral as well as
documentary, as has come on record during trial, in the
light of above noted rival submissions made on behalf of
both the sides, it would be apposite to discuss the legal
position governing the points in issue.
48. It is trite law that in a case under Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, the onus is on the prosecution to prove the
foundational facts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Subair v.
State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587] while dwelling on the
purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that the prosecution has to prove
the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any
other criminal offence and that the accused should be
considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by
proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 56 of 92
gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be
proved to record a conviction.
49. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Neeraj Dutta vs. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal
no. 1669 of 2009, with regard to the nature and quality of
proof necessary to sustain a conviction for offences under
Section 7 or 13 (1) (d) (i) & (ii) of the PC Act, has
summarized as under:-
“68. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt
of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)
(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of
fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence, which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved
by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral
and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public
servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without
there being any demand from the public servant and the
latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal
gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7
of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior
demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and
tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is
received by the public servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand
for illegal gratification emanates from the public
servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i)CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 57 of 92
and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the
bribe giver and the demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a
fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt
of an illegal gratification without anything more would
not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13
(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act. Therefore,
under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the
offence, there must be an offer, which emanates from
the bribe giver, which is accepted by the public servant,
which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior
demand by the public servant when accepted by the
bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which
is received by the public servant, would be an offence
of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of
the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and
acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be
made by a court of law by way of an inference only when
the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral
and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof.
On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the
discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering
whether the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is
subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of
rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died
or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand
of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let in
evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the
prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence.
The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court
to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for
the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the
court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of
course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal.
Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii)
of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 58 of 92
20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred
to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory
presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.”
50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Maharashtra Vs.
Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede‘, bearing Crl.
Appeal No. 1350 of 2009, decided on 29.07.2009, has held
that the foundational facts must be established by the
prosecution. It was also observed that that while invoking
the presumption under section 20 of PC Act, the court is
required to consider the explanation offered by the
accused, if any, only on the touch stone of preponderance
of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond
all reasonable doubt. Hon’ble Supreme Court made the
following observations in this regard:
“16. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a
sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the
provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to
whether all the ingredients of an offence, viz., demand,
acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal
gratification have been satisfied or not, the court must take
into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on
the record in their entirety. For the said purpose,
indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in
Section 20 of the Act, must also be taken into
consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the
standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-`-vis the
standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would
differ. Before, however, the accused is called upon to
explain as to how the amount in question was found in his
possession, the foundational facts must be established by
the prosecution. Even while invoking the provisions of
Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the
explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the
touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.”
51. As regards drawing of presumption, it has been held in
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 59 of 92
(2000) 8 SCC 571 as under:-
“The premise to be established on the facts for drawing
the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance
of gratification. Once the said premise is established the
inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was
accepted “as motive or reward” for doing or forbearing to
do any official act. So the word “gratification” need not be
stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome
of the presumption which the court has to draw on the
factual premise that there was payment of gratification.
This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of
two expressions adjacent to each other like “gratification
of any valuable thing”. If acceptance of any valuable thing
can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official
act, the word “gratification” must be treated in the context
to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public
servant who received it.” (emphasis supplied)
52. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is
rebuttable either through cross-examination of witnesses of
prosecution or by adducing reliable evidence as held in C.
M. Girish Babu vs CBI, Cochin & High Court of Kerala,
(2009) 3 SCC 779.
53. In State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, (2013) 14
SCC 15, Hon’ble Supreme court made the following
observations as regards the burden of proof upon the
prosecution and the accused in light of presumption under
section 20 PC Act.:
“11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of
illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an
offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted
money is not sufficient to convict the accused when
substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless
there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that
the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt
of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten
guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to
demand and acceptance of the amount as illegalCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 60 of 92
gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to
displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20
of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either
direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable
probability, that the money was accepted by him, other
than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of
the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20
of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation
offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the
accused is called upon to explain how the amount in
question was found in his possession, the foundational
facts must be established by the prosecution. The
complainant is an interested and partisan witness
concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence
must be tested in the same way as that of any other
interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for
independent corroboration before convicting the accused
person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab
[(1972) 3 SCC 652: 1972 SCC (Cri) 696: AIR 1973 SC
498] ,T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 :
(2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401] , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao
[(2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2
SCC (L&S) 714] and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan
[(2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 136] .)” (emphasis supplied)
54. Viewed in the light of law as discussed hereinabove, it has
to be examined as to whether the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the charge against the accused
persons, or not.
55. Before dealing with the arguments touching upon the
merits of the case, it would be apposite to deal with the
legal arguments advanced on behalf of accused persons.
There is no substance in the argument that entire
proceedings carried out by raiding team regarding
apprehension of accused persons; recovery of 2 GC notes
smeared with phenolphthalein powder; taking hand wash
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 61 of 92
of both accused perosns; and carrying out relevant
proceedings regarding such hand wash solution, etc. would
be illegal merely because same was conducted before
registration of the FIR.
56. No doubt, such proceedings were conducted prior to
registration of FIR, as per the own case of the prosecution,
however, it is relevant to note that the investigation agency
was well within its right to conduct preliminary enquiry
regarding verification of allegations contained in the
written complaint (Ex.PW2/A) lodged by the complainant,
which would, in the opinion of this Court, take within its
sweep the trap proceedings, as also the subsequent
proceedings related thereto. In this context, it is relevant
here to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of ‘Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar
Pradesh‘, reported as AIR 2014 SC 187, wherein
Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph no.120.6, 120.7
and 120.8 as follows:-
xxxxx
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry
is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances
of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary
inquiry may be made are as under:-
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating
criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months’ delay in
reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the
reasons for delay.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 62 of 92
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 [Ed: This correction is based on para 120.7 as corrected
vide order in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P, (2023) 9 SCC
695.]. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused
and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made
time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days
generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate
reasons, six weeks’ time is provided. The fact of such delay
and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary
entry.
