Date post: | 04-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | syed-shah-ali-hussaini |
View: | 239 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
1/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
-:- IN THE COURT OF SH. KANWAL JEET ARORA :-
SPECIAL JUDGE : C.B.I. (P.C.ACT)
DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
C.C.No. : 01 / 2011.
FIR No. : RC/AC II/2004/A-20007
dtd 06thDecember,2004
Under sec. : 9 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
In the matter of:-
CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATIONS (C.B.I)
...Through
[Dr.Padmini Singh, Learned
Public Prosecutor for CBI]
v e r s u s
BANGARU LAXMAN,
S/o.: Late Sh.B.Narsimha,
R/o.:8-3-1107, Keshav Nagar,
Hyderabad 73, Presently residing
at : House No.228, North Avenue, New Delhi. ... Accused.
...Through
[Sh.Sunil Kumar, Ld.Senior
Advocate along with Sh.Rajesh
Khanna, Sh. Manish Mohan,
Sh.Atul Kumar and Sh. N.
Balraj, Advocates]
Date of Institution : 19.07.2006.
Date of reserving judgement : 02.04.2012.
Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2012.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.1 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
2/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
-:- J U D G E M E N T -:-
1. Large scale ramifications which electronic media
generates owing to audio, video impact it has on the minds of public,
evokes immediate awareness and consciousness amongst them. It
causes a ripple effect, in the otherwise calm waters of their lives and
unites them to ask questions from their elected representatives
about their conduct.
2. On 13th
March 2001, Zee T.V., a television
channel had aired a programme based on sting operation
conducted by representatives of Tehelka.com, a news and views
portal of M/s Buffalo Networks Private Limited. In the said
programme, senior politicians from the then ruling party,
bureaucrats and senior officers of defence services were shown to be
involved in large scale corruption in the defence procurement
process of democratic republic of the country.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.2 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
3/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
3. Responding to the sharp criticism which this
programme generated, the then Government decided to have a
Commission of Inquiry constituted, which was initially headed by
Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami and thereafter by Hon'ble
Mr.Justice S.N.Phukanof Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
4. In October 2004, the inquiry commission was
wound up and it was decided to have the case registered and
investigated by Central Bureau of Investigations.
5. Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI), vide
letters dated 29.10.2004 and 25.11.2004 of Ms.Manjulika Gautam,
Additional Secretary, Government of India, Department of
Personnel & Training, New Delhi, were communicated the
Government's decision regarding abolition of Justice S.N.Phukan
Commission of Inquiry and for having the matter investigated,
registered an FIR bearing registration number RC/AC-
II/2004/A-20007 on 06th
December,2004.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.3 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
4/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
6. After registration of FIR against Sh.Bangaru
Laxman, the then President of Bhartiya Janta Party,
Sh.N.Umamaheshwar Raju and Sh.T.Satyamurthy, the matter was
investigated.
7. During the course of investigations,
T.Satyamurthy was tendered pardonby Ld.Special Judge, vide
orders dated 17th
July, 2006.
8. CBI was informed about appointment of
Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta as designated officer for handing over the Hi-8
Tapes, DVs and other documents including transcripts from
Commission to CBI by letters of Additional Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Training. It is stated that the same were duly
handed over to CBI by the designated officer, so appointed.
9. On culmination of the investigations, a charge
sheet was submitted in court for trial of accused Bangaru Laxman
only by CBI, for offence punishable under section 9 of Prevention
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.4 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
5/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
of Corruption Act, 1988,as no evidence could be gathered against
Umamaheshwar Raju to substantiate the allegations levelled
against him in the FIR.
10. On conclusion of the trial, which was a voyage of
discovery, of which truth is the ultimate quest, the present stage of
pronouncement of judgement has been arrived at. Before adverting
further, it is pertinent to have a grasp of the factual matrix which
led to the origin of the present case, as emanating from the material
on record. The same in-terse is as under:-
FACTUAL MATRIX:-
11. Bangaru Laxman was elected as Member of
Parliament to Rajya Sabha from State of Gujarat for a period of six
years in the year 1996. From October 1999 till August 2000, he
functioned as Union Minister of Railways and thereafter from
August 2000 till March 2001, he functioned as President of
Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), the main constituent of the ruling
N.D.A. During this period, he had his residence-cum-office at 3,
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.5 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
6/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Kushak Road, New Delhi.
12. Sh.N.Umamaheshwar Raju, who had been
working as Manager with SEBI was posted on deputation as
Assistant Private Secretary to Sh.Bangaru Laxman from
December 1999 to September 2000, i.e. when he was the then
Railways Minister. Thereafter from September 2000 till July 2001,
N.Umamaheshwar Raju was posted with the then Minister of
Extenral Affairs, but till March 2001, he continued to look after the
secretarial work of Sh.Bangaru Laxman.
13. It is alleged that Sh.T.Satyamurthy,was earlier
working with M/s M.S.M.Enterprises Limited, Chennai and while
working with said company, he had met Sh.Bangaru Laxman, a
number of times for his official work and both of them had developed
some sort of mutual liking for each other. In September 2000, when
Sh.Bangaru Laxman became President of Bhartiya Janta Party,
T.Satyamurthy resigned from his earlier job to work as Private
Secretary to Sh.Bangaru Laxman. He started functioning as such,
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.6 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
7/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
although he did not receive any official appointment letter or
remuneration either from Bangaru Laxman or from Bhartiya Janta
Party (BJP). He continued to work in this capacity till March 2001.
14. Tehelka.com, a news and views portal of M/s
Buffalo Networks Private Limited, New Delhi was co-founded by
Aniruddha Bahal and Tarun Tejpal,who besides others were
directors of this Company. Tarun Tejpal functioned as Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of the same and Aniruddha Bahal assumed
the role of Editor (Investigations) and its object was investigative
journalism and they undertook its first exercise of exposing the
instances of match fixing in the game of Cricket.
15. In April 2000, huge fire took place in Bharatpur
Ammunition Depot and it was being reported that this was a
deliberate act on the part of all those concerned, to cover up the
wrong doings in procurement of Defence related equipments lying
in the said deport. It was then that the founders of Tehelka.com
took up a quest to expose corruption in Defence Procurement
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.7 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
8/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Process of Democratic Republic of India. For that, they undertook
an under cover operation, which they termed as Operation
Westend.
16. As per the precursors of Operation Westend, they
proceeded with the sole object / purpose of exposing Corruption in
Defence Procurement Processfrom a journalistic point of view,
without any motive or intention to target any particular individual,
organization or agency.
17. In furtherance of their object, Sh.Aniruddha Bahal
and Sh.Tarun Tejpal had associated Sh.Mathew Samuel, another
journalist in their operation along with one Anil Malviya.
18. The officials of Tehelka.com acquired the
knowledge that there is a requirement of defence equipments,
particularly of Hand Held Thermal Imagers (hereinafter referred to
as HHTI's) for Indian Army. They also came to know that for
supply of the same, two companies have already been shortlisted, of
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.8 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
9/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
which one was from Israel and the other one from France.
19. After acquiring this knowledge, the precursors of
Tehelka.com formulated a fictitious firm under the name and style
of M/s Westend International London, dealing with supplies of
defence related products and promoted themselves as one of the
suppliers of HHTI's, manufactured by a Netherland based company.
20. Sh.Mathew Samuel and Aniruddha Bahal (who
assumed the name of Alwyn D'Souza for this operation), acting as
Chief Liasioning Officer and President respectively of M/s Westend
International London, had submitted their brochures and
applications with the concerned authorities, for promotion /
evaluation of their product, to get the supply orders of HHTI's to
Indian Army.
21. In order to get the orders for evaluation of their
product ie. HHTI's, officials of Tehelka.com, gathered the
information that political patronage of leaders of the ruling party
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.9 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
10/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
would be required. To get the same, they explored the possibility of
meeting some of the leading politicians including the then Defence
Minister, Presidents of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and Samta
Party.
22. After interacting with a number of persons,
officials of Tehelka.com, at instance of Sh.H.C.Pant, an officer in
Ministry of Defence, who was also posted as Private Secretary to
Sh.Haren Pathak, the then Minister of State for Defence, succeeded
in establishing contact with Sh.Bangaru Laxman, the then
President of Bhartiya Janta Party. In this pursuit, Mathew Samuel
with the help of Sh.H.C.Pant had taken assistance from one Mohan
Singh, an employee of Gujarat Government, who had an access to
Sh.Bangaru Laxman and his personal staff, as Sh.Bangaru Laxman
often used to stay at Gujarat Bhawan in New Delhi.
