judgement related conviction of bangaru laxman

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


2/155

In the matter of:-


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


3/155

In the matter of:-


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


4/155

In the matter of:-


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


5/155

In the matter of:-


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


6/155

In the matter of:-


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


7/155

In the matter of:-


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


8/155

In the matter of:-


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


9/155

In the matter of:-


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


10/155

In the matter of:-


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


11/155

In the matter of:-


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


12/155

In the matter of:-


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


13/155

In the matter of:-


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


14/155

In the matter of:-


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


15/155

In the matter of:-


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


16/155

In the matter of:-


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


17/155

In the matter of:-


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


18/155

In the matter of:-


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


19/155

In the matter of:-


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


20/155

In the matter of:-


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


21/155

In the matter of:-


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


22/155

In the matter of:-


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


23/155

In the matter of:-


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


24/155

In the matter of:-


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


25/155

In the matter of:-


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


26/155

In the matter of:-


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


27/155

In the matter of:-


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


28/155

In the matter of:-


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


29/155

In the matter of:-


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


30/155

In the matter of:-


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


31/155

In the matter of:-


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


32/155

In the matter of:-


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


33/155

In the matter of:-


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


34/155

In the matter of:-


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


35/155

In the matter of:-


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


36/155

In the matter of:-


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


37/155

In the matter of:-


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


38/155

In the matter of:-


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


39/155

In the matter of:-


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


40/155

In the matter of:-


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


41/155

In the matter of:-


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


42/155

In the matter of:-


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


43/155

In the matter of:-


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


44/155

In the matter of:-


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


45/155

In the matter of:-


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


46/155

In the matter of:-


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


47/155

In the matter of:-


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


48/155

In the matter of:-


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


49/155

In the matter of:-


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


50/155

In the matter of:-


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


51/155

In the matter of:-


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


52/155

In the matter of:-


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


53/155

In the matter of:-


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


54/155

In the matter of:-


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


55/155

In the matter of:-


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


56/155

In the matter of:-


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


57/155

In the matter of:-


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


58/155

In the matter of:-


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


59/155

In the matter of:-


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


60/155

In the matter of:-


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


61/155

In the matter of:-


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


62/155

In the matter of:-


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


63/155

In the matter of:-


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


64/155

In the matter of:-


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


65/155

In the matter of:-


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


66/155

In the matter of:-


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


67/155

In the matter of:-


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


68/155

In the matter of:-


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,

judgement related conviction of bangaru laxman

Documents