120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is
the record of all information received in a police station, we
direct that all information relating to cognizable offences,
whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an
inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
xxxxx”
57. In view of the foregoing reasons and above referred
decsion of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Lalita Kumari (supra), this Court is not inclined to reject
the evidences collected prior to the registration of FIR in
this case.
58. Even if it be presumed for the sake of convenience that
registration of FIR should have preceeded the factum of
conducting of raid proceeding and collection of evidence
in pursuance thereof, still, this Court is of the view that it
was, at the most, procedural irregularties which would not
go to the root of the case. For this reason also, it would not
be appropriate to discard the evidences collected during the
trap proceedings.
59. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition of law laid
down in the cited judgments in that regard, cited on behalfCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 63 of 92
of accused Jauhari Singh. However, all the said judgments
are entirely distinguishable from the facts and
circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, all those
cited cases were rendered in respect of penal offences
under general law, whereas, the offences involved in the
present case are under Prevention of Corruption Act,
which is a special statute falling in the category of cases
excluded, in view of the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Lalita Kumari‘s case (supra).
60. Now I shall deal with the arguments touching upon the
mertis of the case.
61. As already noted above, it was alleged against accused
ASI Jauhari Singh that he had demanded illegal
gratification of ₹10,000/- from complainant namely
Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2) and also accepted part illegal
gratification of ₹6,000/- from him on 16-05-2018.
It was further alleged against both the accused that on
21-05-2018 at about 1:50 p.m. at PS Bara Hindu Rao,
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj had taken the complainant
to the room of accused ASI Jauhari Singh on the asking of
accused ASI Jauhari Singh, where accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj had accepted bribe money of ₹4,000/- from the
complainant, which bribe amount was recovered from the
fist of accused Jauhari Singh; and also that both the
accused persons had obtained pecuniary advantage in the
form of bribe money of ₹10,000/- from the complainant by
corrupt or illegal means by abusing their position as publicCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 64 of 92
servants, thus rendering themselves liable for offence
punishable under S. 13(1)(d) read with S.13(d) of PC Act.
62. In so far as allegations regarding demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification by the accused persons on
16-05-2018 is concerned, it has already been held by this
Court in the foregoing paras that there is absolutely no
piece of evidence showing that accused HC Pradeep
Bhardwaj was present in PS Bara Hindu Rao on
16-05-2018 when complainant had met with accused
Jauhari Singh at said police station. It has also been held
by this Court that in the absence of concrete evidence
available on record, charge for the offence of criminal
conspiracy could not be established against the accused
persons in this matter.
63. Thus, the question arising for consideration before this
Court is whether the prosecution has been able to establish
the allegations regarding demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification qua accused ASI Jauhari Singh on
16-05-2018? The answer to this question, in the considered
opinion of this Court, has to be in negative, for the simple
reason that complainant namely Sh. Vijay Singh (PW2)
has categorically deposed during his chief examination that
it was some other police official, who had told him on
16-05-2018 that accused Jauhari Singh was demanding
₹10,000/- to hush up the matter, and also that he had
handed over ₹6,000/- to said police official for giving it to
accused ASI Jauhari Singh. Thus, said portion of hisCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 65 of 92
testimony is completely based on hearsay evidence and
thus, is not admissile in the eyes of law.
64. The allegations regarding demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification on 16-05-2018 levelled against accused
Jauhari Singh, further stood demolished during
cross-examination of PW2 (complainant), whereby he
categorically testified that accused Jauhari Singh did not
make demand of bribe of ₹10,000/- on 16-05-2018. He
reiterated his stand that it was one Sikh police official, who
had demanded the bribe amount on behalf of accused
Jauhari Singh. That being so, this Court does not have any
hestitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove the allegations regarding demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification by accused Jauhari Singh from the
complainant on 16-05-2018.
65. Now, the next question which arises for consideration is
whether the allegations regarding demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification of ₹4,000/- by accused persons from
the complainant Sh. Vijay Singh on 21-05-2018, are
proved beyond reasonable doubt, or not? In this regard, it
would be necessary to discuss the testimonies of relevant
prosecution witnesses examined during trial.
66. As already noted above, PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh, being
complainant, and PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma, being panch
witness, were the star witnesses of prosecution for proving
those allegations.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 66 of 92
67. Before discussiong the testimony of PW2, it would be
appropriate to discuss the testimony of panch witness i.e.
PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma. No doubt, he supported the case
of prosecution to the extent that he had visited the office of
PS Vigilance on 21-05-2018, where he had met with
complainant Sh. Vijay Singh and Inspector Pankaj Sharma
[RO] and demonstration of properties of phenolphthalein
powder being given to them by RO, by applying said
powder to 2 GC notes in the denomination of ₹2,000/ –
each and mentioning serial numbers thereof. He also
supported the case of prosecution to the extent that RO had
told him to remain with the complainant and to see and
hear the transaction of bribe as and when given by
complainant to accused Jauhari Singh and to give signal
when the bribe transaction took place. However, he
testified that when he alongwith complainant went inside
PS Bara Hindu Rao, some person met them over there and
asked them to go to first floor and also that said person had
asked him not to accompany the complainant, while they
were going to meet accused ASI Jauhari Singh. He further
deposed that complainant alone went upstairs to meet
accused Jauhari Singh and after 5-7 minutes, he came
downstairs and told him that he had given bribe money to
accused ASI Jauhari Singh. The relevant portion of his
testimony, in this regard, is extracted here as under:-
xxxxx
………The complainant went to upstairs to meet Jauhari Singh
and after 5-7 minutes, he came downstairs and told him that
he had given bribe money to the accused Jauhari Singh. I doCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 67 of 92
not know as to what had happened upstairs as I was not
present there……….. Complainant had further stated to me that
he had given the said currency notes of Rs.4,000/- to HC
Pradeep upon asking of Jauhari Singh.
xxxxx”
68. Thus, it is quite evident from above extracted portion of
the testimony of PW3 that he himself did not hear the
conversation regarding bribe transaction and himself
did not see such alleged bribe transaction having taken
place between complainant and the accused
persons. In other words, the entire testimony of PW3 is
based upon hearsay and thus, is not admissible in
the evidence.
69. It is also important to note that PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma,
panch witness, was subjected to cross-examination at
length on behalf of State and even during such
cross-examination, he categorically denied that Inspector
Pankaj Sharma had instructed him to give indication by
placing and moving his right hand twice upon his head as
soon as the bribe amount is accepted; as also the
suggestion that when HC Pradeep Bhardwaj came
downstairs in duty room, then he asked from the
complainant as to whether the complainant wanted to
visit/meet ASI Jauhari Singh; and also that accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj had made telephonic call to accused
ASI Jauhari Singh and told complainant that
ASI Jauhari Singh was calling him; and also that after
meeting with ASI Jauhari Singh and coming down,
the complainant had told him that ASI Jauhari Singh had
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 68 of 92
talked in respect of the complaint. The very fact of putting
suggestions to PW3 on behalf of State that the complainant
had told certain facts to the said witness, after coming
down, goes to show that the prosecution itself is also
admitting somewhere that PW3 never accompanied the
complainant to the room of accused Jauhari Singh and the
alleged bribe transaction of ₹4,000/- did not take place in
his presence on 21-05-2018. This inference gets further
substantiated from the suggestions put to said witness on
behalf of State that the complainant had told the said
witness that ASI Jauhari Singh had instructed him to give
the remaining bribe amount of ₹4,000/- to accused
HC Pradeep Bhardwaj and also that complainant had told
the said witness that he had handed over the amount of
₹4,000/- to that police person and also that complainant
had pointed out towards one person to whom he had
handed over the amount of ₹4,000/- on the instructions of
ASI Jauhari Singh. Had it been the situation, where PW3
Sh. Manish Sharma (panch witness), would have been an
eye witness to the alleged bribe transaction on 21-05-2018,
there was no occasion for State to put such suggestions to
him. Thus, the entire testimony of PW3, even if it be
accepted to be true on its face value, would be termed as
hearsay and thus, is not admissibible in the eyes of law.
70. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to Section 60
of the Evidence Act, which clearly provides that oral
evidence in all cases must be direct. The said provision
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 69 of 92
leaves no ambiguity and clearly mandates that no
secondary/hearsay evidence can be given in case of oral
evidence, except for the circumstances enumerated therein.
In case of a person who asserts to have heard a fact, only
his evidence must be given in respect of the same.
Hence, it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of
this witness, it being trite law that hearsay evidence is
inadmissible in the eyes of law. Still, if any authority is
required, then, reference with advantage can be made to
the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
‘Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka‘ reported as 2024 (8) SCC 149.
71. This is apart from the fact that PW3 cannot be termed as
reliable witness and also that PW3 never identified accused
Pradeep Bhardwaj to be said other police official to whom
remaining bribe amount of ₹4,000/- was allegedly paid by
complainant on the instructions of accused Jauhari Singh
on that day. Reasons for arriving at such conclusion, are
as under:-
71.1 PW3 deposed contrary to the case of prosecution
by testifying that police person, who had taken
complainant to the room of accused ASI Jauhari
Singh, did not come down from the first floor;
71.2 PW3 could not disclose the colour of clothes worn
by accused Jauhari Singh on 21-05-2018;
71.3 PW3 deposed that in DO Room, search of accused
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 70 of 92
Jauhari Singh was not taken, which is again
contrary to the case of prosecution;
71.4 PW3 could not tell whether Inspector Pankaj
Sharma had offered his search and search of his
raiding party members to accused Jauhari Singh in
DO Room or not, before going to first floor;
71.5 PW3 could not tell whether accused Jauhari Singh
was having GC notes; or any papers in his hands
when he came down from first floor to DO Room;
71.6 PW3 testified that it was Inspector Pankaj Sharma/
RO, who had conducted the search of accused
Jauhari Singh and showed him (PW3) the currency
notes recovered from said accused. Said portion of
his testimony is entirely in contradiction to the case
of prosecution, which alleged that it was PW3 who
had conducted the search of accused Jauhari Singh
and had recovered GC notes smeared with
phenolphthalein powder from the possession of
accused Jauhari Singh;
71.7 PW3 deposed that the complainant had not told
him that he had handed over amount of ₹4,000/ – to
one Sikh person, which is again contrary to the
testimony of PW2, which as already
been mentioned earlier, has testified that
he had given amount of ₹4,000/- to one
Sikh police official;
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 71 of 92
71.8 PW3 admitted that seizure memos (Ex.PW2/D and
Ex.PW2/E) i.e.seizure memos of glass bottles
containing both hand wash of both the accused
persons, and seizure memo (Ex.PW2/E) of
recovered GC notes from the possession of
accused, were prepared in the office of PS
Vigilance, which is also contrary to the case of
prosecution, as per which, all three memos were
prepared at the spot itself;
71.9 PW3 could not tell whether any wash of hand of
complainant; his hand wash; or hand wash of
Inspector Pankaj Sharma was taken in the office of
Vigilance after conducting the raid in this case, or
not;
71.10 PW3 also could not tell as to whom seal, after its
use, was handed over by Inspector Pankaj Sharma/
RO, whereas, the case of prosecution was that seal,
after its use, was handed over to PW3, and71.11 PW3 could not tell whether currency notes were
sealed at PS Bara Hindu Rao, or at the office of
Vigilance.
72. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies appearing in the
testimony of PW3, this Court is of the considered opinion
that it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of said
witness.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 72 of 92
73. Now coming down to the testimony of PW2 Sh. Vijay
Sngh [complainant]. His testimony is found to be contrary
in material particulars vis-a-vis the prosecution story as
propounded in the charge-sheet. It was the case of
prosecution that complainant had visited the office of
Vigilance for the first time on 21-05-2018 and had
submitted the written complaint [Ex.PW2/A].
However, while entering into witness box, PW2 testified
that he had gone to PS Vigilance after 1-2 days from
16-05-2018 and had given complaint to ACP Vigilance on
that day. Not only this, he clarified during his subsequent
cross-examination that complaint (Ex.PW2/A) is the same
complaint, which was given by him to ACP, Vigilance on
18-05-2018. Relevant portion of his testimony further put
serious dent on the prosecution case, when he deposed that
he had taken one written complaint with him to the office
of Vigilance, but same was not taken by police officials
and he was asked to write complaint as told by them and
the complaint [Ex.PW2/A] is the same complaint, which
was so written by him as being told to him by the officials
of PS Vigilance. In order to have proper appreciation
thereof, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant
portion of his testimony, which is extracted here as under:-
“xxxxxx
I went to PS Vigilance after one or two days from the
incident of 16.05.2018. I had given complaint to ACP,
Vigilance on that day. It is correct that complaint Ex.PW2/A
is the same complaint which I had given to ACP, Vigilance
when I went 1-2 days after the incident of 16.05.2018. On
that day, no other person had signed on my complaint
Ex.PW2/A except me. It is correct that later on no otherCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 73 of 92
witness signed on my complaint Ex.PW2/A. It is correct that
I had not talked with accused Jauhari Singh between
16.05.2018 to 21.05.2018. No other proceedings took place
on 18.05.2018 i.e. one or two days after 16.05.2018
when I visited PS Vigilance. I had taken one complaint
in writing with me but same was not taken by the
police officials and they asked me to write the complaint as
told by them. Complaint Ex.PW2/A is the complaint which
was written by me at PS Vigilance as told by them on
18.05.2018.
xxxxx”
74. In the light of aforesaid deposition of PW2,
the very foundation on which the entire case of prosecution
was founded, fell down like a pack of cards. It has duly
come on record that the complaint (Ex.PW2/A) was
written by complainant as per the dictation of police
officials of PS Vigilance and also that, it was given on
18-05-2018 and not on 21-05-2018. Not only this,
PW2 also admitted that he alone had signed the complaint
on 18-05-2018, and no other witness had signed thereon on
that day, meaning thereby that said written complaint was
neither voluntarily written by the complainant himself, nor
it was written or submitted in PS Vigilance on 21-05-2018.
Thus, it would lead to travesty of justice to take into
consideration the allegations regarding demand and
acceptence of bribe appearing in such complaint,
which led to constitution of the raiding team and
consequent trap proceedings, which allegedly took
place on 21-05-2018.
75. It is trite law that proof of demand and acceptance of bribe
is sine qua non, in order to establish the guilt of accused
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 74 of 92
persons for the offences punishable under S.7 of PC Act.
Thus, mere recovery of tainted money would not be
sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of any
credible evidence regarding demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by the accused persons.
76. In the case in hand, PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh nowhere
testified, during examination-in-chief, that accused Jauhari
Singh had demanded any bribe from him on 21-05-2018.
Instead, he testified that he himself had told accused
Jauhari Singh that ‘saab wo aapka kaam ho gaya hai’, on
which, accused Jauhari Singh uttered ‘de do’. The relevant
portion of his testimony is extracted here as under:-
“xxxxx
I told Jauhari Singh “saab wo aapka kaam ho gaya hai” on
which Jauhari Singh said “de do”.
xxxxx”
77. Mere utterance of word ‘de do’ cannot, by any stretch of
imagination in the eyes of law, be termed as demand of
bribe of money from the complainant on the part of
accused Jauhari Singh.
