The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper appreciation of evidence, avoidance of reliance on typographical errors, and the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in deciding discharge applications on merits.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length.

3. It is a case where the CBI has filed the chargesheet under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of IPC against the accused persons.

4. An application was filed for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court. The Special Judge, CBI, in Special Case No. 8 of 2012 passed an order on 23.05.2014 rejecting the application for discharge. The High Court set aside the order and has observed that the telephonic conversation is vague and one-sided. Apart from that, the High Court has also observed that it was mentioned in the chargesheet that an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid to the accused as bribe in the first week of December, 2008 through one Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar. Even if there was some reference of some transactions in the telephonic conversation, that is not conclusive to infer that the accused has demanded any amount as bribe. The telephonic conversation as to the amount was from one end.

5. It has also been observed by the High Court that the trial cannot be allowed to continue merely on the opinion of the Investigating Agency that the accused has committed offence as alleged in the chargesheet.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court, the CBI is before this Court in the appeal. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the order passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI and the material on record.

7. The trial court has pointed out the material regarding demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs from the complainant and a sum of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs which had been paid. The accused-respondent in collusion with Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- and threatened the complainant. Thereafter, a trap was laid and the complainant was sent with the shadow witness. The complainant met the accused at 1700 hours. The conversation was recorded in the digital recorder planted on the complainant. The complainant along with the shadow witness visited the EPF Office at Vadodara and made an entry in the Visitors' Register to meet the accused. Thereafter, Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar, co-accused, told the complainant that he should pay the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- then and there. The complainant replied that he would pay it either in the evening or at night. It was decided that the amount shall be given to the accused Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar. The entire conversation was recorded. Thereafter, a trap was laid. The complainant, along with the shadow witness, went to the office of the accused Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar and the tainted amount was accepted and recovered from Accused No.2 - Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar. A telephone call was made by Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar from his mobile, being Mobile No. 9825044649 to the mobile number of the accused-A1 at Mobile No. 9429429469. The whole conversation was recorded. This was established that the amount was accepted by accused - Bhupendrasinh Padhiyar for Accused A1. A spectrography test was conducted regarding the voices of both the accused persons. The trial court has considered the other material also and thereafter, rejected the application filed by Nand Ram Meena, the respondent herein.

8. Ms. Madhavi Dewan, learned Additional Solicitor General, pointed out that a corrigendum to the chargesheet was filed indicating that there was a typographical error made while submitting the chargesheet and the date was correctly mentioned in the FIR as "December, 2009". It was wrongly mentioned as "December, 2008" due to typographical error while filing the chargesheet. It was not a stage for the High Court to go into the veracity of the evidence. It was a case supported by evidence which was triable by the court. It was not a stage of the acquittal as such. The High Court could not have appreciated the evidence. She has also taken us to the script of the te