Special PC Act-CBI Judge acquits two Delhi Police Sub-Inspectors, says Prosecution failed in proving its case

By LE Correspondent

Read Order: CBI vs. Varun Chechi & Anr.

New Delhi, December 12, 2024: A Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act; CBI) has acquitted two Delhi Police Sub-Inspectors, saying the Prosecution failed in proving its case.

The case was registered based on complaint dated 11.11.2023 lodged by Manoj Kumar to the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi alleging that SI Varun Chechi posted at PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, demanded a bribe of Rs.25 lakhs from him for not implicating his employers namely  Harsatinder Pal Singh and Barinder Kaur (Son-in-Law and Daughter of Nirmal Singh Bhangoo) in FIR No. 16/2018 pertaining to Rs 45,000 crores ponzi scam case.

Advocate Harsh K. Sharma, Founder & Head Prosoll Law appeared for SI Varun Chechi alongwith his team of lawyers namely Vaibhavi Sharma, Lakshya Parasher, Bhumika Yadav and Rishabh Sharma, Advocates.

Harsh K. Sharma argued that SI Varun did not raise any demand and the complaint is false and motivated and complainant and his employers were rather interested to derail the investigation in order to escape from the consequences of their own faults and illegal acts. The complainant, knowingly well that recordings are being done, tried to lead the conversation in the manner that it gives impression that negotiations about money are taking place with the intention to manipulate the conversations in his own favour. The CFSL Report was also challenged by Mr. Sharma of not being of a definitive nature and does not provide a conclusive proof of the voices of accused persons. Further, independent witness of the prosecution was infact an accused in another CBI case, making the case of the prosecution a rather flimsy one.

After going through the facts and arguments the Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue District Court Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna opined that,

“Needless to mention that there are various contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of witnesses which make the entire prosecution story unbelievable particularly the credibility of the complainant is lost due to his involvement in criminal cases and due to his anxiety to help his employers. The discrepancies noted in the evidence cannot be said to be minor or trivial. They are concerning the vital aspects of the case. The so-called independent witnesses of the prosecution are not privy to the demand or acceptance or delivery of bribe. The defence pleas set up by accused persons, cannot be said to be wholly improbable, while the onus lies on the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. A cumulative effect of all the above-mentioned points, make the accused persons entitled to benefit of doubt.

“In view of the detailed discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution case suffers from various lapses and infirmities on crucial elements of demand, acceptance and recovery and hence the case of the prosecution fails. The case for the offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC or for the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is not proved against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, accused persons are acquitted of all the charges.”

It is pertinent to mention herein that the case was decided within one year of the incident and the trial was concluded expeditiously within a period of 6 months.