78. Be that as it may, PW2 also deposed on the identical lines
of PW3 that it was RO who had taken search of both the
accused persons, which is entirely contrary to the case of
prosecution, which alleged that search of accused Jauhari
Singh alone was taken. Not only this, PW2 also deposed
that the bribe amount was recovered from the pocket of
wearing pant of accused Jauhari Singh, which is again in
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 75 of 92
contradiction to the prosecution story, which alleged that
the bribe money was recovered from the fist of accused
Jauhari Singh. Further, the prosecution story alleged that it
was panch witness i.e. PW3 who had taken the search of
accused Jauhari Singh, whereas PW2 and PW3 have
testified that RO/Inspector Pankaj Sharma had taken the
search of the accused persos; Furthermore, the prosecution
story alleged that demonstration/explanation of properties
of phenolphthalein powder, was given by Inspector Pankaj
Sharma (RO) to the complainant and panch witness at the
office of Vigilance, however, PW2 testified during chief
examination that no such demonstration was given at the
office of Vigilance on that day. Not only this, PW2 also
denied the suggestons put to him during cross-examination
on behalf of State that RO had given demonstration by
putting phenolphthalein powder on GC notes or that the
panch witness had touched those powder-coated GC notes
thereof, and hand wash thereof being taken in colourless
solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into pink
colour. PW2 also denied that HC Pradeep Bhardwaj had
enquired from him “saab ka kaam kar laya”. He also
categorically denied that accused Jauhari Singh was having
bribe amount of ₹4,000/- in the form of 2 GC notes of
₹2,000/- each, in his fist; or that same were recovered by
the panch witness. Rather, he reitereated that said
GC notes were recovered from the pocket of wearing pant
of accused Jauhari Singh.
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 76 of 92
79. Apart from above, there are certain improvements and
embelishments made by PW2 during trial vis-a-vis the
allegations appearing in written complaint [Ex.PW2/A],
inasmuch, as PW2 testified that accused Jauhari Singh had
asked him to sit in squatting position [ murga banaya tha]
and due to being tired, he had fallen down, however, he
admitted during cross-examination that he did not mention
this fact in his written complaint (Ex.PW2/A). PW2 came
out with certain new facts in his deposition made during
trial that he had initially handed over 2 GC notes of
₹2000/- each to accused Pradeep Bhardwaj, who had
accepted the same, however, he returned back the same
while saying to give them to accused Jauhari Singh, on
which, he gave said 2 GC notes to accused Jauhari Singh
who had accepted the same. However, when he was
confronted on behalf of accused with his previous
statement made before police during investigation,
he admitted not to have stated the said fact therein. For all
thse reasons, the Court is of the considered view that the
testimony of PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh can not be termed as
that of impeccable or of sterling quality, so as as to arrive
at the conclusion of guilt of accused persons, on the basis
of his sole testimony.
80. Moreover, it is trite law that the complainant is an
interested witness, who would always be interested in
success of the trap/sting and thus, his evidence must be
tested in the same way as that of any other interested
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 77 of 92
witness and also that in appropriate case, the Court may
look for independent corroboration before convicting the
accused. While saying so, this Court is fortified by the
decisions of Mukut Bihari & Anr. (supra) and Madan
Mohan Lal Verma (supra).
81. In the present case, the panch witness namely Sh. Manish
Sharma [PW3] has categorically testified that he did not
accompany the complainant to the room of accused Jauhari
Singh, where bribe transaction allegedly took place in
PS Bara Hindu Rao. That being so, the testimony of
PW2 remained unsubstantiated in material particulars
regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification
qua either of the accused persons. Hence, there is abolutely
no independent piece of evidence to corroborate the
allegations regarding demand and acceptence of bribe
against the accused persons.
82. Moreover, it has come on record that complainant namely
Sh. Vijay Singh had marital discord with his wife namely
Smt. Kusum Lata and even on 16-05-2018, wife of
complainant had reached the office of complainant, due to
which, the complainant had to make PCR Call at
100 number, on which, two police officials had visited his
office and took both of them to PS Bara Hindu Rao. It is
also the case of prosecution that accused persons had
demanded illegal gratification of ₹10,000/- in order to
hush up the complaint lodged by his wife. That being so, it
was not only proper, but also necessary on the part of
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 78 of 92
investigating agency to examine Smt. Kusum Lata (wife of
the complainant) during investigation; and to produce her
as a prosecution witness during trial. This fact assumes
more importance as it has come on record that complaint
dated 16-05-2018 lodged by wife of complainant, had
already been closed, vide DD No.38B on 16-05-2018
itself. Thus, there was no occasion either for accused
Jauhari Singh or even for co-accused Pradeep Bhardwaj
asking for illegal gratification from the complainant to
close the complaint of his wife, in order to give some
favourable outcome to the complainant by abusing their
official position as public servants; and/or to pressurize the
complainant to pay the bribe amount of ₹4,000/- even after
16-05-2018; or to accept said illegal gratification of
₹4,000/- from the complainant on 21-05-2018, and that too
within the precinct of PS Bara Hindu Rao. For all these
reasons, this Court finds merit in the argument raised on
behalf of accused Jauhari Singh that the prosecution has
failed to establish any motive on the part of accused
Jauhari Singh in demanding and/or accepting illegal
gratification from the complainant to close the complaint
lodged by his wife.
83. In the cited case of Satpal Singh (supra), Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has held as under:-
“xxxx
12. He further deposed that appellant HC Satpal Singh
introduced himself as Reader to ACP Vigilance, and during
the course of enquiry, appellant recorded his statement as
well as statement of his wife (PW7) and asked for certainCCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 79 of 92
documents from him on 24.11.1995, however, he told that the
said documents were not available with him at that time.
