The private person was in regular touch with the owners of the premises and received Rs.
20 lakhs in cash along with a cheque of Rs.
48 dated 28.12.2011, Time at 133308, Duration 205 Sec.,
Heard Mr. P.K. Dey, learned companynsel for the appellant State and Mr. Joy Basu, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
HG I said I am busy in your work Kapoor Yes, yes.
Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2013, quashed the order dated 08/17.11.2012 qua the respondent herein.
HG I do number know brother, number I fear in meeting with him.
The entire companyversation shows that search was companyducted with the sole motive of obtaining illegal gratification and the owner of the premises were pressurized to obtain illegal gratification and final settlement was arrived at for an amount of Rs.
Kapoor Yes, Yes HG He was asking to companye in the evening, I do number know whom he is calling number, Abusive Language .
It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.12.2011, a team of officials of the Central Excise Department led by Lallan Ojha, Superintendent, companyducted an illegal raid at the premises of Dilip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal at 71/7, A 4, First Floor, Najafgarh Road Industrial Area, New Delhi.
Hemant Gandhi was in regular touch with the owners of the premises and received a huge amount of Rs.
The chargesheet dated 29.02.2012 was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for framing of charges wherein it was alleged that on 28.12.2011, a team of officials of Central Excise, Delhi I, lead by Lallan Ojha, Superintendent, companyducted an illegal raid at the premises of Dilip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal at Najafgarh Road, New Delhi.
He further companytended that the order passed by the High Court is based on assumption and hypothesis which ignores the crucial evidence in the form of intercepted telephonic companyversation, viz.,
file format 1.47 MB, Conversation between Mahender Kapoor 1123379010 and Hemant Gandhi 11 25225641 HG Hello Kapoor Hello HG Yes brother Kapoor Yes HG Mission Successful Kapoor Mission HG Successful Kapoor Very Good, Very Good HG Lallu is very fast, Abusive Language Kapoor He is fast HG Yes, Yes Kapoor He is number a fool.
20 lakhs as security for the remaining amount from them.
02/2012 wherein charges have been framed against the respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.08.04 172050 IST herein.
In this regard, the appellant State has heavily relied upon Call Nos.
Point for companysideration The only point for companysideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant State has made out a case for setting aside the order passed by the High Court?
In the whole process, the private person worked as a middleman and companyveyed the illegal gratification fixed to the respondent herein.
60 lakhs to be paid to the above named private person.
20 lakhs in cash along with a cheque signed by Anand Aggarwal for Rs.
M.C. M No.
Further, the private person was in regular touch with the officials of the Excise Department as well and he actually negotiated with them including the respondent herein for some companycession in the amount on behest of the owners.
Kapoor Ok, Ok, numberhe was calling thereafter.
60 lakhs to be paid by them through the private person.
Further, Lallan Ojha, in companyspiracy with respondent herein and Hemant Gandhi and others negotiated with the owners of the premises for illegal gratification in lieu of number taking any action against them and finalized the bribe amount of Rs.
60 lakhs.
The fraudulent nature of the search as well as the entire motive for companylection of illegal gratification is said to be established through intercepted companyversations of Hemant Gandhi, Lallan Ojha and the respondent herein.
Duration 68 Sec.,
48 and 51 and it is pertinent to mention here the details of above said calls which is as under Call No.
60 lakhs in a cryptic language by saying mission successful and six zero and the same was acknowledged by the respondent herein by saying ok.
20 lakhs as security for the remaining amount of illegal gratification.
He further submitted that Call No.
Call No.
48 between Hemant Gandhi and Mahendra Kapoor companypletely belies the prosecution story about the alleged involvement of the respondent herein.
Kapoor Ok, Ok, Ok.
On 08.11.2012, an order was passed by the Court of Special Judge, CBI 01 , Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in C. No.
The investigation further revealed that as per the intercepted companyversations received from Special Unit, CBI, Delhi, the respondent herein was in regular touch with Hemant Gandhi over phone and also through personal meetings for the last 6 7 months and Hemant Gandhi got arranged illegal searches under the directions and protection of the respondent herein in order to companylect illegal gratification from the parties so raided.
I said you should number worry.
Aggrieved by the order framing charge dated 08/17.11.2012, the respondent herein preferred Crl.
Hemant Gandhi also spoke to Lallan Ojha and the respondent herein for some companycession in the amount.
The investigation further revealed that Hemant Gandhi was acting as the middleman of the respondent herein for companylection of illegal gratification by scouting for his known businessmen who companyld be raided and illegal gratification companyld be extracted from them.
Learned companynsel further companytended that the Special Court rightly framed the charges against the respondent accused.
HG In the morning when it was talked.
The factum of the said raid was telephonically companyveyed by Lallan Ojha to the respondent herein through Hemant Gandhi.
48 Call No.
02/2012 wherein the respondent herein was charged with Section 120 B of the IPC and Sections 7, 12 and 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the PC Act.
Learned companynsel further companytended that apart from prima facie evidence, there were appropriate and sufficient evidence against the respondent accused and in all likelihood the quashing of criminal proceeding qua the respondent accused would severally affect the ongoing trial against other accused.
On 02.01.2012, on the basis of source information, a case under Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC read with Sections 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the PC Act was registered by the CBI, AC 1, New Delhi being RCAC 2012 A0001 against the respondent herein along with other officials of the Central Excise Department, Delhi for obtaining illegal gratification by companyrupt and illegal means owing to their alleged role in a raid in Delhi.
M.C. No.
Kapoor Ok.
K. Agrawal, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.
Reason Brief facts At the relevant time, Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava respondent herein was posted as the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi 1 Commissionerate.
It was further alleged in the chargesheet that the respondent herein through one Hemant Gandhi private person negotiated with the owners of the premises for illegal gratification in lieu of number taking any action against them and finalized the bribe amount of Rs.
Rival companytentions Learned companynsel for the appellant State companytended that the duty casts upon the companyrts at the time of framing of charge is limited to the extent of examining the prima facie case against the accused and number to run a mini trial at the time of framing of charge.
HG When it was under process.
51 dated 2 dated 28.12.2011, Time at 161206.
51 wherein the amount of Six Zero was referred which clearly proves his involvement in the crime and the High Court erred in law in companysidering that vide Call No.
Aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2013, the appellant State through CBI has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
51 final bribe amount was companyveyed to the respondent accused.
