* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 18^th December, 2024 Pronounced on: 17^th February, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 1309/2023 & CRL.M.A. 5010/2023 SONU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Hitender Kapur and Mr. Yatin, Advocates versus CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms Mishika Pandita and Mr Mohd Changez Ali Khan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)], seeking setting aside of the order dated 27^th January, 2023 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ/Trial Court”) in CC No.

104/2019 arising out of R.C. No. 16A/2017.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. On 7^thApril, 2017, the Deputy General Manager, Bank of Baroda, New Delhi, lodged a complaint before Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch regarding the financial CRL.M.C. 1309/2023 Page 1 of 31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN irregularities at Bank of Baroda, Azadpur Branch, Delhi during the demonetization period. The complaint alleged that certain fraudulent transactions had taken place, involving the misuse of Specified Bank Notes i.e. demonetized Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes.

3. Based on the bank‟s complaint, the respondent registered R.C. No. 16(A)/2017 on 7^th April, 2017. Initially, the investigation did not name the petitioner, however, following a subsequent complaint by the bank dated 21^st April, 2017, the respondent conducted a detailed inquiry which ultimately led to the implication of the petitioner in the case.

4. During the investigation, the respondent examined bank records and statements of officials and customers, revealing that the petitioner, who was employed as a Single Window Operator – A (SWO-A) at Bank of Baroda, Azadpur Branch, Delhi was involved in falsifying cash deposits slips and altering transactions records. It was alleged that he replaced valid currency deposited by customers with demonetized notes, thereby, enabling their unauthorized exchange in violation of RBI regulations.

5. Based on the findings of the investigation, the respondent filed a chargesheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) along with Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter “PC Act”).

6. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the chargesheet and the case proceeded to trial pursuant to which the prosecution examined 14 CRL.M.C. 1309/2023 Page 2 of 31 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAVEEN witnesses in support of its case, and on 9^th September, 2022, it closed its evidence.

7. On 12^th September, 2022, the petitioner‟s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, wherein, he denied the allegations and responded to the evidence presented by the prosecution. Thereafter, evidence was led by the accused/petitioner and the matter was listed for final arguments.

8. Following the aforesaid, final arguments were completed on 2^nd December, 2022, and the respondent herein sought time for rebuttal. Thereafter, vide application dated 22^nd December, 2022, the respondent herein sought permission to place on record a complete screenshot from the OHDTM menu of the Finacle System (used for processing and recording cash deposit transactions including details such as transaction amounts, timestamps and associated voucher numbers), which was allegedly omitted in the chargesheet. The respondent argued that the screenshot of the said OHDTM menu of the Finacle System, which was already placed on record earlier, was incomplete and that the missing portion contained the crucial details, partic