Upon which, ACP Bhardwaj asked PW3 to hand over the
papers to the appellant on 25.11.1995 at the bus stop in front
of Richi Rich Restaurant at 6.00 PM. Thereafter, PW3 and
his wife (PW7) came out of the room, appellant followed
hem and told to bring Rs.1,000/- on 25.11.1995 at 6.00 PM at
Richi Rich Restaurant.
xxxx
18. It is categorically submitted by PW3 and PW7 that the
appellant demanded bribe from them to get favourable result
in enquiry from the ACP Vigilance. It is worth mentioning
that the said ACP was conducting the enquiry and not the
appellant, therefore, the appellant was unable to influence the
inquiry, in any manner, which was being conducted by the
ACP Vigilance. Even the appellant did not ask the
complainant to produce the relevant documents and to come
to the spot, however, it was the ACP who asked for the
documents and directed the appellant to meet the complainant
at the spot for receiving the documents.
xxxx
23. As per the prosecution case, the alleged amount of
demand was for getting the favourable result of the enquiry
from the ACP Vigilance, however, it is an admitted fact that
the said enquiry was being conducted by ACP Vigilance and
the appellant being Head Constable could not influence the
inquiry, in any manner. Moreover, the appellant did not ask
the complainant to produce the relevant documents and to
come to the spot, it was the ACP who asked for the
documents and directed the appellant to meet the complainant
at the spot for receiving the documents. Thus, one of
the essential ingredients of Section 7 PC Act,
regarding motive for accepting illegal gratification of
Rs.500/- has not been proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
xxxx”
84. On the contrary, the evidence available on record would go
to show that the complainant namely Sh. Vijay Singh had
every motive to lodge false complaint against accused
Jauhari Singh. While entering into witness box as PW2,
he categorically deposed that accused Jauhari Singh had
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 80 of 92
made him to sit in squatting position for long hours and
also voluntary deposed during his cross-examination on
behalf of accused Jauhari Singh that when police police
officials harassed him without any fault, then complaint is
to be made. The relevant portion of his testimony, in this
regard, is reproduced here as under:-
“xxxxx
…It is correct that I had not mentioned in my complaint
Ex.PW2/A that accused ASI Jauhari Singh asked me to sit in
squat position (Murga banaya tha) and due to being tired I
had fallen. I used to make complaints against police officials
in PG Cell. (Vol.When police officials harass me without any
fault then complaint is to be made).
xxxx”
85. Accused Jauhari Singh has taken specific defence in his
statement under S. 313 Cr.PC that in his presence, the
complainant (PW2) was misbehaving and using filthy
language against his wife, due to which, he had made the
complainant to sit in squatting position and the
complainant had given false complaint against him out of
vengeance.
86. For similar reason, this Court also finds substance in the
argument raised on behalf of accused persons that since
they were not in a position to abuse their position being
public servants, the offence punishable under S.13(1)(d) of
PC Act is also not established against either of the accused
persons.
87. Further this Court also finds considerable force in the
submission advanced on behalf of accused persons that
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 81 of 92
since the prosecution failed to prove the confrontations
of its witnesses with their previous statements under
S.161 Cr.PC in accordance with law, therefore, it cannot
be said that those confrontatons have been proved in
accordance with law. So much so, PW2 was not even
confronted with his statement under S.164 Cr.PC and
hence, such statement cannot be read in evidence against
him. Moreover, relevant portions of previous statements
under S. 161 Cr.PC put to PW2 and PW3 during their
confrontations, were never put to PW15 i.e. IO/Inspector
Anil Sharma, he being IO of this case.
88. It is settled law that previous statements made before the
police, or even statement under S.164 Cr.PC recorded
before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, can only be used for
the purpose of corroboration and confrontation. Further,
there is no presumption of law that such previous
statement of witness is truthful statement. In this regard,
reference with advantage can be made to the cited cases of
Ramesh (supra), Harish Kumar (supra), Naresh Aneja @
Naresh Kumar Aneja (supra), Somasundaram (supra) and
Mahabir (supra), as relied upon by Ld. Counsel of accused
Jauhari Singh.
89. Apart from above, it is also pertinent to note that
investigation is not shown to have been carried out in fair
and independent manner. PW2 categorically admitted that
his shirt, in the pocket of which, he had kept
phenolphthalein powder smeared GC notes, was not seized
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 82 of 92
by the IO. It has come on record that there were several
police officials present in PS Bara Hindu Rao on
21-05-2018, however, neither PW11 Inspector/RO Pankaj
Sharma, nor PW15 IO/Inspector Anil Sharma joined any
of those police officials, as witness during investigation of
this case. It is a matter of common knowledge that CCTVs
are installed in every police station in Delhi, still, PW15
IO/Inspector Anil Sharma did not seize CCTV footage of
relevant camera(s) of PS Bara Hindu Rao of the day of
21-05-2018. Otherwise, it would have been relevant piece
of evidence.
90. Though, PW11 Inspector Pankaj Sharma deposed that he
did not allow accused Jauhari Sinigh to use his mobile
phone once raid proceedings had started, however, CDRs
of mobile phone of said accused, would show that its
internet was in use even till night hours on that day. PW15
IO/Inspector Anil Sharma deposed that he had recorded the
statements of complainant, panch witness, ASI Sagar, HC
Rajesh, HC Surender Singh and Inspector Pankaj Sharma
on 21-05-2018 after depositing relevant exhibits in
Mallkhana and it took him about 3 hours to record such
statements. As contrary thereof, PW12 Inspector Sagar
Singh deposed that it must have been 11:00 p.m. to 12:00
midnight when he had received the said case property.
That being so, in case PW15 IO/Inspector Anil Sharma had
taken 3 hours to record the statements of those witnesses,
the date would have been changed from 21-05-2018 to
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 83 of 92
22-05-2018. However, statements of those witnesses are
shown to have been recorded on 21-05-2018. In this
backdrop, the possibility of manipulation in recording
statements of those witnesses cannot be entirely ruled out.
Further, PW11 i.e. RO/Inspector Pankaj Sharma deposed
that he had returned back to PS Vigilance after raid at
around 7:00 p.m. and after 1/2 hours thereof, he had left
for home and did not meet IO after having returned back to
PS Vigilance on that day. If that being the position, there
was no possibility for PW15 to record the statement of
PW11 RO/Inspector Pankaj Sharma on 21-05-2018.