23. During the period from 23.12.2000 to 07.01.2001,
Eight meetingswere held between / amongst Sh.Mathew Samuel
and Aniruddha Bahal of Tehelka.com under the guise of
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.10 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
11/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
representatives of M/s Westend International London, with
Sh.Bangaru Laxman and two of his personal staff members namely
Sh.N.Umamaheshwar Raju and Sh.T.Satyamurthy. All these eight
meetings were secretly video recorded by the officials of
Tehelka.com.
Sl.N
o
Date Place of Meeting Meeting
between
Tape
Number
1. 23.12.2000 Office of
Sh.Bangaru
Laxman
Mathew Samuel
and
N.Umamaheshw
ar Raju
Tape No.95
2. 23.12.2000 Office of
Sh.Bangaru
Laxman
Mathew Samuel
and
T.Satyamurthy
Tape No.65
3. 23.12.2000 Office of
Sh.Bangaru
Laxman
Mathew Samuel
and Bangaru
Laxman
Tape No.65
4.
02.01.2001
A restaurant in
Chanakyapuri,
New Delhi.
Ma1thew
Samuel and
T.Satyamurthy
Tape B
5. 05.01.2001 Office of
Sh.Bangaru
Laxman
Mathew Samuel
and Bangaru
Laxman
Tape No.81
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.11 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
12/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
6. 05.01.2001 Hotel Oberoi, New
Delhi.
Aniruddha
Bahal and
T.Satyamurthy.
Tape E
7. 06.01.2001 Office of
Sh.Bangaru
Laxman.
Mathew Samuel,
Aniruddha
Bahal and
Bangaru
Laxman.
Tape No.87
8. 07.01.2001 Residence of
Sh.T.Satyamurthy
in Sarvpriya
Vihar, New Delhi.
Mathew Samuel
and
T.Satyamurthy.
Tape No.89
24. It is alleged that during these meeting held
amongst representatives of M/s Westend International, London and
accused Bangaru Laxman, the accused was told the purpose and
object of the company, which was to promote their product ie.
HHTIs and to get supply order for same to Indian Army, for which
help and assistance of accused was sought, to which he agreed and
accepted Rs.1 lakh from Mathew Samuel as motive or reward, for
exercise of his personal influence. It is alleged that accused further
demanded and agreed to accept the balance consideration in dollars.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.12 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
13/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
25. The gist of these eight meetings is as under:-
(i) FIRST MEETING dated 23.12.2000 :-
26. The first meeting was held on 23.12.2000 between
Mathew Samuel and N.Umamaheshwar Raju, wherein Mathew
Samuel introduced himself as Chief Liasoninig Officer of M/s
Westend International London, suppliers of Night Vision
Binoculars. Mathew Samuel sought a meeting with Sh.Bangaru
Laxman. However, as Bangaru Laxman was not available,
N.Umamaheshwar Raju advised Mathew Samuel to come after an
hour.
(ii) SECOND MEETING dated 23.12.2000:-
27. Next meeting was held on same date ie.
23.12.2000 between Mathew Samuel and Sh.T.Satyamurthy,
wherein Mathew Samuel introduced himself and mentioned about
the supply of HHTI's to Indian Army worth Rs.60 Crores and
expressed his desire to meet Sh.Bangaru Laxman.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.13 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
14/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
(iii) THIRD MEETING dated 23.12.2000:-
28. Third meeting was held on same date ie.
23.12.2000 between Mathew Samuel and Bangaru Laxman in the
office room of Sh.Bangaru Laxman at his official residence ie. 3,
Kushak Road, New Delhi. In this meeting, Mathew Samuel after a
formal introduction had shown papers / catalogs / brochures related
to HHTI's, submitted by his company to Ministry of Defence.
Mathew Samuel mentioned that their item is better as compared to
their competitors and asked for favor of Sh.Bangaru Laxman to
Defence Secretary. It is alleged that Sh.Bangaru Laxman replied I
know him, but at what stage the proposal is..Mathew Samuel
replied that if the Defence Secretary agrees, their company will be
shortlisted and they will get a supply order of Rs.60 crores. Mathew
Samuel informed Sh.Bangaru Laxman about existence of two other
vendors whose products were already under consideration with
Army Headquarters and stated that, if Defence Secretary will say
Yes, their company can get the order. Sh.Bangaru Laxman told
him Let met find out... what does he think.... Mathew Samuel
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.14 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
15/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
inquired as to when can he meet him again, to which Bangaru
Laxman replied that he can meet him after 30th
, after giving a ring
(telephone call).
(iv) FOURTH MEETING dated 02.01.2001:-
29. Fourth meeting was held on 02.01.2001 between
Mathew Samuel and T.Satyamurthy. Satyamurthy agreed to
arrange a meeting of Mathew Samuel and Bangaru Laxman on
05.01.2001. Mathew Samuel offered a total of 6.5% political
commission, out of which 5%was offered to Bangaru Laxman and
1.5% to T.Satyamurthy. In this meeting itself, Mathew Samuel
gave gold chain to T.Satyamurthy.
(v) FIFTH MEETING dated 05.01.2001:-
30. The fifth meeting was held on 05.01.2001 between
Bangaru Laxman and Mathew Samuel at official residence of
Bangaru Laxman ie. 3, Kushak Road, Delhi. At the outset,
Sh.Bangaru Laxman informed Mathew Samuel maine who...
maine usko keh diya hai..... and that message has been
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.15 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
16/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
passed...
31. During this meeting, Bangaru Laxman told
Mathew Samuel Seedha mere se baat karna..... directly talk to
me.... Bangaru Laxman also agreed to meet the boss of Mathew
Samuel, who was staying in Hotel Oberoi the next day ie.
06.01.2001. Thereafter, Mathew Samuel mentioned I have five
lakh rupees.. and today I will give you Rs.1 lakh for just the
beginning. Thereafter, Mathew Samuel offered the bundles of
currency notes of Rs.1 lakh saying Sir, this is small gift.... to which
Bangaru Laxman exclaimed arre.... aree... nahin, nahin followed
by further elucidation from Sh.Mathew Samuel : it is a small gift
for the new year party.. new year party fund... rupees 1 lakh.. It is
alleged that Sh.Bangaru Laxman accepted the currency notes of
Rs.1 lakh from Mathew Samuel and kept the same in his table
drawer.
32. Thereafter, at insistence of Mathew Samuel,
Sh.Bangaru Laxman agreed to meet Mathew Samuel's Boss on the
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.16 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
17/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
following day at 5'o clock and told Mathew Samuel to bring him
along. On inquiry from Mathew Samuel as to whether he would
prefer the balance amount in rupees or dollars, Bangaru Laxman
replied dollars, you can give dollars.
(vi) SIXTH MEETING dated 05.01.2001:-
33. The sixth meeting was held on the same night ie.
On 05.01.2001 between Sh.Aniruddha Bahal (under the guise of
Alwyn D'Souza, President, M/s Westend International London) and
Sh.T.Satyamurthy at Hotel Oberoi, New Delhi. Sh.Aniruddha
Bahal mentioned that they were concerned with the matter relating
to Hand Held Thermal Imagers. Sh.T.Satyamurthy mentioned
having discussed with Mathew Samuel about their defence projects.
