Appeals against conviction of three appellants for criminal conspiracy in diverting an MTNL telephone line with STD/ISD facility to the premises of Cepham Organics, causing loss to MTNL. The court upheld the trial court's finding of conspiracy and circumstantial chain, convicted them under Section 120-B IPC with the PC Act offences, and dismissed the appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
| Judgment reserved on: | 09.02.2015 | |
|---|---|---|
| % | Judgment delivered on: | 26.02.2016 |
+ CRL.A. 436/2008
DIWAN CHAND PRUTHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Manish Vashisht, Mr.Sameer Vashisht & Ms. Reena Yadav, Advocates. versus C.B.I. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu and Ms.Arunima Pal, Advocates. AND + CRL.A. 446/2008 LALA RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Vibhor Garg, Mr.Tanmay Mehta & Mr. Sumit Kumar Mishra, Advocates. versus C.B.I. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu and Ms.Arunima Pal, Advocates.
AND
Page 1 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
+ CRL.A. 453/2008
BHAG CHAND
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advocate. versus
C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K. Raghavacharyulu and Ms.Arunima Pal, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
J U D G M E N T
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Page 2 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
simple imprisonment for a period of seven days, for offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently for Appellant Lala Ram.
Page 3 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
with STD/ISD facility, was diverted by appellant Lala Ram, on the disconnected line of telephone number 3713201 of Cepham Organics. In return, a payment of Rs. 25,000/- per month in two equal installments of Rs.12,500/- on 10th and 25th day of every month was made to appellant Lala Ram.
Page 4 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 5 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 6 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 7 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Regular Mazdoor in MTNL during the period from December, 1994 to 30.6.1995. In his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused No. 2 Diwan Chand Pruthi admitted that during the period December, 1994 to 30.6.1995, he was the Chairman of M/s Cepham Organics Limited. The accused No. 3 Bhag Chand in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that during the period December, 1994 to 30.6.1995 he was working as Office Assistant with M/s Cepham Organics Limited. Accused No. 1 examined one DW Jaswant Singh on 6.9.2005. However, accused No. 2 Diwan Chand Pruthi did not examine any witness though availed several opportunities and he closed his defence evidence on 19.12.2005. As noticed above, all the appellants stand convicted by the Trial Court.
Page 8 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 9 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
could not have performed the alleged acts – being beyond the scope of his duty.
Page 10 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
“ On 30.6.95 at about 11.30 am, I had gone to bring tea from the Canteen situated on the 5th floor where Lala Ram also met me. Thereafter we had tea there and we remained for about 45 minutes in the Canteen. There is no telephone in the canteen.
Page 11 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Lala Ram did not make any telephone call in my presence during that period. ”
Page 12 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
submits that the video recording could have established that PW-16 Shobha Dutta received the alleged call, but CBI has withheld the same. Further, CBI has not been able to explain and establish what happened at the site during the surprise check. Thus, adverse inference has to be drawn against the CBI/prosecution.
Page 13 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
discharged Mr. Kapil Bhasin vide order dated 10.10.2002. They submit that since the Courts have discharged both the accused, there is no evidence to prove the payment of illegal gratification to the appellant Lala Ram.
Page 14 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
M block of Connaught Place and it does specify the particular building or office where the pair is connected ”. Even PW-24 only states that the connection was in M block Connaught Place. He does not specify the building. Thus, the diversion is highly doubtful.
Page 15 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Evidence Act. Section 10 is based on the legal principle that a statement of co-conspirator is only binding on the other co-conspirators as long as it is made during subsistence of common intention. There can be two objections to the admissibility of evidence under Section 1 0 , and they are (1) the conspirator whose evidence is sought to be admitted against other coconspirator is not confronted, or cross-examined in Court by the coconspirator, and (2) prosecution merely proves the existence of reasonable ground of the conspiracy. The Supreme Court further held that the prosecution has to produce independent witnesses to establish the existence of a conspiracy and to corroborate the statement of the co-conspirator. They submit that, in the present case, the prosecution has not satisfied both the objections, as the appellant Lala Ram was not cross-examined, and there is no corroboration of the alleged telephone call made by appellant Lala Ram.