Furthermore, entries in Log Book [Ex.PW13/A], are also
shown to have been manipulated, in view of categorical
admission on the part of PW13 SI Naresh Kumar that there
are over writings appearing at point ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘X1’ on
meter reading mentioned in the Log Book (Ex.PW13/A)
and said over writings are not initialled or signed. Not only
this, PW13 also admitted that vehicle number, as
mentioned at points ‘B’ and ‘C’ on Ex.PW13/A, was
mentioned by him on 11-10-2021 i.e. after a considerable
gap of more than 3 years from the date of 21-05-2018
when the official vehicle was allegedly used for going to
conduct raid at PS Bara Hindu Rao.
CONCLUSION
91. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish
the charges levelled against both the accused persons,
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 84 of 92
beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused
namely Pradeep Bhardwaj is honourably acquitted of all
the charges levelled against him, however, the accused
namely Jauhari Singh is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him, by giving him benefit of doubt.
92. Considering the fact that both the accused persons have
already furnished their respective Bail Bonds in terms of S.
437 A Cr.PC, their respective previous bail bonds stand
cancelled and their respective previous sureties stand
discharged. Original document(s), if any, of said previous
sureties be released, after cancellation of endorsement, if
any, as per the Rules.
93. File be consigned to record room, after necessary
Digitally signed
compliance. by VIDYA
PRAKASH
VIDYA Date:
Announced in the open Court PRAKASH 2026.04.10
17:47:21
On 10th Day of April, 2026. +0530(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RADC/NEW DELHICCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 85 of 92
APPENDIX-I
SPECIMEN CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED
[In compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State
of Gujarat‘ bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.]PW Name of witness Description
No.
1. PW1 Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea
Ltd. Regarding mobile nos.
9711367682, 9911227950 and
9899948315.
2. Sh. Vijay Singh Complainant
3. Sh. Manish Sharma Panch Witness
4. SI Surender Singh Duty Officer who had recorded
the FIR.
5. Sh. Yatin Chawla Alternate Nodal Officer,
Reliance JIO Infocom Ltd.
Regarding mobile
no.8178287493.
6. Sh. Shailendra Yadav Senior Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi
7. HC Naveen Kumar, He is witness of seizure of DD
Nos. 18A and 38A, both dated
16.05.2018 and of duty rosters of
dates 16.05.2018 and 21.05.2018,
at PS Bara Hindu Rao.
8. SI Jitender Singh, I.T. Centre, He generated detailed bio-data of
PHQ, New Delhi both the accused.
9. ASI Rajesh Kumar Member of the Raiding Party –
He took Tehrir to PS Vigilance
Branch, Delhi from the spot i.e.
PS Hindu Bara Rao and got the
FIR registered from Duty Officer
ASI Surender Singh.
10. Sh. Rohit Handa He is witness regarding
deputation of Sh. Manish Sharma
as Panch Witness
11. Inspector (Retd.) Pankaj Raiding Officer
Sharma
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 86 of 92
PW Name of witness Description
No.
12. Inspector Sagar Singh MHC(M) with whom case
properties were deposited.
13. SI Naresh Kumar, He proved copy of logbook dated
21.05.2018 in respect of official
vehicle No. DL1CJ-5549 used by
the raiding party.
14. Ct. Sandeep He deposited the case properties
with FSL Rohini and thereafter,
handed over acknowledgment/
receipt thereof to MHC(M).
15. Inspector Anil Sharma Investigating Officer
16. Sh. Sagar Singh Kalsi, the then Accorded Sanction under S. 19
Deputy Commissioner of PC Act against both the accused.
Police (DCP), North District,
Delhi
CW1 HC Surender Kumar He is examined as Court Witness
and produced Personal File/
Character of accused Jauhari
Singh.
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RADC/NEW DELHI
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 87 of 92
APPENDIX-II
SPECIMEN CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS
[In compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State
of Gujarat‘ bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.]
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by
Ex.PW1/A Copy of Notice under S. 91
Cr.PC
Ex.PW1/B Attested copy of CAF in
respect of Mobile
No.9711367682
Ex.PW1/C Attested copy of CAF in
respect of Mobile
No.9899948315
Ex.PW1/D Attested copy of CAF in
respect of Mobile
No.9911227950
PW1 Sh. Pawan Singh,
Ex.PW1/E Certified copy of CDRs of of Nodal Officer, Vodafone
(Colly.) mobile nos.9711367682, Idea Ltd.
9911227950 and 9899948315
Ex.PW1/F Certificate under S. 65B of
Indian Evidence Act in
support of CDRs of aforesaid
three mobile numbers for the
period from 16.05.2018 till
22.05.2018
Ex.PW1/G Forwarding letter for supply of
certified copies of CDRs,
CAFs and Certificate under S.
