Interim Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 1 of 16
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001067-2025
CC No. 33/2025
FIR No. 09/2021
PS: ACB
State Vs. Ravinder Singh Mehra & Anr.
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the question of framing of
charge against the accused persons.
2. Arguments on the point of charge have already been heard
on behalf of both the sides. I have duly considered the
submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light
of material available on record.
3.
Shorn off unnecessary details, case of the prosecution, as
mentioned in the charge-sheet and the material filed
therewith, is as under:-
3.1 On 25.08.2021, Sh. Himanshu Malik (
hereinafter
referred to as the complainant) approached Anti
Corruption Branch [ACB], Govt. NCT of Delhi, Delhi,
with a written complaint dated 25.08.2021 regarding
demand of bribe of ₹50,000/- by one Ravinder Singh
Mehra (accused no.1), the then Executive Magistrate of
Covid Team, South-East District, Delhi and Imran Khan
(accused no. 2), the then Civil Defence Volunteer
(CDV), Covid Team, SDM Office, Defence Colony,
Delhi. In the said complaint, it was alleged that both the
accused persons were deployed for Covid-19
-- 1 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 2 of 16
Prosecution Team and were threatening the complainant
and other Spa owners for giving monthly bribe @
₹1,00,000/- each, failing which, they would seal their
premises on the ground of violating Covid norms. On
being aggrieved from their demand of bribe, the
complainant was compelled to lodge the said complaint.
3.2 On the basis of said complaint, which was marked to
Inspector Kailash Chand of ACB, a raiding team was
constituted and raid was conducted on 25.08.2021 in the
presence of panch witness namely Sh. Gaurav Kumar
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, who was posted as Junior Assistant
(LDC) in Directorate of Information and Publicity, Govt.
of NCT of Delhi, Delhi. Both the accused persons were
caught red-handed while demanding and accepting
illegal gratification of 50,000/- from the complainant.	₹
3.3 As per further case of the prosecution, the accused
persons flushed the bribe money in bathroom attached to
the room of the hotel, where they had called the
complainant to receive such illegal gratification.
However, members of the raiding team managed to save
bribe money of 25,000/- which was allegedly flushed	₹
out by accused Ravinder Singh Mehra, whereas, the
remaining bribe amount of 25,000/- had already been	₹
flushed out by accused Imran Khan.
3.4 Thereafter, post-raid proceedings were conducted,
during which, colourless solution of sodium carbonate
with water, was prepared in clean glass, in which
accused Imran Khan washed his hands and colour of
said solution turned into pink colour and relevant
proceedings like transfer of said solution into two clean
-- 2 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 3 of 16
glass bottles; preparation of its pullanda and sealing
thereof with the seal of ‘KC’ by Insp. Kailash Chand
took place.
Likewise, colourless solution of sodium
carbonate with water was prepared in a clean glass
tumbler, in which left side pocket of wearing shirt of
accused Ravinder Singh Mehra was washed and colour
of said solution turned into pink colour and same was
also transferred into two clean glass bottles and similar
proceedings were carried out in that regard.
3.5 On the basis of written complaint of the complainant,
and the raid report of Insp. Kailash Chand, FIR in
question came to be registered against both the accused
in respect of offences u/s 7 and 7A of PC Act as
amended by the Act of 2018, read with Section
120B/201 IPC and the investigation was entrusted to
Insp. Brijesh Kumar Mishra.
3.6 During investigation, both the accused persons were
arrested; statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of complainant Sh.
Himanshu Malik was got recorded before the concerned
Court; and statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of relevant
witnesses, including those of Sh. Rohit Kumar (owner of
JPM Town House Hotel) and Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o
Sh. Bhagwan Sahay (who was also running a Spa Centre
in the same vicinity), were recorded. The relevant
exhibits of both hand wash and shirt of accused Imran
Khan and Ravinder Singh Mehra, were sent to FSL and
after examination thereof, FSL result was received,
wherein such exhibits were found to contain
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.