There were discussion about the extent of commission in defence
deals in the range of 15%to 25%. Aniruddha Bahal mentioned that
they needed basic sound political structure as support.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.17 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
18/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
(vii) SEVENTH MEETING dated 06.01.2001:-
34. The seventh meeting was held on 06.01.2001
between Mathew Samuel and Sh.Aniruddha Bahal (under the guise
of Alwyn D'Souza, President of M/s Westend International London)
and Sh.Bangaru Laxman in the office of Sh.Bangaru Laxman at 3,
Kushak Road, New Delhi. After introductions, when Sh.Aniruddha
Bahal enquired from Mathew Samuel as to whether he had shown
him their brochures, to which Mathew Samuel replied in
affirmative. Sh.Bangaru Laxman added : Yes, I have seen.. In
this meeting, Mathew Samuel told that they are ready to give 4
5% political commission. Bangaru Laxman inquired about the total
worth of the order, to which Aniruddha Bahal replied that it can be
anything above Rs.200 crores. Aniruddha Bahal inquired how
should they proceed to transfer the money, to which Bangaru
Laxman replied that they have to consult the treasurer. Aniruddha
Bahal asked that who would be the main person with whom they
should deal, to which Bangaru Laxman replied : Oh sure... Let me
get in touch with those people... I will tell you tomorrow.. Tomorrow
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.18 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
19/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
I will find out. On inquiry from Aniruddha Bahal as to whether we
should meet again tomorrow, Bangaru Laxman replied Yes.... you
will bring the cash.. to which Aniruddha Bahal replied Yeah... it
will be more convenient... We were supposed to convey some money
today and as you understand my problem... getting dollars was a
little hassle... so is it possible that I could come tomorrow with
dollars to which Bangaru Laxman acknowledged Yeah..Yeah...
Towards the end of the meeting, Aniruddha Bahal further inquired :
So will you get that piece of information by tomorrow?, to which
Sh.Bangaru Laxman replied I hope so...
(viii) EIGHTH MEETING held on 07.01.2001:-
35. In the last meeting held on 07.01.2001 with
Sh.Satyamurthy, Mathew Samuel informed that arranging dollars
was a big problem, but assured to make some arrangement by 10
pm.
36. It has been alleged in the charge sheet that the
documents submitted on behalf of M/s Westend International in
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.19 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
20/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
respect of HHTI's, were under consideration in Army Headquarters.
It is alleged that the Infantry Directorate, consequent upon paper
evaluation, had opined that enhanced evaluation of equipments of
M/s Westend International was better than the equipments
procured by them from the other companies. It is alleged that Major
General P.S.K.Chaudhary, the then Additional Director General
(Weapons and Equipments) had recorded a note dated 09.02.2001 to
the effect that HHTI's of M/s Westend International should be
considered at a later stage.
37. It has been alleged that during the course of
investigations, sample / specimen of voice and image of Sh.Bangaru
Laxman, T.Satyamurthy, Mathew Samuel and Aniruddha Bahal
were recorded in presence of independent witnesses and the same
along with the secretly recorded 7 Hi-8 Tapes and DVs, were sent to
Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL) Hyderabad.
It is alleged that APFSL vide their opinion dated 12.06.2006 opined
that 7 video tapes covering the meetings between Mathew Samuel,
Aniruddha Bahal, Bangaru Laxman and others, so sent to them,
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.20 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
21/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
have not been tampered with and the images and voices of all those
persons recorded in specimen tapes, matched with the questioned tapes.
38. It has been alleged that the motive of the
functionaries of Tehelka.com was to expose corruption in Defence
procurements, which is evident from the manner in which they had,
in a largely attended press conference convened / held on 13.03.2001
at New Delhi made public, the results of the above operation
conducted by them. Besides playing the 4 hours video tapes
revealing select portions / abstracts of their meetings with a number
of persons, (including Sh.Bangaru Laxman), in the above mentioned
context, they also released a compilation titled OPERATION
WESTEND A STORY OF HOW THE SUITCASE PEOPLE ARE
COMPROMISING INDIAN DEFENCE. Later on, excerpts from
the above mentioned 4 hours video tapes were telecast by certain
TV Channels. It is alleged that during investigations, nothing was
found so as to attribute any other motive or malafide on the part of
functionaries of Tehelka.com.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.21 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
22/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
39. It has further been alleged that on 05.01.2001
Sh.Bangaru Laxman, the then President of Bhartiya Janta Party
had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.1 lakh from Sh.Mathew
Samuel, purportedly the representative of M/s Westend
International London (a fictitious firm concerned with supply of
Defence product to Indian Army) and that he further agreed to
accept balance payment worth Rs.4 lakhs in Dollars, as a motive or
reward for exercising his personal influence to induce public
servants of the Ministry of Defence to show favor or to render
service to the said firm in the matter of obtaining orders for supply
of the purported products (HHTIs) of the said vendor for Indian
Army.
40. The investigating agency on culmination of the
investigations, had filed the charge sheet for trial of accused
Bangaru Laxman, for offence under section 9 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.22 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
23/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
41. Pursuant to filing of charge sheet and after
perusal of the same in the light of supporting documents,
Ld.Predecessor of this court took cognizance of offence and accused
was accordingly summoned.
42. In compliance to the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C, the accused was supplied with the copies of charge sheet and
documents relied upon by the prosecution. In addition thereto,
accused was supplied wih the copies of Hi-8 Tapes and DVs on the
Compact Discs.
CHARGE:-
43. Ld.Predecessor of this court, after hearing
arguments on charge on behalf of CBI as well as the accused, opined
that prima-facie case for offence punishable under section 9 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out against the accused.
44. Requisite charge for offence under section 9 of
P.C.Act was framed, which was read over to the accused, to which
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.23 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
24/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:-
45. Prosecution was thereafter called upon to
substantiate their case by examining the witnesses listed in the list
of witnesses, filed along with the charge sheet.
46. Availing the given opportunities, prosecution had
examined 23 witnesses.
47. The witnesses examined by the prosecution to
substantiate their case can be broadly categorized in five
categories.
48. First category of witnesses consists of the
material witnesses relating to the incident. (i) PW-5 Aniruddha
Bahal ; (ii) PW-15 Mathew Samuel ; and (iii) PW-18
T.Satyamurthy (the approver).
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.24 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
25/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
49. Second category of the witnesses are those
witnesses at whose instance the journey of present criminal
prosecution started leading to registration of FIR and handing over
of material documents, Hi-8 Tapes, DVs and other related articles
from the commission to CBI. These witnesses are (i) PW-1
Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta (the designated officer appointed by the
government) (ii) PW-4 Sh.J.P.Mehta (Under Secretary working
with the Commission, who assisted Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta in handing
over the documents to CBI) ; and (iii) PW-20 DSP Sh.K.Y.Guru
Prasad, who had collected these documents vide three seizure
memos dated 14.12.2004, 15.12.2004 and 16.12.2004 exhibited as
Ex.PW.1/E, Ex.PW.1/F and Ex.PW.4/1 respectively.
50. Third categoryof the witnesses falls under the
miscellaneous category and these witnesses are : the witnesses who
had joined investigations at request of CBI for taking the voice and
image samples of the accused Bangaru Laxman and Pws Aniruddha
Bahal, Mathew Samuel and T.Satyamurthy. These witnesses are
(i) PW-3 Amarnath Chaudhary ; (ii)PW-6 Paramjeet Singh ; and
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.25 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
26/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
(iii)PW-13 Mohan Singh. Besides these witnesses, other witnesses
who fall under this category are the ones from whom the
investigating agency had collected documents required to
substantiate the charge. These witnesses are (iv) PW-7 Sh.S.R.Kar
(posted as Under Secretary with Election Commission of India ; (v)
PW-8 Sh.Mohan Singh Rawat ; (vi)PW-9 Sh.Debashish Banerjee (a
journalist working with The Week) ; (vii) PW-11 Col.Sher
Bahadur Bhandari; (viii) PW-12 Sh.Madho Prasad ; (ix) PW-14
Brigadier A.P.Singh; (x)PW-16 Sh.K.Seshaiah (working as Deputy
Secretary with Ministry of Defence) and (xi) PW-23 Sh.Sudhir
Verma, the Chartered Accountant of M/s Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd.
51. Fourth Category of witnesses consists of the
witnesses who remained associated with the investigations of the
present case in one form or the other, at request of the investigating
officer. These witnesses consists of (i)PW-2 Sh.A.D.Tiwari ; (ii)
PW-10 Sh.S.Ingarsal ; and (iii)PW-17 Sh.P.K.Gautam, all of whom
were posted as Senior Scientific Officers (Grade-II) with C.F.S.L and
they at request of the investigating officer Inspector A.B.Chaudhary
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.26 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
27/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
had recorded audio-video samples of Aniruddha Bahal, Bangaru
Laxman, T.Satyamurthy and Mathew Samuel, in presence of
independent witnesses. Besides these witnesses, PW-19
D.Venkateshwarlu, the Scientific Officer, posted with A.P.F.S.L
Hyderabad, also fall under this category, as it was him, who had
received the requisition from CBI for examination of Hi-8 Tapes,
DVs, VHS Cassettes, along with the specimen samples of audio-
video of Bangaru Laxman, Aniruddha Bahal, T.Satyamurthy and
Mathew Samuel, for comparison and report. He deposed that he
along with Mr.U.Ramamohan had minutely examined the exhibits
and gave report Ex.PW.19/A.