65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.PW2/A Handwritten Complaint PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
complainant;
PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
Panch Witness;
PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
Pankaj Sharma
Ex.PW2/B Pre-Raid Report PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
Ex.PW2/C Raid Report complainant; and
PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
Pankaj Sharma
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 88 of 92
Ex.PW2/D Seizure memo of two glass
bottles containing handwash PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
of accused Jauhari Singh complainant;
PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
Ex.PW2/E Seizure memo of two glass Panch Witness; and
bottles containing handwash of PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj Pankaj Sharma
Ex.PW2/F Seizure Memo of GC notes
Ex.PW2/G Arrest Memo of accused
Jauhari Singh PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
Ex.PW2/H Arrest Memo of accused complainant;
Pradeep Bhardwaj PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
Ex.PW2/I Personal search memo of Panch Witness; and
accused Jauhari Singh PW15 Inspector Anil
Ex.PW2/J Personal search memo of Sharma, IO
accused Pradeep Bhardwaj
Ex.PW2/K Statement under S. 164 Cr.PC PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
of the complainant complainant
Ex.PW3/PA Statement under S. 161 Cr.PC
PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
of PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma /
Panch Witness
Panch Witness
Ex.PW4/A Endorsement made by duty
officer regarding registration of
FIR on Tehrir at Portion X to
X
Ex.PW4/B Computer Copy of FIR PW4 SI Surender Singh,
the then Duty Officer
Ex.PW4/C Certificate under S. 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act regarding
electronic record i.e. said FIR
Ex.PW4/D Copy of DD No.5A
Ex.PW5/A Customer Application Form
[CAF] in respect of Mobile No.
8178287493 subscribed in the
name of accused Pradeep
Bhardwaj
Ex.PW5/B Call Details Record [CDR] for
(Colly.) the period from 16.05.2018 to PW5 Sh. Yatin Chawla,
22.05.2018 [2 pages] Alternate Nodal Officer,
Ex.PW5/C Location Chart [2 pages] Reliance Jio Infocom Ltd.
(Colly.) Ex.PW5/D Forwarding Letter Ex.PW5/E Certificate under S. 65B of Indian Evidence Act CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 89 of 92 Ex.PW6/A FSL Report PW6 Sh. Shailendra Yadav, Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi. Ex.PW7/A DD No. 18A dated 16.05.2018 Ex.PW7/B DD No. 38A dated 16.05.2018 Ex.PW7/C Attested copies of Duty Roster PW7 HC Naveen Kumar dated 16.05.2018 Ex.PW7/D Attested copies of Duty Roster dated 21.05.2018 Ex.PW8/A Detailed Bio-Data of accused PW8 SI Jitender Singh, HC Pradeep Bhardwaj [back IT Centre, PHQ. to back 4 pages] Ex.PW8/B Detailed Bio-data of accused Jauhari Singh Ex.PW8/C Certificate under S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of above mentioned record Ex.PW10/A Copy of order dated PW10 Sh. Rohit Handa,
18.05.2018 regarding deputing Sr. Assistant, New Delhi
Sh. Manish Sharma as Pansh Municipal Council, Palika
Witness Kendra, Parliament
Street, New Delhi.
Ex.PW11/A Proceedings typed on the back
side of pre-raid report
Ex.PW11/B Proceedings noted down on PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
the pre-raid report regarding Pankaj Sharma
reaching at PS Bara Hindu
Rao
Ex.PW11/C Tehrir
Ex.PW12/A Copy of Register No.19
containing entry no. 114 dated PW12 Inspector Sagar
21.05.2018 Singh, the then MSI(M)
Ex.PW12/B Copy of Register No.21
containing RC No.12/21/18 PW12 Inspector Sagar
dated 04.06.2018 Singh, the then MSI(M);
and
Ex.PW12/C Copy of acknowledgment PW14 Ct. Sandeep
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 90 of 92
Ex.PW13/A Copy of Log Book dated
21.05.2018 in respect of
government vehicle bearing
PW13 SI Naresh Kumar
RC No.DL1CJ-5549 used by
raiding team
Ex.PW15/A Site plan
Ex.PW15/B Application for recording of
statement of complainant
under S. 164 Cr.PC
PW15 Inspector Anil
Ex.PW15/DA Photocopy of Notice under Sharma, IO
S.91 Cr.PC issued to Reliance
Jio Infocom Ltd. Seeking
CAF, CDRs and Cell Tower
ID of various mobile numbers.
Ex.PW16/A Sanction Order under S. 19 PC
Act for prosecution against
accused HC Pradeep Bhardwaj PW16 Sh. Sagar Singh
Kalsi, the then DCP,
Ex.PW16/B Sanction Order under S. 19 PC North District, Delhi.
Act for prosecution against
accused ASI Jauhari Singh
Ex.CW1/A Office Order
No.68842-920/CB-IV/PHQ CW1 HC Surender
dated 13.11.2016 regarding Kumar
accused ASI Jauhari Singh
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RADC/NEW DELHI
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 91 of 92
APPENDIX-III
SPECIMEN CHART FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS/ Muddamals
[In compliance of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State
of Gujarat‘ bearing Criminal Appeal No.(s) 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.]
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by / attested by
Ex.P1 (Colly.) Two GC Notes of ₹2,000/- PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
each complainant;
PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
Panch Witness; and
PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
Pankaj Sharma/ Raiding
Officer
Ex.P2 and Two Sealed Glass Bottles PW2 Sh. Vijay Singh/
Ex.P3 containing Left and Right complainant;
hand washes of acccused PW3 Sh. Manish Sharma/
Pradeep Bhardwaj Panch Witness;
Ex.P4 and Two Sealed Glass Bottles PW6 Sh. Shailendra Yadav,
Ex.P5 containing Left and Right Sr. Scientific Officer
hand washes of acccused (Chemistry), FSL Rohini,
ASI Jauhari Singh Delhi; and
PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
Pankaj Sharma/ Raiding
Officer
EX.P6 Sample Seal of ‘PS’ PW11 Inspector (Retd.)
Pankaj Sharma
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RADC/NEW DELHI
CCNo.19/2023, FIR No.04/2018, PS: Vigilance State v. Jauhari Singh & Anr. Page 92 of 92