Delhi Court discharges former Unitech Promoters in corruption case due to insufficient evidence

Read Order: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Neeraj Kumar &Ors

LE Desk

New Delhi, December 21, 2021: A Special CBI court here has discharged former Promoters of Unitech Limited, a real Estate company involved in the business of construction of real Estate Projects, in a case of bribery.

The Court of Sh. Harish Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, (PC Act): CBI-20, Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi, by an order dated December 16, 2021, discharged all accused in the pending matter titled CBI v. Neeraj Kumar & Others.

FIR in the said case was registered on July 31, 2018 on source information stating that Neeraj Walia, Advocate by profession, and others namely Neeraj Kumar (the then S.H.O P.S. Saket), Sanjay Sharma (Inspector, Police Station Hauz Khas), Ramesh Chandra, Ajay Chandra, Upma Chandra, Seema Manga and Pradeep Kumar of M/s Unitech Limited and some unknown persons were indulging incorrupt and illegal activities.

Source informer informed regarding various criminalcases being registered withthe Delhi Police and pending investigation against theDirectors of M/s Unitech Limited, a real Estate company involved inthe business of construction of real Estate Projects.

A charge-sheet was then filed by the CBI against the aforesaid persons alleging the offense under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offense thereof.

The prosecution contended that there are sufficient materials/grounds to frame charge against all the accused persons in respect of all the alleged offenses.

Neeraj Walia, Advocate by profession, was represented by Harsh K. Sharma Advocate, Founder Prosoll Law Inc. assisted by Lakshya Parasher Advocate. Several legal and factual issues were raised while seeking discharge on behalf of the accused persons. It was contented that the absence of substantive evidence qua demand of bribe amount, acceptance of bribe amount, primarily because the prosecution relied upon intercepted conversations over mobile/landline telephone to prove demand, and acceptance of bribe or the alleged conspiracy to bribe.

It was further contended by Advocate Harsh K. Sharma that in the absence of substantive piece of evidence, the corroborative evidence, howsoever reliable it may be, cannot give rise to grave suspicion about the commission of offense or form basis for conviction. It was also contended on behalf of Neeraj Walia that for the offense under Section 7 of P.C. Act demand of bribe is sine qua non and there is no evidence which could even lead this court to infer demand for undue advantage on the part of the public servant. It was further contended that there is no evidence to the effect that private accused persons conspired to pay bribe to public servant.

The Hon’ble Court on perusal of the chargesheet and contentions raised by all held that, “…materials relied upon in the chargesheet shows that prosecution is heavily relying upon 81 intercepted calls’ conversations over mobile/landline phone between accused persons inter se, between accused persons and others including witnesses and between others including witnesses and upon recovery of sum of Rs. 2 lacs (alleged bribe amount) from Neeraj Kumar (A-1)almost simultaneously when the said amount was allegedly delivered by Neeraj Walia (A-2) to Neeraj Kumar (A-1), to prove demand of and acceptance of bribe amount, conspiracy to pay bribe etc. Direct oral testimony on the point of conspiracy, demand of bribe, delivery of bribe, acceptance of bribe are missing as shall be noted as proceeded further in this order.

The Court further observed that, “It is worthwhile to note that alleged delivery of amount of Rs. 2 lacs by accused Neeraj Walia (A-2) to accused Neeraj Kumar (A-1) and its recovery from accused Neeraj Kumar (A-1) almost simultaneously with delivery, has been painted as bribe amount with the help of intercepted conversations over mobile/landline phone between accused persons inter se, between accused persons and others including witnesses and between others including witnesses. If there had not been any intercepted conversations allegedly containing incriminating materials, then the evidence regarding delivery of amount of Rs. 2 lacs (alleged bribe) and its recovery almost soon after the delivery will not even give rise to suspicion of commission of any of the offenses allegedly committed in the present case, not to speak of giving rise to grave suspicion about the commission thereof as it is settled proposition of law that demand of bribe or its acceptance of undue advantage as bribe is sine qua non for the offense of Section 7 of P.C. Act. Mere recovery of amount, even if tainted, will be of no help to prosecution in the absence of evidence for demand or acceptance of undue advantage as bribe. Further, a three judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Satyanarayan Murthy v. The Distt. Inspector of Police &Anr.(2015) 10 SCC 152,has held that inferential deduction of demand is impressible in law.”