52. Fifth category of witnesses consists of the
persons who were involved in the investigations of the case. The
investigating officer of the present case ie. (i) PW-21 Inspector
A.B.Chaudhary, had conducted the investigations in the present
case and on conclusion of investigations, filed the charge sheet. In
this very category, deposition of (ii) PW-22 Bishwajit Das,
(Additional S.P, CBI) falls as it was him, who had conducted
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.27 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
28/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
investigations with respect to a connected matter titled CBI Vs.
Narender Singh bearing R.C. No.6/2004. Part of the
investigations conducted by him in the said case, more particularly,
that of recovery of briefcase device Ex.PX-8 affected by him from
Sh.Arnab Pratim Dutta of Tehelka.com and sending of the Hi-8
Tapes, DVs, VHS Cassettes along with briefcase device and the
sample audio-video of all the concerned persons for examination to
APFSL, Hyderabad, also relates to the present case.
53. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to make
a brief mention of the role and deposition of the prosecution
witnesses category-wise as referred hereinabove. The detail
deposition of the witnesses is not being adverted to, as the same
shall be referred hereinafter while dealing with the necessary
ingredients of the offence, with which accused has been charged, vis-
a-vis the rival contentions advanced by Ld.Special PP for CBI as
well as by Ld.Defence Counsel for the accused.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.28 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
29/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
54. All the prosecution witnesses were cross examined
in detail by Sh.Sunil Kumar, Ld.Senior Advocate, who was ably
assisted by a battery of his associates. The cross-examination of
these witnesses is not being mentioned for the sake of brevity, but
the same and material portion thereof, more particularly, the one
referred to during the course of arguments, shall be adverted to
hereinafter, while appreciating the legal and factual issues
advanced on behalf of the accused, alongside appreciation of
evidence in entirety.
FIRST SET OF WITNESSES:-
55. PW-5 Aniruddha Bahal, a Journalist by
profession, deposed that he after having worked with various
magazines, had thereafter formed a company namely M/s Buffalo
Networks Private Limited and also co-founded a news portal ie.
Tehelka.com, in February-March 2000 with Tarunjit Tejpal. He
further deposed that after having done an exercise to expose cricket
match-fixing, he came to know about huge-fire which broke out in
Bharatpur Ammunition Depot and the allegations that the same
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.29 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
30/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
was a deliberate act / incident, to cover up the wrong doings in
procurement of defence related equipments, which were lying there.
He deposed that he thereafter with assistance of Mathew Samuel
and Anil Malviya decided to pursue a journalistic operation which
they termed as Operation Westend to expose corruption in defence
procurement process of Union of India. He deposed that thereafter
they formed a fictitious company in the name of M/s Westend
International London, wherein he decided to act as 'president' under
the assumed alias of Alwyn D'Souza, Mathew Samuel was given
the role of 'chief liaison officer' and Malviya acted as 'chief
representative' of the company. He deposed that for promotion &
evaluation of their fictitious product ie. HHTI's, they met various
officers posted with Ministry of Defence, middlemen and Senior
Politicians. He deposed that to capture the conversation they had
used a briefcase devices fitted with two-cameras, a satchel device,
a handbag and a tie-camera. He deposed that Mathew Samuel had
met Bangaru Laxman through one Mr.Raju and Satyamurthy, to
whom they had paid Rs.10,000/- and a gold chain respectively, as
gratification. He deposed that Mathew Samuel in his meeting with
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.30 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
31/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Bangaru Laxman, the accused, introduced himself as chief liaising
officer of M/s Westend International and told him about their
product ie. HHTI's, on which Bangaru Laxman had assured his
assistance. He deposed that Bangaru Laxman had discussed about
the political commission and accepted a sum of Rs.1 lakh from
Mathew Samuel and asked for the balance amount to be paid to him
in dollars. He deposed that the same was captured on Hi-8 Tapes
through briefcase device.
56. PW-15 Mathew Samuel, a journalist
corroborated the version given by PW-5 Aniruddha Bahal. He
deposed that he had met Bangaru Laxman with assistance of his
secretarial staff namely Umamaheshwar Raju and T.Satyamurthy.
He deposed that in all, they had 8 meetings which were captured on
Hi-8 Tapes through briefcase device and on DVs. He deposed that
he had met accused Bangaru Laxman at his office at 3, Kushak
Road, as chief liasioning officer of M/s Westend International. He
deposed that he had shown the catalogues / brochures of HHTI's and
expressed his desire for a favor from Bangaru Laxman with Defence
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.31 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
32/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Secretary, so as to facilitate them to get a deal of supply of defence
equipments. He deposed that Bangaru Laxman told him to come
again after giving a ring (telephone call) and in the meantime, he
will find out as to what does the Defence Secretary thinks. PW-15
deposed that he had handed over a sum of Rs.1 lakh to Bangaru
Laxman which he kept in his drawer and had asked for the
remaining amount to be paid in dollars. PW-15 deposed that
accused Bangaru Laxman agreed to meet his boss. He deposed that
thereafter he along with PW-5 Aniruddha Bahal, again met
Bangaru Laxman during which the conversation for pushing their
product took place. PW-15 during the course of his deposition had
identified his voice and image and that of Bangaru Laxman and
Aniruddha Bahal, when the Hi-8 Tapes were played in court.
57. PW-18 T.Satyamurthy, who initially was
arrayed as an accused turned approver after having granted
pardon. He during the course of his deposition narrated the entire
incident. He deposed that he started working as Personal Secretary
to the accused after having resigned from his earlier job with M/s
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.32 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
33/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
MSM Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai. He deposed that he as
Personal Secretary to Bangaru Laxman, used to take care of his day
to day appointments, besides obeying his directions. He deposed
that Mathew Samuel had met him and requested him to arrange a
meeting with Bangaru Laxman. He deposed that he had accepted a
gold chain from Mathew Samuel. He deposed that on advice of
Bangaru Laxman, he had fixed an appointment of Mathew Samuel
with Bangaru Laxman,during which Mathew Samuel gave a sum of
Rs.1 lakh to him, which was confirmed to him by Bangaru Laxman.
He deposed that he had met Aniruddha Bahal at Hotel Oberoi and
discussed about their business proposals. He deposed that
thereafter he after consulting Bangaru Laxman, had fixed an
appointment of Mathew Samuel and Aniruddha Bahal (as Alwyn
D'Souza) with Bangaru Laxman and thereafter at instance of
Bangaru Laxman, he had followed up with Mr.Mathew Samuel
about the balance payment. He deposed that after a few months
when the whole episode was telecasted in media, he was blamed by
the party functionaries and a damage control process started. He
deposed that it was decided that a sum of Rs.1 lakh received by
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.33 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
34/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Bangaru Laxman, should be taken into the accounts of Bhartiya
Janta Party and he was asked to give a letter taking entire blame on
himself. During his deposition, he identified his statement under
section 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW.18/A. He during the course of his
deposition had also identified the voice and image of Bangaru
Laxman and Mathew Samuel in Hi-8 Tape No.81.
SECOND SET OF WITNESSES:-
58. PW-1 Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta deposed that
Government of India, through Department of Personnel and
Training, had constituted a commission headed by Hon'ble
Mr.Justice K.Venkataswami to probe into the tapes of Tehelka.com.
He deposed that he was appointed as Secretary to the said
commission. He deposed that Justice K.Venkataswami took over in
March 2001 but resigned in November 2002. He deposed that
Justice S.N.Phukan took over as Chairman of the Commission in
January 2003 and submitted an interim report in February 2004.
He deposed that government thereafter vide notification Ex.PW.1/B,
wound up the commission with effect from 04.10.2004 and decided
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.34 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
35/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
to have the matter investigated by CBI. He deposed that a letter
dated 29.10.2004 Ex.PW.1/A and another letter dated 25.11.2004
Ex.PW.1/D, were written by Ms.Manjulika Gautam, Additional
Secretary, Government of India, Department of Personnel &
Training, New Delhi to CBI. He deposed that vide letter Ex.PW.1/C,
he was appointed as designated officer to hand over the HI-8
Tapes, DVs, VHS Cassettes and other documents to CBI. He
deposed that he had prepared a forwarding note and a secret note
Ex.PW.1/G and Ex.PW.1/H. He deposed that all the records along
with Hi-8 Tapes, DVs and transcripts were handed over by him in
presence of PW-4 Sh.J.P.Mehta to CBI, vide seizure memos Ex.PW.