3.7 It is further the case of prosecution that accused Imran
-- 3 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 4 of 16
Khan was appointed as Civil Defence Volunteer (CDV),
vide Order no. 98/CD/SE dated 25.06.2016 and he was
posted in District Disaster Management Authority,
South-East District, as Civil Defence Volunteer and was
in Covid Team in SDM Office, Defence Colony, Delhi,
and thus, he had performed ‘
public duty’ within the
meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act, 1988 and
thus, said accused falls within the definition of term
“
public servant’ as he also held an office by virtue of
which he was authorized or required to perform public
duty and such duty means a duty in the discharge of
which the State, the public or the community at large has
an interest. It is also the case of the prosecution that
accused Imran Khan was also drawing salary directly
from the Government Exchequer for the duty performed
by him.
3.8 It is further the case of the prosecution that accused
Ravinder Singh Mehra was appointed as an Office
Attendant on 17.02.1998 and was working as Semi-
Professional Assistant (SPA) in library in Keshav
Mahavidyalaya, University of Delhi, Pitam Pura, Delhi
and he was deputed as an Executive Magistrate in the
Enforcement Team of South-East District, Delhi, for
Covid-19 Prosecution Team, by the order of ADM
(South-East), vide Order no. 1/302/DM/SE/2020/
COVID-19/561-565 dated 29.03.2020.
3.9 It is further the case of the prosecution that requisite
sanctions as envisaged u/s 19 POC Act against both the
accused persons have been accorded by their respective
Competent Authority, which are filed along with charge-
-- 4 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 5 of 16
sheet. After completion of investigation, both the
accused persons stood charge-sheeted for the
offences punishable under S.7 PC Act and S. 120-B
and 201 IPC.
Arguments advanced by both the sides:
4. While referring to the case of prosecution as mentioned in
the charge-sheet, Ld. Chief PP for the State argued that
there is an overwhelming evidence available on record,
which would clearly show that both the accused had
conspired together and in pursuance of the criminal
conspiracy hatched by them, they had demanded and
accepted illegal gratification of 50,000/- from the	₹
complainant in the presence of panch witness namely Sh.
Gaurav Kumar. For this purpose, he also referred to and
relied upon statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C of relevant
witnesses, more particularly, those of Sh. Himanshu Malik
[complainant] and panch witness/alleged eyewitness
namely Sh. Gaurav Kumar, as also other material filed
along with the charge-sheet.
5. Ld. Chief PP pointed out that wash of both the hands of
accused Imran Khan and wash of shirt of accused Ravinder
Singh Mehra, as were taken with the help of colourless
solution of sodium carbonate, were sent to FSL and as per
FSL Result, relevant exhibits were found to contain
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate on them. He further
submitted that complainant Sh. Himanshu Malik has also
corroborated the allegations, as appearing in his written
complaint dated 25.08.2021, in his statement under
-- 5 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 6 of 16
S.164 Cr.PC recorded by the then ACMM, RADC,
New Delhi.
6. He also referred to Sanctions under S.19 of PC Act
accorded by Sanctioning Authorities for prosecution of
both these accused persons. He, therefore, contended that
makes out
prima facie case for the offences punishable
under S.7 PC Act and S. 120-B and 201 IPC and thus,
urged that it is a fit case where charges in respect of said
offences should be framed against the accused persons.
7.
Per contra, Ld. Counsels of accused persons vehemently
argued that there is no evidence/ material filed alongwith
charge-sheet, on the basis of which, it can be said that
prima facie case is made out against either of them in
respect of any of the offences alleged against them.
8. After referring to the prosecution story, as propounded in
the charge-sheet, Ld. Counsels of accused persons
submitted that it would be highly improbable that accused
persons would call the complainant in the room of some
hotel for receiving illegal gratification and likewise, it is
also quite unbelievable that complainant and panch witness
namely Sh. Gaurav Kumar would go outside room of the
said hotel at the time when raid was allegedly conducted
by the raiding team headed by RO/Inspector Kailash
Chand of PS ACB.
