ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act) (CBI)—6, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CC No. 02/15 arising out of RC No. AC1/2012/A0011/CBI/New Delhi whereby the Court below has refused to discharge the petitioner for the offences under Sections 120B read with Section 8 of the P.C. Act, 1988; Sections 420 and 471 of the IPC; Sections 420 read with Section 511 of the IPC; Section 471 IPC and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has framed charges in the aforesaid sections against him.

2. A complaint was made by Sh. Ajay Maken, the then State Minister (Independent charge) Youth Affairs & Sports, Government of India on 20.07.2012 alleging that his letter head has been unauthorisedly used by accused persons. Sh.Maken could come to know about the aforesaid fact only when a news item appeared in Indian Express on 15.07.2012 which disclosed that an unsigned letter of Sh.Maken, addressed to the Prime Minister of India, was found in a bunch of papers of Abhishek Verma/petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registered against the petitioner; unknown officials of M/s. ZET Telecom India Pvt. Ltd; unknown officials of M/s. Ganton Ltd, USA and its subsidiary company M/s. Ganton India Pvt. Ltd; and other unknown persons under Section 469 IPC read with Section 8 of the P.C. Act and Section 66A(b)(c) of the IT Act, 2000.

3. During the investigation of the aforesaid case, it came to light that Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigner Division) had issued guidelines for grant of extension of Visas to foreign nationals which was directed to all States and UT Administration for grant of extension of Visas to foreign nationals. Pursuant to the aforesaid guidelines, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, HO-cum-Foreigner Registration Officer, Gurugram, Haryana issued an order dated 27.10.2009, under the signature of the competent authority that all foreign nationals who were in India on business Visa in connection with execution of their projects/contracts, ought to leave the country on the expiry of their existing Visas or by 31.10.2009, whichever was earlier. This order could have adversely affected the staff of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. During the investigations, it was revealed that the then CEO of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd had approached Mr. D.K. Ghosh, the then CMD of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd, India for finding out some way to get the Visa of the employees of M/s. ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd extended. Since Mr. D.K. Ghosh, referred to above, was known to the petitioner who was famous for his contacts in Government of India, he contacted the petitioner on 28.10.2009 for help. They (Mr. D.K. Ghosh and the petitioner) met in Hotel Radisson, Delhi on 29.10.2009. In presence of Mr. D.K. Ghosh, the petitioner had a talk on telephone with someone who was explained about the Visa problem. Thereafter, the petitioner asked Mr. D.K. Ghosh to come to the residence of co accused Sh. Jagdish Tytler on 30.10.2009. During the meeting at Radisson Hotel, the petitioner had made it known to Mr. D.K. Ghosh that the help which would be given, would cost money and that a formal request also ought to be made to the Union Home Minister and the then State Home Minister regarding such Visa problem. This fact was communicated by Mr. D.K. Ghosh to the CEO of ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd.

4. Sh. D.K. Ghosh thereafter talked to Mr. Gan Yong, Director, Marketing, ZTE Telecom India Pvt. Ltd and informed him that he had talked to the petitioner who had good liaisons with the Government of India and also informed that he was demanding "cost" for the work.

5. It was further revealed that the co-accused Sh. Jagdish Tytler had been using a mobile telephone No.9899485136 and was in contact with the petitioner between 28.10.2009 to 03.11.2009. On 30.10.2009, the petitioner and Mr. D.K. Ghosh had gone to the residence of the Sh.Jagdish Tytler w