Page 16 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
some test calls to USA and Latur, Maharashtra on the day of the surprise check. However, there is no mention of these test calls made by Shobha Dutta in the Joint Surprise Check memo (Ex. PW4/A), nor does PW-16 mention about these tests calls in her examination-in-chief. If PW-16 had actually made the test calls, the same would have been reflected, at least, in the Joint Surprise Check memo (Ex. PW4/A), or the statement of PW-16. Further, he submits that the CBI has failed to prove, who the subscribers/allottees of the phone numbers in USA and Latur, Maharashtra were. There is no evidence on record to prove that the calls were actually made from phone number 3716165.
Page 17 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
made by me personally ”. He submits that it has not been established on the record, on which number the said test call was made from the EPBAX board of the company. Further, PW-20 Ashok Kumar stated that he could not tell where the said telephone was installed, nor could he tell who made the calls from the said telephone.
Page 18 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 19 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 20 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
admitted his signatures on the Joint Surprise Check memo (Ex. PW-4/A), and admitted that telephone instruments and visiting cards were seized in his presence. He submits that PW-21 supported the case of prosecution fully, and corroborated the other evidence on record.
Page 21 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 22 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
further deposed that “ Bhag Chand was interrogated who confirm this fact of diverting line of telephone at the premises of Cepham Organics to which he confirmed that it was correct that an illegal diversion has been done in the premises of Cepham Organics by Lala Ram… … … ”.
Page 23 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 24 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
same has been signed by them. The said document narrates the entire raid proceedings as they took place.
Page 25 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
telephone number 3716165. The Joint Surprise Check memo Ex. PW-4/A further states that appellant Bhag Chand disclosed that STD/ISD facility on the disconnected line was provided by appellant Lala Ram, for which appellant Diwan Chand Pruthi paid two installments of Rs. 12,500/- each, per month. Ex. PW-4/A states that a telephone diary and three visiting card albums were taken into possession alongwith the telephone instruments. PW-4, PW-5, PW-9, PW-10 have confirmed their signatures on the Joint Surprise Check memo Ex. PW4/A.
Page 26 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
for non-payment of dues. He proved his signatures on the Joint Surprise Check memo Ex. PW4/A bearing at point A.
Page 27 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
telephone line with STD/ISD facility. He proved Ex. PW4/A which bore his signature. Further, in his cross-examination, he explained the procedure for installing of a STD/ISD connection. He stated that line men do the installation work. He stated that the verification is done by Field Staff, after which the SD (Record) orders for the opening of the telephone line. Further, a regular mazdoor has no role in the entire process.
Page 28 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Lady Officer, Shobha Dutta. The said call was for Bhag Chand, by Lala Ram. He left a message to disconnect the said telephone line. Lala Ram said he was calling from Kidwai Bhawan, where the raid was being conducted by the CBI.
Page 29 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
SCC 434, has held that the statement of a Polic e Officer can be relied upon, and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record. Thus, the statements of Police officials are admissible evidence, and can be relied upon by the Courts, as they appear to be reliable and corroborated by the independent witnesses. The accused have not claimed in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that any of these witnesses – including the CBI raiding team members, had any reason to falsely frame them.
Page 30 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
that Mr. Bhasin was talking on the phone when the CBI team entered the office, whereas according to other witnesses and the Joint Surprise Check memo (Ex. PW-4/A) a person was talking on the phone in the cabin of Mr. Bhasin. The Joint Surprise Check memo (Ex. PW-4/A) names the person as Mr. Chaturvedi. This discrepancy in the statement of the prosecution witnesses appears to be the result of a long time gap between the incident and the recording of the statement of the witness. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the cabin was that of Mr. Bhasin. Therefore, if any of the prosecution witnesses named the person occupying the cabin as Mr. Bhasin, it is not exceptionable. The fact remains that a person was occupying the cabin; was talking on the telephone number 3716165, and; he disconnected the call on seeing the raiding party. Merely because the gentleman was later identified as Mr. Chaturvedi is not destructive of the case of the prosecution, because the raiding party were strangers to the said Shri Chaturvedi. The statements were given by the prosecution witnesses after 8-9 years of the Joint Surprise Check and, thus, minor discrepancies are known to creep in. (See State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. , (1981) 2 SCC 752 )
Page 31 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 32 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
they took place, on the day of the surprise check at Cepham Organics. The statements of these witnesses corroborate Ex. PW-4/A and, thus, establish that a surprise check was conducted at the Cepham Organics office on 30.06.1995, and an unauthorized telephone connection no. 3716165 was found to be connected, live and working with STD/ISD facility.