1/E, Ex.PW.1/F and Ex.PW.4/1.
59. PW-4 Sh.J.P.Mehta, the Under Secretary,
working with the commission, deposed that after winding up of the
Commission, he was assigned the work of handing over the
documents and tapes to CBI. He deposed that the entire documents,
Hi-8 tapes Ex.PH-4, PJ-4, PK-4, PL-4 and Ex.PM-4, DVs Ex.PF-3
and Ex.PG-3, VHS Cassettes Ex.PA-3 to Ex.PA-8 as well as
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.35 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
36/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
transcripts Ex.PW.4/A to Ex.PW.4/O, were handed over by them, to
CBI vide seizure memos dated 14.12.2004, 15.12.2004 and
16.12.2004. He deposed that all these tapes and DVs were sealed by
DSP K.Y.Guru Prasad, to whom the same were handed over with
the seal, which was given to him, which he produced during the
course of his deposition as Ex.PW.4/PM-5.
60. PW-20 DSP Sh.K.Y.Guru Prasaddeposed that
he had collected all the documents, Hi-8 Tapes, DVs, VHS Cassettes
and transcripts from Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta, in presence of
Sh.J.P.Mehta, vide seizure memos Ex.PW.1/E, Ex.PW.1/F and
Ex.PW.4/1, which were prepared by him.
THIRD SET OF WITNESSES:-
61. PW-3 Sh.Amarnath Chaudharydeposed that he
was called by CBI to join investigations on 18.03.2005 along with
one M.G.O.Kuttan. He deposed that pursuant thereto, he had
visited CFSL along with other witnesses, where sample of audio and
images of Sh.T.Satyamurthy, were to be recorded. He deposed that
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.36 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
37/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
before taking the sample, blank cassettes were shown to them which
were found to be blank after playing the same in the recorder. He
deposed that thereafter the samples were recorded and a
memorandum Ex.PW.2/C was prepared which was signed by him, as
a witness. This witness during the course of his deposition had
identified the voice of T.Satyamurthy in the cassette Ex.P-4 and
identified the image in the video cassette Ex.PC-4.
62. PW-6 Sh.Paramjeet Singh, working as Senior
Assistant, NDMC, deposed that on 20.06.2005, he was called by CBI
to join investigations along with one Rajesh Kumar. He deposed
that on said date, audio-video samples of Aniruddha Bahal were
taken. He deposed that two blank audio-video cassettes were shown
to them. He deposed that thereafter their voices were recorded and
then Aniruddha Bahal read a written text given to him, which was
recorded, whereafter again their voices were recorded. He deposed
that the cassettes were thereafter sealed by the IO and a memo
Ex.PW.2/A was prepared, which was signed by him as a witness. He
also identified the written text as Ex.PW.2/B. He deposed that seal
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.37 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
38/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
after use was handed over to him which he produced in court as
Ex.PW.6/PX. This witness identified the voice of Aniruddha
Bahal,when the audio cassette Ex.P-7 was played in court and
identified the image of Aniruddha Bahal when video cassette
Ex.PA-4 was played in court.
63. PW-13 Sh.Mohan Singh, working as Assistant
Director, SFIO, CGO Complex, New Delhi, deposed that on
27.04.2005, he was called by the CBI to join investigations along
with one Sandeep Aggarwal. He deposed that there they met IO
Inspector A.B.Chaudhary and Bangaru Laxman with whom they
went to CFSL, where audio-video samples of Bangaru Laxman were
taken. This witness deposed that initially blank cassettes were
shown to them, which were played in the recorded and found to be
blank. He deposed that initially his voice and that of the other
witness was recorded, whereafter voice of Bangaru Laxman was
recorded, who was given a written text. He deposed that cassette
was thereafter sealed with a seal, which was given to him. He
deposed that a memorandum Ex.PW.10/A was prepared by the IO,
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.38 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
39/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
which was signed by him as a witness. He also identified the
written text as Ex.PW.10/B. He produced the seal in court as
Ex.PW.13/SPE. This witness identified the voice of Bangaru
Laxman, when audio cassette Ex.PE-5 was played. He further
identified the image of Bangaru Laxman when video cassette
Ex.PD-5 was played.
64. PW-7 S.R.Kar,working as Under Secretary with
Election Commission of India, during the course of his deposition
had stated that they had received a requisition from CBI vide letter
Ex.PW.7/A and its reminder Ex.PW.7/B, asking for guidelines
relating to contribution which political parties can take. He further
deposed that the requisite information Ex.PW.7/D was provided to
CBI, vide their letter Ex.PW.7/C. During his cross examination
conducted on behalf of accused, this witness admitted that the
amendment referred and exhibited as Ex.PW.7/D is of the year
2003.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.39 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
40/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
65. PW-8 Sh.Mohan Singh working with Gujarat
Bhawan, New Delhi appeared and deposed that Bangaru Laxman,
a Member of Parliament from Rajya Sabha used to stay in Gujarat
Bhawan, till he was allotted a house in Delhi. He deposed that he
was working in room service at that time. He deposed that one
H.C.Pant asked him to introduce Mathew Samuel to Bangaru
Laxman, through his personal assistant Raju. He deposed that he
took Mathew Samuel to the official residence of Bangaru Laxman,
ie. At 3, Kushak Road, where another Raju met Mathew Samuel and
they started talking. This witness deposed that he can identify
image of Bangaru Laxman but cannot identify his voice. He
identified image of Bangaru Laxman when C.D. Ex.PB-4, a copy of
Hi-8 Tape No.81, was played in court.
66. PW-9 Sh.Debashish Mukherjee appeared and
deposed that he, while working as Journalist for the magazine The
Week had interviewed Bangaru Laxman after the telecast of
Tehelka tapes and the said interview was published on 25.03.2001.
He deposed that he provided self-attested certified copy of said
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.40 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
41/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
interview Ex.PW.9/B to CBI vide his letter Ex.PW.9/A. On being
cross examined, he stated that the original of this magazine is
available.
67. PW-11 Col.Sher Bahadur Bhandari, posted as
General Staff Officer in Sena Bhawan, deposed that between 1999
2002, his duty was to assist the Director in study / evaluation of
weapons and equipments. He deposed that the documents of
HHTI's of M/s Westend International were received from WE-4
(weapons and equipments) in Infantry-V, for comparison with the
existing HHTI's. He deposed that paper evaluation was
recommended and the recommendations were approved and were
forwarded back to WE-4 vide letter Ex.PW.11/A along with the
comparative table marked as Mark A and B. On being cross
examined, this witness deposed that he himself had not handed over
these documents to CBI. He deposed that they had not checked the
credentials of M/s Westend International as it was not their job. He
deposed that after sending the letter Ex.PW.11/A, they had not
received any communication.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.41 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
42/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
68. PW-12 Sh.Madho Prasad,was examined by CBI
for the purposes of identification of image and voice of the accused.
This witness deposed that he had worked as First P.A. To Bangaru
Laxman, when he was Minister of Railways. This witness identified
the image and voice of Bangaru Laxman when CDs of Tehelka
Tapes No.81 Ex.PB-4, Tehelka Tape No.87 Ex.PB-7 and Tehelka
Tape No.65 Ex.PB-5, were played in court. On being cross
examined, this witness stated that his statement was recorded by
CBI and he has brought a copy of his statement, which at insistence
of defence was exhibited as Ex.PW.12/DA and the actual statement
under section 161 Cr.P.C recorded by CBI was exhibited as Ex.PW.
12/DB. This witness on the questioning by the court deposed that
he had identified the voice of accused, as he knows his voice.