9. Ld. Counsel of accused Ravinder Singh Mehra (A-1)
further argued that no explanation is offered by
prosecution as to why hand wash of said accused was not
taken at the time of his alleged apprehension and recovery
-- 6 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 7 of 16
of tainted GC notes amounting to 25,000/-, when as per	₹
own case of prosecution, said accused was trying to flush
said recovered GC notes in the toilet. Based on such
submission, Ld. Counsel of accused no.1 submitted that it
is nowhere the case of prosecution that said accused had
washed off his hands before his alleged apprehension by
the raiding team of PS ACB and recovery of tainted
GC notes. Ld. Counsel contended that it was not difficult
for the Raid Officer [RO] to take wash of hands of said
accused, as was allegedly done in respect of accused Imran
Khan. Having not so done, it raises serious doubt on the
entire trap proceedings allegedly carried out by RO and his
team members.
10. Another argument advanced on behalf of accused persons
has been that there are contradictions appearing in the
written complaint dated 25.08.2021 and statement under
S. 164 Cr.PC of complainant, inasmuch as,
the complainant claimed accused Ravinder Singh Mehra to
be Executive Magistrate, SDM Lajpat Nagar in the written
complaint, however, did not state so in his statement under
S. 164 Cr.PC. Further, the complainant alleged in the
written complaint that it was accused Ravinder Singh
Mehra, who had approached him and had demanded illegal
gratification and extended threat to seal his SPA Centre, in
case of failure to pay monthly bribe of 20,000/- to him,	₹
whereas, he stated in his statement under S. 164 Cr.PC that
it was accused Imran Khan, who had come to him and had
demanded 2,50,000/- from him for allowing him to run	₹
his business smoothly.
-- 7 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 8 of 16
11. Ld. Counsels of accused persons further argued that
disclosure statements, as relied upon by the prosecution,
did not lead to any recovery and thus, are inadmissible in
law and should not be looked into by the Court of law.
12. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Ld. Counsels of
accused persons urged that both the accused persons are
entitled to be discharged in this case.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
13. Before proceeding to deal with the rival submissions made
on behalf of both the sides, it would be necessary to
discuss the legal position at the stage of charge, as laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in catena of decisions. It is
trite law that the
prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt. However, at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court has only to see whether
prima facie case is made out
against the accused.
14. In the case of
‘Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.’
reported as (2000) 1 SCC 722, while taking note of the
burden of pending cases on the Courts, Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that there is no legal requirement that the
trial court should write an order showing the reasons for
framing a charge. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted here as under:-
“xxxx
11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on a police
report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing
the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is
clear from Section 245. As per the first sub-section of
-- 8 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 9 of 16
Section 245, if a Magistrate, after taking all the evidence
considers that no case against the accused has been made
out which if un-rebutted would warrant his conviction, he
shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the
Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any
previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be
groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to
record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is
pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a Court of
Session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he
decides to discharge the accused (vide Section 227 of the
Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so
without recording his reasons for showing why he framed
the charge.
12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court
should write an order showing the reasons for framing a
charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be
further burdened with such an extra work. The time has
reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the
court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all
roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to
write detailed orders at different stages merely because the
counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-
paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further
be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory
orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into
several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order
has been passed for culminating the proceedings before
them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at
this stage, such as issuing process, remanding the accused
to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages
in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders
rejecting or granting bail are passed, the court should
avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious
issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section
37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
xxxx"
15. Similarly, while dealing with the scope of S.227 and 228
of the Code and the limitations imposed upon the Court at
the initial stage of framing the charge, Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of ‘
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh’, reported as
(1977) 4 SCC 39, has held as under:-
“Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they
have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the
-- 9 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 10 of 16
initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the
evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to
be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to
the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for
the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and
weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally
applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or
otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the
stage of deciding the matter under Section 227 or Section 228
of the Code. At that stage the court is not to see whether there
is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether
the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion
against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of
suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the
conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a
strong suspicion, which leads the court to think that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The
presumption of the guilt of the accused, which is to be drawn
at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the
trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is
presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is
only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence
which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce a to prove the guilt
of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in
cross-examination or rebutted by the defense, if any, cannot
show that the accused committed the offence, then there will
be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An
exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will
lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible nor
advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by
one more example. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused are something like even at the
conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt
the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it
is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227
or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be made will be one
under Section 228 and not under Section 227."
