SANDEEP AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions impugn the order on charge dated 6.9.2017 and charge dated 13.6.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI03 North-West District, for offences under sections 120 B IPC read with section 7 and 13 (1) (d), 13(2) and S.12 of PC Act 1988.

(2.) Rahul Agarwal (A-1) a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) is alleged to have conspired with co-accused Sandeep (A-2) for extracting monies as illegal gratification from one Ashwini Yadav (A-4) through the latter's father Mr Vijender Singh Yadav. Ashwini was constructing the building at village Naharpur, Rohini, Delhi. A-1 served a notice upon A-4 under section 133 Cr.PC through co-accused Sandeep, which was later sought to be settled through illegal gratification of Rs.2 lacs. According to the prosecution's source information Ashwini agreed to pay the illegal gratification through his father A-3 on 2.6.2016. A trap was laid. It is recorded in the impugned order as under:

(3.) The petitioners argue that there is no evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification between the A-1 and A-4. At best, unbeknownst to A-1, A-2 may have interacted with A-4 and any conversation or transaction between them cannot be even remotely alluded or linked with a one so as to make out a case under sections 7 or 13 (1)(d) or 13(2) of the PC Act. It is contended that the Principal Voice Examination Report (D-56) is not supported by the requisite certificate and searches for five of the Indian Evidence Act therefore the voice recording memo and the said report are inadmissible in law. It is argued that the basic ingredients of the aforesaid provisions of law not even prima facie made out, the impugned order is erroneous and needs to be set aside. It is argued that there is nothing on the record in any of the 29 telephone conversations with your recorded by the prosecution to link or establish such demand or receipt of illegal gratification by A-1. A-3 and A-4 and argued that they are innocent of the alleged offences. There was no unauthorised construction being done by them or did they receive a statement order under as mentioned above. A-2 submitted that the monies recovered from his car were not marked as given by the complainant and near recovery of the same from the dashboard of car of a private person cannot be said to be bribe it or tainted money. It is also argued that since a FIR had already been registered by the MCD Rohini Zone there was no occasion for A-1 possibly issue a notice to A-4.