69. PW-14 Brigadier A.P.Singh, deposed that
between 1999 2002, he was posted as Director in WE-4 (weapons
and equipments) at Army Headquarters. He deposed that while
working there, they were looking after the work of identification,
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.42 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
43/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
trial and procurement of equipments relating to infantry. He
deposed that as per the normal procedure, their department receives
literature from the companies, which is analysed in consultation
with the Infantry Directorate. He deposed that for procurement of
foreign products, GSQR are prepared by User Directorates. He
deposed that once the analysis is approved on the basis of
recommendations of Infantry Directorate, then the matter is taken
up with Ministry of Defence for physical trial. He deposed that he
had received literature of HHTI's of M/s Westend International,
which they had sent to Infantry Directorate for analysis. He proved
the literature as Ex.PW.14/A. He deposed that after analysis from
Infantry, it was received back and analyzed by him. He deposed
that it was marked to D.D.G(WE) vide noting Ex.PW.14/B. He
deposed that he had made a comment dated 07.02.2001 stating that
as they have already procured HHTI's from two countries and
Bharat Electronic Limited were in the process of stabilizing the
technology to produce HHTI's on their own, hence there was no need
for procurement of new equipments. On being cross examined, this
witness stated that these documents were not handed over by him to
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.43 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
44/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
CBI. He further admitted that no sample equipment were supplied
for comparison. He stated that no equipment is procured with
physical trial. He deposed that there was no pressure on him from
anyone regarding analysis of the product.
70. PW-16 Sh.K.Seshaiah, Dy.Secretary working
with Ministry of Defence deposed that pursuant to receipt of
requisition from CBI, he had handed over the documents, pertaining
to HHTI's Ex.PW.16/A to CBI, vide their letter Ex.PW.16/B. On
being cross examined, he denied the suggestion that he had not
handed over the documents. However he admitted that the
documents so supplied by him to CBI, were pertaining to the period
prior to his joining Ministry of Defence.
71. PW-23 Sh.Sudhir Verma, Chartered Accountant
of M/s Buffalo Networks was examined by the CBI after getting an
order from the court, on an application under section 311 Cr.P.C as
his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses, filed along with
the charge sheet. He deposed that he was Chartered Accountant of
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.44 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
45/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
M/s Buffalo Networks. He deposed that he had seen the details of
the bills paid during Operation Westend which are part of Ex.PW.
5/H. He deposed that the same were verified by him. On being
cross examined, this witness stated that he does not know from
where the finances of M/s Buffalo Networks came. He deposed that
without seeing the records, he cannot tell the salaries of Aniruddha
Bahal, Mathew Samuel and others and also cannot tell about the
foreign investment. He admitted that Ex.PW.5/H, does not bear the
date of verification done by him, but he stated that certificate was
given by him, after seeing the records of the company. He admitted
the fact that in the Ledger Register Ex.PW.21/DY, name of Bangaru
Laxman as recipient is not mentioned.
FOURTH SET OF WITNESSES:-
72. PW-2 Sh.A.D.Tiwari, Senior Scientific Officer
(Grade-II) working with photo and scientific aid division of CFSL,
deposed that at request of IO Inspector A.B.Chaudhary, he had
recorded audio-video samples of Aniruddha Bahal on 20.06.2005.
He deposed that Aniruddha Bahal voluntarily participated in the
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.45 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
46/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
proceedings. This witness deposed that for recording, the room was
made noise-free by closing all the doors, windows, fans and mobiles.
He deposed that new cassette was taken and was shown to the
witnesses. To ensure its blankness, it was played in the recorder,
whereafter recording was done and it was again played to check the
recording. He deposed that cassette was taken out and was signed
by him, whereafter IO had sealed it in the presence of witnesses. He
deposed that memorandum Ex.PW.2/A was prepared. He further
identified the written text as Ex.PW.2/B. This witness further
deposed that on 18.03.2005, audio-video sample recording with
respect to T.Satyamurthy was done in presence of two independent
witnesses. He deposed that all the requisite precautions were taken
before recording. He deposed that after the proceedings,
memorandum Ex.PW.2/C was prepared by the IO. This witness
during the course of his deposition had identified the cassette
Ex.P-4, wherein the voice samples of T.Satyamurthy was recorded
and was identified by him. This witness further identified the
cassette Ex.P-8, wherein voice samples of Aniruddha Bahal was
recorded, which he identified.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.46 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
47/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
73. PW-10 Sh.S.Ingarsal, Senior Scientific Officer
(Grade-II) working with CFSL appeared and deposed that he had
collected the video samples of Bangaru Laxman, A.B.Chaudhary,
T.Satyamurthy and Mathew Samuel. He deposed that all the
necessary precautions were taken before recording of the samples.
He deposed that the blank cassettes were played in presence of
independent witnesses to ensure their blankness, whereafter the
recording was done. He deposed that after the recording, it was
played again to ensure the recording. He deposed that the cassette
was thereafter signed and sealed by the IO. He identified the
memorandum prepared by the IO as Ex.PW.10/A, the written text
read over by accused Bangaru Laxman as Ex.PW.10/B. He also
identified his signatures on the memorandum and written text
already exhibited as Ex.PW.2/A and Ex.PW.2/B. He also identified
the memorandum prepared by the IO on 19.05.2005, when sample of
audio-video of Mathew Samuel were taken, which is Ex.PW.10/C.
He proved the written text given to Mathew Samuel as Ex.PW.10/D.
He also identified his signatures on the memorandum Ex.PW.2/C
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.47 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
48/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
prepared by the IO, at that time of taking samples with respect to
T.Satyamurthy. He identified the image of Bangaru Laxman when
the video cassette Ex.PD-5 was played in court. He identified the
image of Aniruddha Bahal, when the video cassette Ex.PA-4 was
played in court. He identified the image of T.Satyamurthy when the
video cassette Ex.PC-4 was played in court. He identified the video
of Mathew Samuel when video cassette Ex.MS-4 was played in
court.
74. PW-17 Sh.P.K.Gautam, Senior Scientific Officer
(Grade-II) working with CFSL, deposed that audio-video specimen
of Mathew Samuel were taken on 19.05.2005 in presence of
witnesses. He deposed that all the necessary precautions were
taken. He deposed that blank cassette was taken and thereafter the
specimen voice of witnesses and Mathew Samuel was recorded
which was then played to ensure the recording. He deposed that
cassette was thereafter handed over to the IO, who sealed the same.
He identified the memorandum Ex.PW.10/C prepared by the IO and
identified his signatures. He also identified the written text Ex.PW.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.48 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
49/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
10/D. This witness identified the voice of Mathew Samuel, when the
cassette Ex.MS-8 was produced and played in court. This witness
also identified the voice of Bangaru Laxman, when the cassette
Ex.PE-5 was produced and played in court. He had also identified
the memorandum Ex.PW.10/A, to have been signed by him.
75. PW-19 Sh.D.Venkateshwarludeposed that he is
working as Scientific Officer with APFSL, Hyderabad. He deposed
that on receipt of a requisition from the CBI, he along with
U.Ramamohan had examined Hi-8 Tapes, DVs, VHS Cassettes,
specimen samples and the transcriptions. He deposed that after the
careful examination, he had given his report Ex.PW.19/A. This
witness deposed that he had received all the exhibits from the CBI
in sealed condition. He further deposed that even the briefcase
device was received in sealed condition, which was examined by
them. He deposed that he had taken specimen recording by using
the briefcase device Ex.PX-8 and found the same to be in working
condition. He deposed that he had examined the continuity in the
video recording of Hi-8 Tapes and found tthat the same were
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.49 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
50/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
continuous without any additions or deletions.
FIFTH SET OF WITNESSES:-
76. Inspector A.B.Chaudhary, the investigating
officer of the present case appeared in the witness box as PW-21.
He deposed that the FIR bears signatures of the then S.P. Arun
Sharma, which he proved as Ex.PW.21/A. He deposed that he was
handed over the investigations. He deposed of having received
letters from the office of Ms.Manjulika Gautam, Additional
Secretary, Government of India, Department of Personnel &
Training, New Delhi as Ex.PW.1/A to Ex.PW.1/D. He deposed that
copy of a letter dated 22.11.2004 Ex.PW.21/B was received from the
office of Additional Secretary, DOPT, regarding forwarding of the
material to CBI. He deposed that he had seen the documents, which
were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW.1/E and
Ex.PW.1/F and also the transcripts of Hi-8 Tapes prepared by Union
of India, as Ex.PW.4/A to Ex.PW.4/G. He deposed that the copies of
transcripts prepared in the commission ie. Ex.PW.4/H to Ex.PW.4/O,
were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW.4/1. He
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.50 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
51/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
deposed that during the course of investigations, he had also
prepared the transcripts of the Hi-8 Tapes which are Ex.PW.21/C to
Ex.PW.21/I. He deposed that during the course of investigations,
certain documents regarding HHTI's were asked from Ministry of
Defence vide letter Ex.PW.21/J, which were received by him as
Ex.PW.11/A ; Ex.PW.11/B and Ex.PW.14/A. He deposed that during
the course of investigations, specimen of voice and image of
T.Satyamurthy were taken and proved the memorandum prepared
by him to that effect as Ex.PW.2/C. He further identified the video
cassette Ex.PC-4 and audio cassette as Ex.P-4, on which specimen of
audio-video of T.Satyamurthy were taken. He deposed that during
the course of investigations, he had collected specimen voice and
image of Bangaru Laxman and prepared a memorandum Ex.PW.