Page 33 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
11. … … … … … In Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, 1961 CriLJ 828, Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court has said:
"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts."
12. In State v. Nalini and Ors., 1999 CriLJ 3124 it is observed by S.S.M. Quadri J. at paragraph 677:
"In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means . Those who do form the requisite
Page 34 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences."
13. To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is the first and primary condition and it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of conspiracy. Neither it is necessary that every one of the conspirators takes active part in the commission of each and every conspiratorial acts. The agreement amongst the conspirators can be inferred by necessary implication. In most of the cases, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually deducted from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused involved in the conspiracy. While appreciating the evidence of the conspiracy, it is incumbent on the Court to keep in mind the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence viz. each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn, and no
Page 35 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence in the Penal Code. The unlawful agreement is sine qua non for constituting offence under the Penal Code and not an accomplishment. Conspiracy consists of the scheme or adjustment between two or more persons which may be express or implied or partly express and partly implied. Mere knowledge, even discussion, of the plan would not per se constitute conspiracy. The offence of conspiracy shall continue till the termination of agreement. ”
(Emphasis Supplied)
“583. Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy may be summarized though , as the name implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
Page 36 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along with other conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime.”
“ 10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.—Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. ”
“ 40. … … .In dealing with this Section in Sardul Singh v. State of Bombay, 1957 CriLJ 1325, this court observed that it is recognised on well established authority that the principle underlining the reception of evidence of the statements , acts and writings of one co-conspirator as against the other is on the
Page 37 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
theory of agency. Ordinarily, a person cannot be made responsible for the acts of others unless they have been instigated by him or done with his knowledge or consent. This section provides an exception to that rule, by laying down that an overt act committed by any one of the conspirators is sufficient, (on the general principles of agency) to make it the act of all. But then, the opening of words of the Section makes in abundantly clear that such concept of agency can be availed of, only, after the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that they have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong. In other words, only when such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention thereafter is relevant against the others, not only for the propose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. In Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra 1976 CriLJ 860, this court analysed the section as follows:-
"(1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a coconspirator and not in his favour."”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Page 38 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
persons/co-conspirators in the conspiracy, provided the Court has reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy exists. Hence, in the present case, the conspiracy is to be established in the light of the aforesaid decision. Now as far as conspiracy is concerned, although prosecution is liable to produce independent evidence as to existence of the conspiracy for Section 10 to operate, it need not prove the same beyond reasonable doubt (See Nalini (supra)). The provision itself states “… where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit a crime….”.
