In a ruling reported on 27 May 2026, the Delhi High Court (Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani) set aside an order framing charges in a CBI bribery case because the Special Judge had not listened to audio recordings that the court itself had requisitioned. The order was passed in a criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.P. 299/2026), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 545, against a Special Judge’s orders at the Rouse Avenue Courts under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
What was decided
In January 2026 the Special Judge had called for CDs of the voice recordings so that they could be heard. On a later date the matter could not be taken up for lack of time, and the court recorded that the accused’s request would be considered while deciding on charge. Charges were then framed without the recordings being heard.
The accused contended that the CBI’s transcript did not match the audio, and that the demand of a bribe is the foundational element of a PC Act offence. The CBI contended that the authenticity of the transcript was a matter for trial. The High Court held that, having itself called for the recordings, the trial court “ought to have heard them before deciding the issue of charge”. It set aside the charge order and directed the Special Judge to hear the audio and then decide afresh in accordance with law.
Why it matters
In trap cases run by the CBI, the Delhi ACB or the UP Vigilance Establishment, recorded conversations during verification and the trap are usually the main evidence of demand. Transcripts prepared by the agency can differ from the recording. This ruling supports the position that, where the court has the primary electronic record before it, it should consider it at the charge stage instead of relying only on the transcript.
It does not mean that every dispute about a transcript will defeat a charge; the scope of evaluation at that stage remains limited. It does mean that a court’s own procedural steps must be followed through.
Practical points
- Request certified copies of all recordings, not only transcripts, and compare them carefully.
- Record any request for the court to hear electronic evidence in writing, with reasons.
- Check the certificate required under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for electronic records.
- A revision against a charge order should identify a specific procedural or legal error.
Sources: LiveLaw, 27 May 2026.
For a confidential discussion on CBI trap cases, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
