He has to give 65 b evidence a act or 63 BNSS certificate for authenticity of recording before court 

a prerecorded CD containing audio conversations can be considered as evidence in a court of law

2) The voices on the recording must be clearly identified. 

Sir/Madam, 

It is submitted that content of the CD should be matched with that of original device by the concerned FSL and then the same may be admissible as an evidence. But, during proving of the same, the concerned FSL officials may be summoned to explain the court as to what's procedure followed and how it is opinied that there is no tempering in the CD.  

You can file petition in HC fir quashing of FIR on account of gross delay  of 7 years in filing of FIR and lack of any evidence 

On the above grounds it will not be quashed. It will only be quashed on merits that is if case is not made out

Sir/Madam, 

As per the detailed information given by you in the follow up question, it seems a clear case of delay and quashing of the case would be the best option under the circumstances mentioned by you. It is however submitted that in absence of the original device where the recording was done, other proof by ACB of no use against the said officer, means that officer will be at better footing. 

es, the FIR can be challenged in High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing, based on:

1. Unexplained delay,

2. No original recorder or 65B certificate,

3. No clear bribe demand in audio,

4. Voice spectrography matter pending,

5. Weak evidence.

Court may quash if it finds abuse of process or no prima facie case.

There is no infirmity in the action of the ACB police to obtain the FSL report and proceed further on the basis of the report with regards to the CD in which the evidence was recorded from the original device. It is legally valid.

The CD evidence and FSL reports (Forensic Science Laboratory reports) can be considered valid evidence by the court, but with certain conditions and limitations. CD evidence, considered a document under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, needs to be properly authenticated and may require a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if it's a secondary record of the electronic evidence. FSL reports, while admissible, are primarily corroborative evidence and require proper linkage to the case and may not be sufficient for conviction alone. 

The position of law is that in the absence of any provision empowering the police officer or the court, it is not permissible to subject an accused to the voice spectrography test.

However, the latest rulings on voice samples in criminal investigations indicate that a judicial magistrate can order the collection of voice samples from an accused person, even against their consent, for the purpose of investigation. This action does not violate the accused's right to privacy or right against self-incrimination, as long as the voice sample is used for comparison with existing evidence and not as a confession or testimony. 

If you are confident that the given circumstances are fit cse for filing a quash petition before high court for the reasons you rely upon, then you may discuss with yor advocate and proceed accordingly.

Statement of complainant will help in your quashing case 

1. The FIR is registered by police only on the basis of the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant and not that the complainant himself will file FIR.

2.  If the complainant wishes to withdraw his complaint then he can submit an application to the concerned police about it. If the concerned police still goes ahead with the filing of charge sheet, then the witness can turn hostile during the trial proceedings claiming innocence of the incidents reported by police. 

 Admissibility of Pre-recorded CD Evidence
Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 65B), electronic records such as CDs are admissible only when they are accompanied by a 65B certificate verifying the authenticity of the electronic record. In your case, the original recording device (the China-made recorder) was not seized or produced, and only the CD was submitted to ACB.

The mismatch of date and time further questions the reliability of the recording. Although the FSL report suggests no tampering, the absence of the original recording device and the missing 65B certificate can weaken the admissibility of this evidence in court.

 Delay in Investigation & Procedural Lapses

• Significant delay: The fact that the ACB took seven years to register an FIR and call the officer for voice spectrography undermines the credibility of the investigation.

• No immediate action: If the officer was not even made aware of the complaint until 2025 and no voice spectrography was done immediately, this procedural delay can be seen as arbitrary and unfair.

• ACB registered FIR instead of complainant: While the ACB can register an FIR based on information (even a source report), the delay and lack of direct complaint by the original complainant can be raised as grounds for quashing.

 Lack of Clear Evidence of Bribe Demand or Acceptance
You have mentioned that there is no clear statement of demanding or accepting a bribe in the audio recording. Mere suspicion or inference is not enough to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Courts have repeatedly held that there must be a clear and unambiguous demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.

 Voice Spectrography Issue & Session Court Proceedings

• Voice spectrography pending: If the Session Court is yet to decide on the application for voice spectrography, the ACB’s sudden registration of FIR without waiting for this outcome could be seen as premature and potentially malicious.

