The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for offenses under the PC Act, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Najmi Waziri, J.

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) CBI-03 North-West District, for offences under sections 120B 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.P.C. 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:

"..... It is submitted that thereafter a trap team was constituted and after conducting pre-trap proceedings in CBI office, all the trap team members including independent witnesses left for the spot at village Naharpur, Rohini Sector-7, New Delhi, where source informed at about 5:10 PM that Sandeep (A-2) would come in vehicle no. DL 8CT 2927 white Santro GLS car at shop of Ashwani Yadav (A-4) to collect the bribe amount and accordingly the TLO alerted the trap team members and at about 5:15 PM, above said Santro car was seen coming from the side of Parshuramd it was being driven by Sandeep (A-2). It is further submitted that thereafter accused-Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) came there and sat inside front seat of the car and after about 10-15 minutes, Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) came out from the car and Sandeep (A-2) started the car and they were intercepted by the TLO and bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/-was recovered from the aforesaid car. It is submitted that thereafter, accused Ashwani Yadav (A-4) was also brought at the spot by the trap team members and during the trap proceedings, Sandeep (A-2) informed Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) regarding acceptance of bribe amount which was acknowledged by Rahul Aggarwal (A-1). It is further submitted that as per CFSL report dated 07.10.2016, the specimen voice of accused-Sandeep (A-2), Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) and Ashwani Yadav (A-4) have tallied with their respective questioned voice. It is submitted that accused-Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) denied giving his specimen voice during the investigation of this case, however his voice has been identified on all the relevant calls by Sh. Rupesh Kumar Thakur, IAS, the then District Magistrate, Sh. Jagdish Singh, then Reader to accused-Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) and Sh. Prasoon Yadav, LDC in the office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar. It is further submitted that during house search of accused-Sandeep (A-2), a cash amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs was seized and said accused disclosed that he collected the said amount from accused-Ashwani Yadav (A-4) in the second week of May, 2016 and he was collecting the remaining bribe amount of Rs. 50,000/-on 02.6.2016 at the time of trap and this entire bribe amount of Rs. 2 lac was to be given to accused-Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) and accused-Vijender Singh Yadav (A-3) has also disclosed that on 17.5.2016 accused Sandeep (A-2) visited their shops at Naharpur and collected Rs. 1.5 lacs and these disclosure statement were also corroborated by the relevant call conversation dated 12.5.2016. Ld. Sr. PP also submitted that from the investigation carried out by the police, the conspiracy for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as well as the commission of substantive offences under PC Act, 1988 have been established on the part of all the accused persons and he prayed that the respective charges as stated in the charge-sheet may be framed against the accused persons.

4. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Rahul Aggarwal (A-1) that the said accused