STATE Vs. SOMESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the orders of Special Judge dated 26th May,2004 discharging both the respondents-accused of offences under Section 7,12, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 120B of IPC, the petitioner CBI has assailed that order by way of filing the revision petition.

(2.) Facts of the case leading to the registration of the case against the respondents-accused are that on 7th November,2001 a FIR was registered against the respondents on the basis of a tape recorded conversation between respondents No.1 and respondent No.2 indicating the demand of bribe of Rs. 10 lacs by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2 in connection with certain official favour. As per said conversation, a middle-man was to deliver a packet of Rs. 5 lacs in the office of the respondent No.1 between 3.30 PM and 4 PM and rest of the 5 lacs was to be delivered to the wife of respondent No.1 at their residence. On receiving said recorded conversation from the source, CBI swung into action and summoned two independent witnesses Atam Prakash and Narender Kumar. These witnesses were sent to the office of respondent No.1 at Central Revenue Building, ITO, New Delhi. The team members and the independent witnesses took their respective positions as per strategy.

(3.) At about 3.30 PM, the middleman whose name turned out to be Navin John Francis was seen entering the room occupied by the respondent No.1. He was carrying a polythene packet having a logo of blue chip. That person waited in front of the room of respondent No. 1 for about 10 minutes and then went inside the room carrying that packet and returned after about 5 minutes without that packet which he had taken to the room. Since CBI team was watching his activities therefore immediately he was followed by the CBI team and on the ground floor he was stopped and questioned about his identity and purpose of visit. He disclosed his name as Navin John Francis, Secretary to Mr. Ashok Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2. He further stated that he had to deliver a packet to respondent No.1 as per instructions of respondent No.2. He further confirmed that he had delivered that packet to respondent No.1.