The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to support the direction for registering a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the importance of authenticating electronic records under the Information Technology Act, Section 65-B.

I. The subject of lis

1. The petitioner challenges the order passed on 20.01.2014 (Annexure P10) and order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure P13) on the review application, while communicating his finding on reference which was brought to him from the Government that the allegations for "taking bribery by exchanging the hands of money and granting of CLU/Licence in lieu thereof have not been established" (sic). However, he (Lokayukta) also stated that on the basis of a CD submitted along with the affidavits of two persons and examining the audio version and after going through the affidavits, he found that there prima facie appeared a case of commission of cognizable offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The Lokayukta, therefore, recommended to the competent authority that a criminal case for commission of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 be immediately registered against the petitioner and thereafter, a senior competent Police Officer enjoying the reputation of having impeccable integrity be deputed to investigate the entire case expeditiously on all counts of allegations of corruption as narrated in the CD and give a report as set down under Section 17(2) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002.

II. Facts that led to complaint before Lokayukta

2. The circumstance that culminated in the order of the Lokayukta was a reference sought by the State on being apprised of the fact that there had been a VCD in circulation that conveyed irregularities involving the Members and relatives of Members of State Legislature in connection with the grant of tills and it was imperative that the authenticity of the allegations were to be enquired that damages the reputation of the Members of State Legislature. The reference made a particular reference to CDs and the media reports casting serious aspersions of Members of the State Assembly and, therefore, two points raised: "(i) Whether the alleged allegations of bribery levelled in the alleged are correct? (sic); (ii) Whether the CLU/licence was granted in pursuance of these allegations? If yes, whether any illegality committed?"

III. Lokayukta's publication and response-No credible information regarding bribery

3. The Lokayukta caused a publication to be issued inviting members of the public to offer any evidence that they might have in relation to the subjects which were brought before it and made reference to an alleged Sting Operation containing details of a demand of bribery of ` 5 crores by the petitioner. "The Tribune, Chandigarh" responded that one Abhey Chautala had shown a CD at a Press Conference and it was the news report. The second news was only with regard to the proceedings in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha but they had no material to offer to the Lokayukta. The Chief Secretary had forwarded a copy of the communication received from the Governor of Haryana accompanied with the representations filed by the MLAs of INLD that contained the allegations of demand of bribe. The Department of Town and Country Planning replied that they had no information about any irregularity. With literally no credible information from any quarters, the Lokayukta had with him a CD that had been sent to him from the Government and in response to the public advertisement, two persons, namely, Dharmender Kuhar and Parveen Malik were reported to have given their affidavits. The Lokayukta had no credible information regarding the demand of bribe and answered the reference that there was no material to find any merit in the imputation that the bribery by exchange of hands of money and granting of CLU/licence in lieu thereof had been established. There was however a direction for registering a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The application for review had been filed by both-the Government and the petitioner, but they were dealt with laconically as not requiring any cause for undertaking such an exercise on the ground that he has no power t