Page 39 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
this information with others in the raiding team. Moreover, this call was received in the presence of the other prosecution witnesses present as a part of the raiding team, as deposed by them. Although none of them directly heard the conversation but, as the information was given to them during the course of raid by PW16, it may be considered as part of the same transaction within the meaning of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, and therefore may be considered res gestae . The act of caller in making the phone call and the conversation became relevant under Section 8 of the Act. After the call was disconnected, and during the course of the raid, the members of the raiding party were informed about the contents of the telephone call. The act of receiving the phone call, and disclosure of the contents of the phone call during the course of the raid would be a part of the same transaction, and therefore res gestae . The two acts can safely be labeled contemporaneous. Reliance may be placed upon Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs Rex , 1951 ALJ 149; Emperor Vs Ramchandra Rango Sawkar , AIR 1939 Bombay 129; Hadu Vs The State , AIR 1951 Orissa 53; also Om Singh Vs State of Rajasthan , 1997 CriLJ 2419 (DB) (RAJ.). It is settled law that a statement of a bystander, or somebody who has perceived an occurrence or event is admissible, if it is made during or immediately after the incident and it is relevant to the facts in issue (See Bhaskaran Vs State of Kerala , 1985 CriLJ 1711). The conduct of the caller and the words spoken by him when viewed along with the conduct of the caller in making the phone call-seeking disconnection of the unauthorized connection is also relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act. Evidence of such act can always be received, whether the co-conspirator who made the call was on trial or not, to prove the existence of the conspiracy (See Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs The State
Page 40 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
of Bombay , AIR 1957 SC 747). Thus, it stands established that a call was received by PW-16 Shobha Dutta from a person who gave his name as Lala Ram; calling from Kidwai Bhawan, MTNL Office; the caller asked for Bhag Chand – thus he knew Bhag Chand of Cepham Organics; he stated that a CBI raid had taken place in Kidwai Bhawan, and; the telephone lines of 3716165 should be disconnected which had STD/ISD connection. The telephone call received by PW16 asking her to inform Bhag Chand to disconnect the STD line gives further reasonable ground to believe existence of conspiracy between two or more persons. The conclusion is regardless of the identity of the caller being established. Only a conspirator would call to warn his co-conspirators to abort an ongoing crime. Therefore, once it is concluded that the call was made by a co-conspirator, not only conspiracy is established but what was said on telephone by one conspirator can always be used against each conspirator, inter alia , to establish who all were conspiring. Thus, it can safely be concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the telephone line of 3716165 was diverted to Cepham Organics at M-134, Connaught Place, New Delhi, under a conspiracy to unauthorisedly misuse the said telephone line.
Page 41 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Further, Ex. D-35 is a document which shows the call details of calls made from telephone number 3716165 between 15.01.1995 to 15.03.1995, which also shows that the same numbers were dialed in this period as well, and STD/ISD facility was being used. Appellant Diwan Chand Pruthi gave a statement under Section 313 CrPC on 25.07.2005, and again on 06.09.2005. In the statement dated 25.07.2005, he stated:
“ Ques 2. It is also in evidence against you that you through your co-accused Bhag Chand got diverted unauthorisedly line of telephone number 3716165 by your co-accused Lala Ram on a disconnected telephone of the firm against a monthly payment to Rs. 25,000/- to Lala Ram by you through Bhag Chand, your employee. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect.
Ques3. It is further in evidence against you that you were using the telephone number 3716165 for making STD and ISD calls and the numbers appearing in the print out of telephone number 3716165 are matching with the numbers mentioned in the dairy mark- B,C and D which means that the above said telephone was frequently used from your office illegally. What have you to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. ”
Page 42 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
where Memo Ex.PW-3/B was prepared bearing his signatures at point ‘A’ on all four pages and the documents mentioned in this memo bearing serial No. 1 to 20 were seized by CBI Officer in his presence and he signed as a witness. Vide Ex.PW3/B, Serial No. 9, personal file of accused Bhag Chand containing 41 pages was seized by CBI Officer. Page No. 28 is the original Inter-Office Memo of M/s Cepham issued by Chairman, Diwan Chand Pruthi (accused No. 2) to G.M.(HRD) dated 10.9.1994 which reads as under:-
“ Henceforth Mr. Bhagchand will look after my jobs exclusively and will report to Mr. C O Danniel. Please ensure compliance with immediate effect.
Sd/-
(DEWAN C PRUTHI) ”
Page 43 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
further stated that D.C.Pruthi (accused No.2) used to direct her to ask Bhag Chand to connect ISD/STD line in spite of the fact that he was having a direct line in his office having ISD/STD facility.
Page 44 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
existence of a conspiracy. PW3 also proved a special staff memo PW3/B whereby Bhag Chand was designated special assistant of DC Pruthi.
Page 45 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
from a person who gave his name as Lala Ram, asking for Bhag Chand, and who stated that a CBI raid had taken place in Kidwai Bhawan, and that the telephone lines of 3716165 should be disconnected which had STD/ISD connection nails Bhag Chand as a conspirator.