• Right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)): The accused officer has the right to refuse voice spectrography if it amounts to testimonial compulsion.

 Grounds for Quashing of FIR in High Court (under Section 482 CrPC)
Based on these issues, there is a strong case for quashing the FIR on grounds such as:
Unexplained and inordinate delay of seven years
Absence of reliable primary evidence (missing recorder, no 65B certificate)
No clear bribe demand or acceptance
Potential violation of the officer’s rights and abuse of the process of law

Notarised Statement by Original Complainant
If the original complainant is ready to file a notarised statement stating that the complaint was made under someone’s influence and he has no complaints against the officer, it will further strengthen your case. Courts have held that if the complainant retracts and denies allegations, especially in cases of procedural lapses and delay, it significantly affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

Conclusion & Next Steps:
🔹 Given the serious procedural flaws and lack of substantive evidence, you have good grounds to file a petition in the High Court for quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
🔹 The notarised statement by the complainant will be helpful in showing that the original allegations were baseless or motivated.
🔹 Highlight the inordinate delay, missing original recorder, and absence of 65B certificate as crucial grounds.

If you need help with drafting the quashing petition or preparing supporting documents, please let me know. I will be happy to assist you further.

Adv. Ayush S. Jain
📧 [deleted] | 📞 +[deleted]
High Court of Gujarat | District & Sessions Courts – Ahmedabad & Gandhinagar

Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant must be established beyond a reasonable doubt; Supreme Court ...

2) Supreme Court said that when reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt....

3) in absence of direct evidence, the demand and/or acceptance can always be proved by other evidence such as circumstantial evidence 

Sir/Madam, 

Nothing prediction can be done at this stage, regarding the action of the complainant and his affidavit. However, it is stated that you may make submission to this effect in your quashing petition before the High Court. it is further suggested that even though there is no clear demand of bride, the statements/conversation to the effect of making clear inference is must for establishing the act/crime against the officer.  

- As per Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , The contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of section 65B.

- Further, Audio recordings are admissible as evidence, if they appear to be trustworthy, genuine and have been corroborated by other evidence. 

- Hence, mere recording cannot be a ground for the offence in the absence of an witnesses , and specially when  the department has found date and time unmatched with his complaint

- Further, as per law, Phone recording of calls without the permission of other party or a court order violates the fundamental right of a person , and under Section 5 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act such act is not allowed and punishable.

There's no specific provision in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that directly empowers courts to order voice spectrography tests. 

The police can seek court direction for a voice spectrography test, also known as a voice matching test, as part of a criminal investigation. 

While there's no specific law requiring this, the Supreme Court has ruled that a judicial magistrate can order an accused to provide a voice sample for investigation under Article 142 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has also addressed concerns about potential violation of fundamental rights by collecting voice samples, finding that the process does not violate the accused's rights. 

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., acknowledged that there is no specific legal provision under which the Magistrate can authorise the investigating agency to take voice samples. Justice Desai then proceeded to painstakingly identify provisions that could be purposively interpreted in order to empower the Magistrate to authorise the collection of voice samples.   For this purpose, the Court began the quest to find such authority in the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 — a legislation aimed at securing the identification of an accused person.

Let’s address both your points clearly:

 Update on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment 2018)

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 introduced some significant changes to the law, including:

• Introduction of “Undue Advantage”: The term “gratification” has been replaced by “undue advantage,” which still requires clear evidence of an illegal benefit demanded or accepted by a public servant.

• Prior Sanction for Prosecution: Under the amended Section 19, no court can take cognizance of an offence without previous approval from the appropriate authority (sanction).

• Bribe Giving as an Offence: The 2018 amendment also criminalizes the giving of a bribe (with some exceptions for coerced bribes).

However, the amendment does not change the requirement for clear and direct evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification. Mere suspicion or inference continues to be insufficient to constitute an offence. This remains consistent with the core requirement of establishing a clear and unambiguous demand or acceptance for a conviction under the Act.

So, your previous point in the answer—about lack of clear evidence of demand or acceptance—is still fully valid under the 2018 amendment.