10/A to that aspect. He identified the video cassette Ex.PD-5 and
audio Ex.PE-5 of Bangaru Laxman. He deposed that during the
course of investigations, he had collected specimen voice and image
of Aniruddha Bahal and prepared a memorandum Ex.PW.2/A to
that aspect. He identified the video cassette Ex.PA-4 and audio
Ex.P-8 of Aniruddha Bahal. He deposed that in R.C No.06/04 DSP
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.51 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
52/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
B.Dass had prepared the memorandum Ex.PW.10/C after recording
the specimen voice and image of Mathew Samuel. He deposed that
vide letter Ex.PW.21/K, questioned audio-video tapes along with
specimen audio-video were sent to APFSL, Hyderabad for opinion,
along with the transcripts Ex.PW.21/L. Opinion from APFSL vide
report Ex.PW.19/A was received. He deposed that during the course
of investigations, a certified copy of interview of Bangaru Laxman,
taken by Assistant Director Debashish Mukherjee Ex.PW.19/B was
received vide letter Ex.PW.9/A. He deposed that vide letter Ex.PW.
7/A and its reminder Ex.PW.7/B, he had asked for guidelines from
Election Commission of India regarding collection of party fund by
any political party. He deposed that in response, they had received
the letter Ex.PW.7/C from Under Secretary, Election Commission of
India and the copy of notification Ex.PW.7/D. He deposed that vide
seizure memo Ex.PW.22/A, Deputy SP Sh.B.Dass, had taken into
possession the briefcase device from Arnab Pratim Dass of
Tehelka.com. He deposed that on 09.05.2005, he had received, a
receipt book of political contribution and cash book from Office
Secretary Sh.Shyam Jaju and proved the letter Ex.PW.21/M, Cash
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.52 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
53/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
Book and Receipt book as Ex.PW.21/N and Ex.PW.21/O. He deposed
that one Nalin Tandon, Chief Account Officer of Bhartiya Janta
Party, had sent a cancelled Original Counterfoil dated 12.12.2000.
The said letter and counterfoil are Ex.PW.21/P and Ex.PW.21/Q. He
deposed that vide letter Ex.PW.21/R, he had received the returns of
BJP for assessment year 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 which are
Ex.PW.21/S. He deposed that during the course of investigations, he
had recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet.
77. PW-22 Sh.Bishwajit Das, Additional S.P CBI,
appeared and deposed that he had conducted investigations with
respect to a connected case titled CBI Vs. Narender Singh
registered as RC No.06/04. He deposed that during the
investigations of said case, he had taken into possession the brief
case device vide seizure memo Ex.PW.22/A from Arnab Pratim Dass
of Tehelka.com. He deposed that he during the course of
investigations of said case, had also taken specimen audio-video
recordings of Mathew Samuel, in presence of independent witnesses
vide memorandum Ex.PW.10/C.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.53 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
54/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
78. Statement of accused was thereafter recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the prosecution
evidence against him. It was submitted by the accused that he had
risen from a very humble background to become President of
Bhartiya Janta Party. He submitted that he was beguiled by the
representatives of Tehelka.com, who were backed by venture
capitalists and Congress Party. He contended that Tehelka.com was
funded by Hindujas to conduct an illegitimate trap. He contended
that all this was done to malign him and the image of his Party, for
political gains. He contended that Tehelka.com as well as Aniruddha
Bahal had made huge profits out of this operation, which they had
conducted at instance of their political masters. He submitted that
tapes were doctored to suit their criminal design. He stated that he
has been framed and victimized by Tehelka people, who had come
up with a story of a fictitious company and a fictitious product. He
submitted that Tehelka people made various inducements and he
fell in the trap. He submitted that he had never exercised personal
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.54 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
55/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
influence nor promised to exercise the same with anyone in respect
of any product as alleged by Tehelka people. He contended that the
Congress Government without letting the Commission of Enquiry
to give its finding, had got the present case registered against him,
which is a false case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:-
79. Accused on being asked stated that he wants to
examine witnesses in his defense. He was permitted to do so.
80. Availing the given opportunities, accused had
examined two of his witnesses, Mr.Kartik.S.Godavarthy appeared in
the witness as DW-1 and Sh.Ramnath Kovind was examined as
DW-2.
81. DW-1 Sh.Kartik S.Godavarthydeposed that he
is a Post Graduate in Anthropology and had done Post Graduate
Diploma in Advanced System Management in Computer Sciences.
He submitted that he had been a film maker and over the past 15-16
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.55 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
56/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
years, he had been involved in production of around 2000 films and
his clients include governmental and non-governmental
organizations. He deposed that he provides end-to-end solutions to
his clients, right from concept development to the editing and
delivery of film. He deposed that he had examined briefcase device
in court and has prepared his report Ex.DW-1/A. He deposed that
he had also examined the APFSL Report and had prepared his
report on the same which is Ex.DW.1/B. He deposed that he had
also prepared a CD Ex.DW.1/C. He deposed that methodology
adopted by APFSL Hyderabad, to give report was a futile exercise.
82. On being cross examined by Ld.Special PP for
CBI, this witness admitted that neither he, nor his company is
registered with National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Calibration or ISO Laboratory / Organization. He also
admitted that briefcase device Ex.PX-8 was inspected by him in
court only. He stated that he had not used such kind of a device in
his career. He admitted that he had not given any expert report in
any court, except the present one. He further admitted that he had
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.56 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
57/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
not mentioned the date of preparation of his report Ex.DW.1/A and
1/B. This witness deposed that he had inspected each and every
component of briefcase device after taking them over from their
respective places. He stated that he cannot say as to whether the
microphone was properly connected with the wires or not. He stated
that as he had not done the functional aspects of the cameras of
briefcase device, therefore he cannot say as to whether video
selection through the camera is controlled by a gravity switch and
that it was not necessary to switch the source of audio-video to
either camera-1 or camera-2 manually. He denied the suggestion
that the opinion given by him at all the points, in his report is false.
During the course of his deposition, he stated that he cannot answer
the questions on the workability aspect of both the camera in the
briefcase device, as he had not conducted any examination on the
functional aspect.
83. He stated that he had not taken any permission
from the court to prepare any demo CD. He stated that he during
his tenure had never done any test recording, nor had submitted the
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.57 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
58/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
same with any government agency. He admitted that he had not
seen HI-8 Tapes personally and has based his opinion on the basis of
CDs. He denied the suggestion that briefcase device was preserved
in protective condition and electronic and mechanical performance
of the same, was in perfect working commission. He stated that he
could not give any comment on Hi-8 Tapes as he had not seen the
tapes. He denied the suggestion that recording was continuous and
there was synchronization. He denied that the report given by him
at instance of the accused is based on surmises and conjectures. He
denied the suggestion that APFSL Experts have given the correct
and conclusive report on the HI-8 tapes and workability of the
briefcase device.