16. A three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of ‘
Suptd. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja’, reported as (1979) 4 SCC
274, reminded the Courts that at the initial stage of framing
-- 10 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 11 of 16
of charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence.
The Court has, therefore, to consider the question of
framing the charge on general considerations of the
material placed before it by the investigating agency.
At this stage, the truth, veracity and effect of the judgment,
which the prosecution proposes to adduce, are not to be
meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and
judgment which is to be applied finally before finding an
accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at
the stage of framing the charge. Even on the basis of a
strong suspicion founded on materials before it, the Court
can form a presumptive opinion regarding the existence of
factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and in
that event be justified in framing the charges against the
accused in respect of the commission of the offence
alleged to have been committed by them.
17. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘
Settu v State of
NCT of Delhi’, bearing CRL. REV. P. 13/2022 decided on
10.03.2022, has observed as under:-
“xxxx
8.It is well settled law that at the stage of framing
of charge, the court has power to shift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case against
accused has been made out. When the material
placed before the court discloses great suspicion
against the accused, which has not been properly
explained, the court will be justified in framing
charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed
as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis
of materials on record a court could come to the
conclusion that commission of the offence is a
probable consequence, a case of framing of
charge exists.
-- 11 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 12 of 16
9.To put it differently, if the courts were to think
that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame a charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
accused has committed the offence. At the stage
of framing of a charge, probative value of the
materials on records cannot be gone into, the
material brought on record by the prosecution
has to be accepted as true at that stage. The truth,
veracity and effect of the evidence, which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce, are not to be
meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be
attached to the probable defense of the accused.
It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of
the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not.
10.The standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is
not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding
the matter under Section 227 or under Section
228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there
is a strong suspicion, which leads the court to
think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not
open to the court to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
While deciding the question of framing of charge
in a criminal case, the court is not to apply
exactly the standard and test which it finally
applies for determining the guilt or otherwise.
11. What is required to be seen is whether there
is strong suspicion, which may lead to the court
to think that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence. The
above proposition is supported with law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble
High Court reported as “Union of India vs.
Prafulla Kumar”, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366,
“State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath
Thapa and other” JT 1996 (4) SC 615, “State of
Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh”, AIR 1997 SC 2018:
(1997 CRI LJ 1606), “Umar Amdula Sakoor
Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control
Bureau” JT 1999 (5) SC 394, “Kalu Mal Gupta
vs. State” 2000 I AD Delhi 107.
xxxx”
-- 12 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 13 of 16
18. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ‘
Amit Kapoor
v. Ramesh Chander’, reported as 2012 (9) SCC, 460, has
held as under:-
“19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge,
the court is concerned not with proof but with a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed
an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty. All that the court has to see is that the
material on record and the facts would be
compatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at
that stage.”
19. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. As
already mentioned earlier, both these accused persons were
allegedly caught red handed while accepting illegal
gratification to the tune of 50,000/- during the trap	₹
proceeding laid by raiding team headed by RO/Inspector
Kailash Chand. It has been the case of the prosecution that
accused persons had divided the bribe money of 50,000/-	₹
into 25,000/- each, out of which, accused Imran Khan	₹
managed to flush out his share of money
i.e. 25,000/-, in	₹
the toilet attached with the room of the hotel, where raid
was conducted and trap proceedings took place, while,
remaining bribe money of 25,000/-, which constituted	₹
share of accused Ravinder Singh Mehra, could be saved by
the raiding team from being flushed into said toilet.
