Delhi High Court Quashes Charge Orders In CBI Corruption Case, Says Trial Court Ignored Audio Evidence It Had Summoned
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order framing charges in a CBI corruption case after finding that the trial court proceeded without hearing audio recordings that it had itself summoned to examine allegations relating to demand of bribe.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by the accused public servant challenging orders passed by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Rouse Avenue Courts.
The trial court had framed charges against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Petitioner argued that the transcript of the conversation relied upon by the CBI differed from the actual audio conversation and that despite earlier orders directing production of the recordings, the Special Judge framed charges without listening to the audio clips.
The High Court noted that on January 8, 2026, the Special Judge had requisitioned CDs containing the voice recordings for the purpose of hearing them. Subsequently, on January 20, the matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time and the recordings were directed to be produced again. Later, on February 23, the trial court recorded that the accused's request would be considered while deciding framing of charge.
However, despite those proceedings, the Special Judge ultimately framed charges without hearing the recordings, Petitioner alleged.
CBI argued that authenticity of the transcript was a matter for trial and there was no necessity to hear the audio recordings at the stage of framing charge.
Petitioner however contended that demand of bribe constitutes the foundational element in offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that failure to examine the actual conversation could subject the accused to a prolonged criminal trial without sufficient basis.
Accepting the contention, the High Court observed that since the trial court had itself called for the audio recordings, it ought to have heard them before deciding the issue of charge.
As such, it directed the Special Judge to hear the audio recording, and to then proceed to frame charges in the matter, as may be considered appropriate, in accordance with law.
Appearance: Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Mr. Ashu Rani, Mr. Yugansh Mittal and Ms. Mamta Rani, Advocates. Petitioner in-person; Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, SPP with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, Advocates for Respondent
Case title: Devender Kumar v. CBI
Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 299/2026