Voice Spectrography and the Ritesh Sinha Case

The ACB’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ritesh Sinha is legally relevant here. In this 2019 judgment, the Supreme Court held that:

• Voice samples are part of the investigation and do not violate Article 20(3) (right against self-incrimination).

• The investigating agency can seek permission from the court to collect a voice sample.

• If the accused refuses to comply with a court order for voice sampling, it could have procedural consequences.

However, in your client’s case:
 The order for voice spectrography is still pending before the Session Court.
ACB’s sudden FIR registration without waiting for the court’s decision could be seen as premature and legally improper.
Courts generally view such procedural deviations as abuse of process, especially if there is no clear evidence of bribe demand or acceptance in the audio recordings.

Conclusion

The 2018 amendment strengthens the anti-corruption framework but does not relax the requirement for clear and specific evidence of illegal demand or acceptance.
Voice sampling can be sought as part of the investigation (as per Ritesh Sinha), but it must be done with proper court orders and cannot bypass due process.
In your case, the procedural delays, missing primary evidence (recorder, 65B certificate), and absence of direct bribe demand remain strong points for seeking quashing of the FIR.

Demand needs to be proved with cogent evidence else case will not be proved 

Yes, the FIR can be challenged in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing, based on:

• 7-year delay,

• Lack of original recorder & 65B certificate,

• No clear bribe demand,

• Voice spectrography matter still pending,

• FIR filed by ACB, not original complainant, and

• Complainant now willing to give a notarized statement retracting the allegation.

Also, under the 2018 Amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution now requires prior sanction and clear proof of demand, strengthening your case. The Ritesh Sinha judgment allows courts to order voice samples, but refusal alone isn't enough to prove guilt

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

Please find the solution below to your query:

1. 
   Query related to challenging FIR-                                                                                                                    a. No proper evidence
   

SC ( J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022) has held that the charge has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,  that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be a bribe. The position remains the same post PMLA Amendment, 2018. Since the audio recording does not succinctly establish the offence, the court cannot hold the officer guilty on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.     

                   b. Delay in filing FIR

Delay in filing FIR doesn’t ipso facto (by itself) gives the ground to quash the FIR. However, as per various SC judgments (Dilwar Singh v State of Delhi, Apren Joseph v State of Kerala, and others), unreasonable delay gives rise to suspicion and a plausible explanation for delay must exist. In the present case, ACB has no sufficient or substantive reason to file FIR after 7 long years. There is no justification to recommence the investigation suddenly when it has been left untouched since 2018. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                  c. Not recovered the original recording device (China-made recorder) and collected CD without 65B certificate

This is a procedural irregularity, which can be condoned by the court to serve the higher purpose of ensuring justice and fairness.

                  d. The accused was not notified about the ongoing investigation against him/her

ACB’s investigations are internal documents and evidence of the agency and are not required to be supplied to an accused. ACB mounts surveillance over their activities to collect the evidences to link the suspect with the crime. Surveillance is mounted discreetly. After collecting sufficient evidence, which could crystallise the information, a report is prepared and a FIR is registered, if needed.

       2. Validity of the FIR filed by ACB and the query related to withdrawal of the complaint

Once a complainant lodges a written complaint regarding the demand for illegal gratification by any public servant, ACB has the locus standi (authority) to register an FIR and does not need any approval from the original complainant.

Further, although the notarised statement will be taken into consideration, withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically quash the FIR. In cases involving the ACB, which involves public interest, the principal dictates that the investigation should proceed.

       3. Query related to providing voice spectrography

ACB cannot compel the accused to provide voice spectrography as per the (Ritesh Sinha v State of UP) SC judgment. ACB needs approval from the Magistrate or the relevant court before issuing any such directions.

Conclusion: Overall, the factual circumstances suggest that ACB has not been diligent in conducting the investigation and has registered an FIR in a whimsical manner after seven long years, without having sufficient evidence against the accused. The case seems in your favour, and the FIR can be easily quashed.

Please feel free to reach out in case of any further query.

Dear Querist,

CD can be considered as evidence but not primary because the primary source is device which is not on record and without that device the Evidence or material content in CD cannot be proved.

Voice sample can be collected during investigation as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex court's Judgment so if the ACB insisted the accused will have to give his/her voice sample but those voice sample will not help the prosecution if not matched.