20. In the aforesaid backdrop, argument advanced on behalf of
accused Ravinder Singh Mehra that since his hand wash
was not taken by RO, it would create serious doubt in the
case of prosecution as regards involvement of said accused
in the commission of alleged offences, is devoid of any
substance, for the simple reason that it has been the
-- 13 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 14 of 16
specific case of prosecution, as propounded in the charge-
sheet itself, that wash of both hands of accused Ravinder
Singh Mehra was taken with the help of colourless solution
of sodium carbonate immediately during trap proceedings,
however, colourless solution did not turn into pink and on
enquiry, it was revealed that said accused had already
washed his hands in bathroom with hand wash [
liquid
soap] before arrival of raiding team and for this reason,
wash of left side pocket of his wearing pink shirt was taken
in colourless solution of sodium carbonate, which turned
into pink colour, which was subsequently transferred into
two cleaned glass bottles and relevant proceedings
regarding preparing of sealed pullandas and seizure thereof
took place. Even otherwise, the act of RO in not collecting
hand wash of accused Ravinder Singh Mehra, would not in
itself be sufficient, to discharge him in view of sufficient
evidence collected during investigation and filed along
with the charge-sheet in this case.
21. As noted earlier, there are direct and specific allegations
levelled in the written complaint dated 25.08.2021 by the
complainant that it was accused Ravinder Singh Mehra,
who had claimed himself to be Executive Magistrate, and
had demanded bribe at the rate of 20,000/- per month	₹
from him as well as from other SPA owners, for running
business smoothly. Not only this, the prosecution has also
relied upon statement under S. 161 Cr.PC of Sh. Vinod
Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahay, who was also running
SPA centre in the same locality. In his said statement, he
has also named both these accused persons to be the
-- 14 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 15 of 16
persons, who had demanded illegal gratification from him
for allowing him to run his spa centre in the said
locality. Apart from that, the prosecution has also relied
upon statement under S.161 Cr.PC of Sh. Rohit Kumar,
owner of JPM Town House Hotel, wherein trap was laid
and accused persons were allegedly caught red handed
while accepting the bribe money. In his said statement, Sh.
Rohit Kumar is also shown to have supported the case of
prosecution regarding trap proceedings as mentioned in the
chargesheet. Moreover, the prosecution has also relied
upon statement under S.164 Cr.PC of the complainant as
was recorded by the then Ld. ACMM, RADC, New Delhi,
on 18.09.2021, wherein it is shown that he had specifically
stated that he had handed over bribe money of 50,000/- to	₹
accused Imran Khan, who had handed over the same to
accused Ravinder Singh Mehra, in the presence of panch
witness namely Sh. Gaurav Kumar.
22. The relevant exhibits
i.e. hand wash of accused Imran
Khan and pocket wash of wearing shirt of accused
Ravinder Singh Mehrar were sent to FSL for examination.
As per FSL Examination Report dated 26.10.2021 filed
with the chargesheet, on chemical and TLC examination,
the said exhibits were found to contain ‘phenolphthalein’
and ‘sodium carbonate’. Apart from above, the prosecution
has also filed requisite sanctions under S. 19 of PC Act for
prosecution of both the accused persons in this case.
23. In view of aforesaid materials/ evidences, which are relied
upon by the prosecution with charge-sheet, this Court is of
-- 15 of 16 --
CC No.:33/2025, FIR No.:09/2021, PS: ACB
Page 16 of 16
the view that there is sufficient evidence which would
prima facie show that both the accused persons had
conspired together to do an illegal act
i.e. to demand illegal
gratification from spa center owners to allow them to run
their spa centers in the said locality during Covid-19
period and in pursuance thereto, they had demanded illegal
gratification at the rate of 20,000/- per month from the	₹
complainant namely Sh. Himanshu Malik, as also from
other spa owners, including Sh. Vinod Kumar and also that
they had destroyed material piece of evidence
i.e. GC
notes amounting to 25000/-, which constituted the share	₹
of bribe money of 25,000/- belonging to accused Imran	₹
Khan.
24. In the light of aforesaid discussion, it is hereby directed
that
prima facie case is made out for framing of charges in
respect of offences punishable under S. 120B IPC and S.7
of PC Act, as amended by the Act of 2018 r/w S. 120B
IPC against both the accused persons namely Ravinder
Singh Mehra and Imran Khan, as also offence under S. 201
IPC against accused Imran Khan.
Announced in the open Court
on 05th Day of April, 2026.
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RACC/NEW DELHI
-- 16 of 16 --