Page 46 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Bhawan would be aware of. PW-17 Mr. S.R. Singh, Inspector, CBI was a part of the team which conducted the surprise check at Kidwai Bhawan. He deposed that “ Meanwhile I received a telephone call from Sh. K.K. Nair, an official of MTNL who was a party member of CBI team at office of C- Pharma Organics and Sh. Nair informed me that one Sh. Lala Ram of MDF Section has made a call to the office of C-Pharma informing that CBI raid has been conducted in MDF section and the telephone wires in the office of C-Pharma organics be removed ”.
Page 47 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
anyone else from the raiding party, or that he did not speak to PW-17 about the call made by Lala Ram. Once again, it appears to be a case of fading memory of PW-9, as it was on the basis of the information received by PW17 from PW-9, that the CBI team at Kidwai Bhawan identified Lala Ram as the person responsible for the diversion of the telephone line, and located the whereabouts of Lala Ram.
Page 48 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
telephone call in my presence during that period ”. DW-1 stated that he met appellant Lala Ram in the canteen at around 11:30 am and the latter was already present there. According to the Ex. PW-3/A, the CBI officials started the inspection at 11:30 am; therefore, they must have entered the Kidwai Bhawan building before 11:30 am. PW-17 stated that “ On inquiry I found that he had left the MDF section before the CBI team had entered the MDF Section ”. The possibility that appellant Lala Ram realized that the CBI officials had entered the Kidwai Bhawan building, and made the call immediately to Cepham Organics for Bhag Chand, and thereafter left for the canteen-just before the CBI team arrived in the MDF Section, cannot be ruled out. It is not the statement of DW-1 that appellant Lala Ram went to the canteen with him from the MDF Section. Thus, the possibility of him making the call before coming to the canteen cannot be ruled out on the basis of his statement.
Page 49 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
conversation of the accused person. On tapping of the telephone, the Police learnt about the conspiracy the accused persons were hatching. The Police officers arrested all the accused persons. The voice test identification was conducted and the Trial Court held the voice to be of the appellant, and the other co-accused. The Supreme Court held that voice identification is prone to tampering, doctoring, editing and, therefore, is not wholly reliable. The conviction of an accused cannot be based purely on the basis of the voice identification. Thus, Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. However, in the present case, there was no voice recording, or voice test identification. The case of the prosecution is not based on any voice recording. Appellant Lala Ram called Cepham Organics office at the time when the CBI officials were present, and were conducting the surprise check. His call was received by PW-16 and he conversed with her. He gave his own identity and place from where he was calling; the person he wished the message to be conveyed; the message itself and the factum of the CBI raid taking place at Kidwai Bhawan. Appellant Lala Ram himself stated that the call was for appellant Bhag Chand informing him about the raid, and to disconnect the unauthorized telephone line. This conversation was undertaken by the appellant Lala Ram with PW-16 being unmindful of the fact that he was speaking to a police/CBI officer. Thus, Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar (supra) is of no avail as there could no tampering, doctoring, or editing. During the raid, a call was received from appellant Lala Ram for the appellant Bhag Chand.
Page 50 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
that, “He also practically demonstrated how he has extended the telephone No. 3716165 to the line of the disconnected number 3713201 in the presence of independent witnesses ”.
Page 51 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
“206. We have already noticed the distinction highlighted in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979) 3 SCC 90
Page 52 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
between the conduct of an accused which is admissible under Section 8 and the statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where stolen articles or weapons used in the commission of the offence were hidden, would be admissible as “conduct” under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct, falls within the purview of Section 27, as pointed out in Prakash Chand case. In H.P.Admn. V. Om Prakash (1972) 1 SCC 249, this Court held that:
“Even apart from the admissibility of the information under Section 27, the evidence of the investigation officer and the panchas that the accused had taken them to PW11 (from whom he purchased the weapon) and pointed him out and as corroborated by PW11 himself would be admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as conduct of the accused.””
