Final Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-000873-2024
CC No. 96/2024
State vs. Vijay Kumar
FIR No. 06/2010
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch
22.04.2026
O R D E R
The present chargesheet filed by the IO alleges
commission of offences punishable under Section 7/13 (1) (d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by accused Vijay Kumar.
It is the case of the prosecution that accused is liable to
be prosecuted under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 as there is sufficient material against him. As per the complaint
filed by one Chetan Sharma, he made an audio-video recording of
accused, Vijay Kumar, PA to SDM, Najafgarh while he was accepting
Rs.1,500/- as bribe from the complainant Naresh Kumar to allow
construction in his property situated at Shyam Vihar. Later, the
complainant, Mr. Naresh Kumar had filed a written complaint against
Vijay Kumar along with a CD in ACB Office. The FSL report has
also been filed as per which, there is no indication of alternation in the
video shot.
IO submitted that during the initial investigation,
accused, Vijay Kumar, gave his consent for recording of his voice
sample but perusal of chargesheet reveals that still the chargesheet has
been filed without obtaining the voice sample of the accused. The IO
submitted that when investigation was marked to her, she asked the
accused to give his voice sample but he refused. It cannot be denied
that in cases involving the allegations under the provisions of POC
Act where recorded conversation is a crucial piece of evidence,
obtaining and examining the voice samples of the accused and the
complainant are of utmost importance for proper adjudication of the
matter.
Contd...2/-
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Since the present matter is based on the audio-video
recording of the alleged offence, voice samples are decisive piece of
evidence in the present matter. The absence of voice samples creates a
material lacunae in the investigation and raises doubts regarding its
evidentiary value. It is now well settled that taking the voice samples
from an accused for the purpose of fair investigation does not amount
to violation of the right of the accused against self-incrimination under
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India as the voice sample is
considered identificatory rather than as testimonial compulsion.
Reliance is placed on the case of Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 2019 SC 3592. Therefore, this matter requires further
investigation on the above said aspect.
In view of the above, the matter is sent back for further
investigation for obtaining voice samples of the accused and both the
complainants namely Mr. Chetan Sharma and Mr. Naresh Kumar.
Investigating agency is directed to fairly and completely investigate
into the matter and then file the appropriate final report within a
period of two months as the matter is already very old. The charge
sheet and accompanying documents/material be returned to the
Investigating Agency against due receipt. However, Ahlmad is
directed to retain a copy of the same along with the order sheets and
the present order and then the same be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts
New Delhi/22.04.2026
-- 2 of 2 --