84. The other witness examined by the accused
namely Sh.Ramnath Kovind appeared in the witness box as
DW-2. He deposed that he knows Bangaru Laxman for last 20
years. He deposed that Bangaru Laxman is a straight forward,
simple and honest person, who became President of Bhartiya Janta
Party (BJP). He deposed that in the meeting of National Executive
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.58 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
59/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
held in January 2001, Bangaru Laxman had delivered presidential
speech Ex.DW.2/A. He deposed that on 13.03.2001 when Rajya
Sabha was in sessions, some members of Congress Party had raised
a topic that some pictures are being telecasted by Zee T.V with
respect to certain defence deals. Congress M.Ps, stated that
government should resign. He deposed that one Sh.Priyaranjan
Dass Munshi, a Congress MP was showing a cassette stating that
the same contains Tehelka script. He deposed that he had met
Bangaru Laxman, who told him that he was framed. He further
deposed that in November 2002, Mr.Kapil Sibbal had raised an
issue in the Parliament that government is compromising the
constitutional institutions, as they had offered Justice
Venkataswami an appointment as Chairman of Advance Rulings on
Customs and Excise. He deposed that as these issues were raised,
Justice Venkataswami resigned from the Commission. He deposed
that Kapil Sibbal had stated that an FIR should have been lodged in
the present case. On being cross examined on behalf of Ld.Special
PP, this witness stated that he does not know as to whether
Bangaru Laxman had accepted a consideration of Rs.1 lakh for
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.59 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
60/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
procurement of supply order of HHTI's from M/s Westend
International. He denied the suggestion that after the telecast, a
meeting was held of Senior BJP Leaders and as damage control
exercise, it was decided that this amount should be shown as party
fund.
85. I have heard the arguments advanced.
Ms.Padmini Singh, Ld.Special Public Prosecutor had advanced
arguments on behalf of CBI. On behalf of accused, Sh.Sunil Kumar,
Senior Advocate assisted by Sh.Rajesh Khanna, Sh.Manish Mohan,
Sh.Atul Kumar and Sh.N.Balraj, Advocates, had advanced
arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CBI:-
86. Ms.Padmini Singh, Ld.Special PP for CBI, in her
quest to prove the prosecution case, contended relying upon the
deposition of PW-15 Mathew Samuel and PW-5 Aniruddha Bahal
that accused did assure them to get a supply order in favor of their
company ie. M/s Westend International, by exercising his influence
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.60 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
61/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
over the officers of Ministry of Defence. She further contended that
both these witnesses, during the course of their deposition had
categorically stated that accused did accept a sum of Rs.1 lakh from
Mathew Samuel as illegal gratification. She further contended that
accused had demanded the balance sum to be paid to him, by the
representatives of M/s Westend International, in dollars. She
contended that this amount of Rs.1 lakh paid by PW-15 is duly
reflected and accounted for in the imprest account of M/s Buffalo
Network, which fact has also been corroborated from the deposition
of PW-23, Sudhir Verma, the Chartered Accountant of said
company.
87. She vociferously contended that the conversation,
which took place between PW-15 Mathew Samuel, under the guise
of a representative of M/s Westend International and accused
Bangaru Laxman and also the demand on the part of Bangaru
Laxman for the balance bribe amount from them, has been
substantiated by PW-18, T.Satyamurthy. She contended that
statement of T.Satyamurthy, recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C ie. Ex.PW.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.61 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
62/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
18/A, further corroborates the whole incident.
88. In order to bring home the charge against the
accused, she contended that the meetings between the
representatives of M/s Westend International and the accused were
recorded on HI-8 Tapes and the transcripts thereof, duly prepared
goes on to corroborate the prosecution version. She contended that
in Tape No.81, of which Ex.PW.4/B is the transcript, accused is seen
discussing about the product of M/s Westend International, for
which the supply order was to be procured. She contended that in
this very tape, accused Bangaru Laxman is seen accepting the
bundles of currency notes as illegal gratification from Mathew
Samuel, besides which he had demanded the balance amount in
dollars.
89. She further contended that in Tape No.87 of which
Ex.PW.4/C is the transcript, Bangaru Laxman is seen discussing
with the representatives of M/s Westend International, about the
political commission. She contended that in Tape No.65, of which
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.62 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
63/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
transcript is Ex.PW.4/A, PW-15 had clearly told the accused that
their file is with Defence Secretary, to which Bangaru Laxman had
responded saying : Let me find out what does he (defence secretary)
think.
90. It is submitted by Ld.Special Public Prosecutor
that after registration of FIR, the relevant documents and tapes
which earlier were with the commission were taken into possession
by the CBI. She contended relying upon the deposition of PW-1,
PW-4 and PW-20, that all the documents and tapes were duly
handed over to CBI by the designated officer Sh.S.K.Dass Gupta. It
is submitted that during the course of investigations, IO had taken
the voice and image samples of accused Bangaru Laxman and PWs
Aniruddha Bahal, T.Satyamurthy and Mathew Samuel, in presence
of independent witnesses. She contended that these samples were
taken by Senior Scientific Officers PW-2, PW-10 and PW-17, after
taking all the necessary precautions.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.63 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
64/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
91. She contended that the questioned Hi-8 Tapes,
along with the samples were sent to A.P.F.S.L (Hyderabad) and a
report Ex.PW.19/A was received. She contended that as per the
report of the expert, these tapes were not tampered with and there
was proper synchronization, therefore there is no question of any
doubt of these tapes, having been tampered with. She contended
that initially, these tapes were in possession of PW-5 Aniruddha
Bahal in his custody, during which he kept them in the Bank
Lockers, whereafter the same were kept in safe custody at the office
of the Commission, as is deposed by PW-1 and PW-4 from where the
same was taken into possession by CBI, through PW-20 DSP
K.Y.Guruprasad.
92. Ld.Special PP for CBI contended that the tape
recordings are admissible piece of evidence, as all necessary
ingredients regarding their admissibility, have been established on
record through the deposition of prosecution witnesses.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.64 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
65/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
93. She summed up her contentions stating that the
documented piece of evidence in the form of recordings on Hi-8
Tapes and DVs are duly corroborated by the oral evidence of the
witnesses which establishes the necessary ingredients of Section-9
of P.C.Act, 1988, with which the accused has been charged. She
submitted that the defence sought to be raised by the accused is
merely an afterthought and that too has not been substantiated by
any plausible or acceptable piece of evidence.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS:-
94. On the other hand, Sh.Sunil Kumar, Ld.Senior
Advocate, arguing suavely on behalf of accused Bangaru Laxman,
had led a multifaceted attack, to demolish the prosecution case. At
the outset, he contended that accused who had risen from a very
humble background to the post of President of Bharatiya Janta
Party, had no predisposition to commit any offence. He contended
that accused who had an impeccable record of public life has been
framed by a criminal design genesis of which lies in a 'sting
operation'. He contended that the origin of the crime had taken
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.65 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
66/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
place in the minds of Tehelka people, more particularly Anirruddha
Bahal, who acted on behalf of the rival political party to induce and
beguile the accused by laying a trap. He contended that the offence
has not been committed by the accused, rather it is committed by
Aniruddha Bahal and others, who have been made the prosecution
witnesses.
95. He contended that the present case, origin of
which is asting operation, in itself is an act of illegal trap,
therefore the depositions of those who conducted this illegal trap
and also the recordings made by them, should not be considered at
all, against the accused.
96. Second contentionof Ld.Senior Counsel for the
accused was that PW-5 and PW-15 themselves during the course of
their deposition had admitted that there is no company by the name
of M/s Westend International and as such, they had formed a
fictitious company. He contended that these witnesses had
deposed that even the product ie. HHTIs for which they want to get
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.66 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
67/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
a supply order, was a fictitious product. Therefore, by no stretch of
imagination, it can be stated that even if accused had agreed to help
them, any help in real sense, could have been extended.
97. Third contention of Ld.Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of accused was that, in order to bring home the
charge, for offence u/s 9 of P.C.Act, 1988, of which the accused has
been charged, prosecution was required to establish the necessary
ingredients of the same, one of which is that the person, who has
been charged should be in a position to exercise personal influence
on the public servant. It is submitted by him that nowhere in the
entire evidence of the prosecution, it has been stated that who was
the public servant, on whom accused was to exercise his personal
influence. He contended that even in the transcripts, the accused
when asked by PW-15 Mathew Samuel regarding Defence Secretary,
had stated that he does not know him. He contended that accused
was no way connected with Ministry of Defence or the officers
working in said Ministry, therefore there is no question of exercise
of personal influence by the accused on any public servant.
C.C.No: 01 / 2011 Page No.67 of 155
8/13/2019 Judgement related Conviction of Bangaru Laxman
68/155
In the matter of:-
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman)
Dated : 27.04.2012.
98. Ld.Counsel for the accused had led a two-pronged
attack on the deposition of PW-5 and PW-15 on one hand and the
recordings on Hi-8 Tapes on the other. He contended that if as per
the prosecution,