Page 53 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
certain pieces in chain of events were missing, and the accused could not be held guilty due to recoveries made pursuant to his statement.
“ For disconnection on account of non-payment of the bills, the procedure is that the DNP list from Account Officer comes directly to the FRS i.e. DNP Operator for disconnection of first 15 days outgoing. SDE/FRS (DNP Operator) sends the same list to the SDE/Switch Room for disconnection. If the payment is not
Page 54 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
made within that period of 15 days then information is sent for disconnection of incoming calls also in consent with Account Officer. If the payment is received within six months the Account Officer send a list for reconnection of the telephone to SDE/FRS (DNP Operator) and the DNP Operators sends the list to the Switch Room and the Switch Room after opening the line sends the jumper letter with reading to SDE/FRS (DNP Operator). If the amount is not received in six months, then the line is permanently disconnected from MDF.”
“ After applying for STD/ISD facility on a new connection, verification of the premises is done by Field Staff. SD (Record) is the Incharge of MDF who orders for opening the line from the switch room after physical verification by the field staff. Divisional Engineer is the Incharge of Switch room. At that time concerned Accounts Officer was competent to order for disconnection in case of non-payment. It is correct that installation work is done in the premises by Line man .”
Page 55 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
authorisedly done by any one. Thus, it makes no difference, whether or not the appellant Lala Ram had the authority to disconnect/ reconnect/change the telephone lines in the telephone exchange. When a person is aware of the conspiracy, and he aids and acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, and has a common intention for the execution of the conspiracy, he would be held liable for the same.
Page 56 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Gulf countries and Saudi Arabia from the house, which belonged to his sister. However, there was no evidence to connect the A-1 to the premises. Further, the CBI could not establish the losses suffered by MTNL, as no bills were provided by them. This Court held that there were huge gaps in the case of the prosecution and, consequently, the case against the accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, they were acquitted.
Page 57 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Page 58 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
inconsequential. The case of the prosecution was that the telephone line 3716165 was a spare line till it was illegally diverted to Cepham Organics. Thus, there was no necessity for the prosecution to establish its so-called user prior to its diversion to Cepham Organics.
Page 59 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Day book Ex. PW15/A on dt. 12.12.94 at point A, on dt. 10.1.95 at point A, on dt. 25.1.95 at point A for an amount of Rs. 12500/- are in my hand. The first entry of Rs.12500/- is in the name of Chairman and the other two entries of Rs. 12500/- each are in the name of Sh. Sanjiv ”. It was for Diwan Chand Pruthi to explain satisfactorily the purpose of the said withdrawals. He has failed to give any explanation of the same. A strong inference of a criminal conspiracy can be drawn from the statement of PW-14 Anuradha Diwan, wherein she stated that appellant Diwan Chand Pruthi directed her to ask appellant Bhag Chand to connect the ISD/STD call, despite having a telephone line with ISD/STD facility in his office.
Page 60 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, as there was insufficient evidence to establish that the accused demanded the illegal gratification. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant had accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant. Thus, the accused was acquitted under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act as well. In the present case, the counsels for the appellants contend that the burden to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was on the prosecution, and the same has not been discharged. As a result, the appellants should be acquitted for offence under Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. However, the present case is one of a criminal misconduct covered by Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the PC Act, and of a conspiracy. From the afore stated decisions of the Supreme Court, it is clear that in a criminal conspiracy direct evidence is seldom available, and conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, as long as a chain of events is drawn and established by the prosecution. In my view, the prosecution has established the chain of events and, consequently, a criminal conspiracy has been established. The prosecution has further established that accused Diwan Chand Pruthi obtained for his company Cepham Organics pecuniary advantage without public interest under a criminal conspiracy with accused Lala Ram and accused Bhag Chand. Thus, charge under Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of PC Act of criminal misconduct against appellant Lala Ram stands established.
Page 61 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
these statements of the two appellants to be not admissible evidence under sections 25, 26, or 27 of the Evidence Act. They contended as the appellants have been convicted on the basis of inadmissible evidence. In my view the trial court has not acted on the basis of the disclosure statements and therefore there is no force in the said contention.
Page 62 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
Ram made the call on the day of the surprise check to disconnect the unauthorised line of telephone number 3716165.
“11. In a criminal jurisprudence, the case of the prosecution should rest on its own strength and not in the absence of explanation plausible defense by the accused. While dealing with serious question of guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime, the following general rules have been laid down for the guidance of courts:- (i) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused, lies on the prosecution; (2) The evidence must be such as to exclude to moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matters of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is better that several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer; (iv) There must be
Page 63 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
a clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicti; (v) The hypothesis of guilt should be consistent with all the facts proved. With due respect, we may add that it is not the duty of courts to make up the loopholes of the prosecution howsoever suspicious the involvement of the accused in the crime. In other words, this Court cannot take over the duty of the prosecution. We understand that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based on reason and common sense. ”
“ 15. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, this Court observed that it is well settled that the prosecution's case must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the court where various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence are in themselves complete. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The same should be of a conclusive nature and exclude all possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. The facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
Page 64 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
16. The Court also discussed the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone and held as under :
(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”
Page 65 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 26, 2016
Page 66 of 66
CRL.A. Nos.436/2008, 446/2008 & 453/2008
2 issues framed by the court
Whether telephone number 3716165 was diverted to the disconnected telephone number 3713201 installed at the premises of Cepham Organics, Connaught Place.
Whether the diversion was made pursuant to a criminal conspiracy and whether each of the three appellants was involved in that conspiracy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sangili Vs. State of Tamil NaduDistinguished¶94
(2014) 10 SCC 264 · Who else cites this
C Sukumaran Vs State of KeralaDistinguished¶106
(2015) 11 SCC 314 · Who else cites this
K.R. Purushottam Vs. State of KeralaRelied on¶66
(2005) 12 SCC 631 · Who else cites this
State Vs. NaliniRelied on¶66
(1999) 5 SCC 253 · Who else cites this
Tahir Vs. State (Delhi)Relied on¶59
(1996) 3 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of Madhya PradeshRelied on¶59
(2007) 7 SCC 625 · Who else cites this
Rohtash v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶59
(2013) 14 SCC 434 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr.Referred¶60
(1981) 2 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
Kehar Singh and Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)Referred¶66
(1988) 3 SCC 609 · Who else cites this
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla and Ors.Relied on¶69
(1998) 3 SCC 410 · Who else cites this
Kameshwar Prasad Singh Vs RexReferred¶71
1951 ALJ 149
Emperor Vs Ramchandra Rango SawkarReferred¶71
AIR 1939 Bombay 129 · Who else cites this
Bhaskaran Vs State of KeralaReferred¶71
1985 CriLJ 1711 · Who else cites this
Sardul Singh Caveeshar Vs The State of BombayReferred¶71
AIR 1957 SC 747 · Who else cites this
Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶89
2011 (4) SCC 143 · Who else cites this
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot SandhuReferred¶93
(2005) 11 SCC 742 · Who else cites this
Shabban Vs. CBIDistinguished¶100
(2014) 146 DRJ 653
Khilli Ram Vs. State of RajasthanDistinguished¶104
1985 (1) SCC 28 · Who else cites this
Sukhjit Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶109
2014 (10) SCC 270 · Who else cites this
Sharad Birchchand Sarda Vs. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶111
1984 (4) SCC 116 · Who else cites this
Raj Kumar Singh Alias Raju Alias Batya Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶109
2013 (5) SCC 722 · Who else cites this
Abdul Sufan Vs. The State of TripuraReferred¶110
2010 CriLJ 805 · Who else cites this
Dr. Mahender Singh Dahiya Vs. State (CBI)Referred¶111
2003 CriLJ 1908 · Who else cites this
Haresh Mohandas Rajput Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶111
2011 (12) SCC 56 · Who else cites this
State of Maharshtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao WankhedeReferred¶113
2009 (15) SCC 200 · Who else cites this
10 provisions across 4 enactments
Diwan Chand Pruthi
Lala Ram
Bhag Chand
C.B.I.
Vipin Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
