Oral Judgment:

1. ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. Criminal Revision Application No.136/2026 is filed by the accused – Nilesh Karlekar whereas Criminal Revision Application No.196/2026 is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nagpur challenging the common judgment dated 21/05/2026 wherein the criminal appeal filed by the convict came to be partly allowed and the judgment and order of conviction is set aside and RCC No.1107/2012 is remanded to the learned trial Court for retrial by recalling the complainant, Panch and trap laying Officer as required as the case may be for playing voice recordings from V.P. No.3/2018 before the Court and examining the witnesses with regard to identification of voice and contents and also granting opportunity to the accused for cross-examination thereon.

3. Heard Mr. Sathianathan, the learned Counsel for the CBI appearing in Criminal Revision Application No.196/2026 and Mr. Gande, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused in Criminal Revision Application No.136/2026.

4. The learned Counsel Mr. Sathianathan submits that the learned trial Court ought not to have quashed and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 170 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the convict was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and also under Section 419 of the IPC wherein the convict was sentenced to simple imprisonment for two years and fine. The said conviction is set aside only on the ground that the voice recordings in V.P. No.3/2018 were not played before the Court and were not put to the certain witnesses examined by the prosecution.

5. The learned Counsel Mr. Sathianathan submits that the said voice recordings have already been admitted by the accused and as such there was no necessity for the prosecution to play the voice recording in V.P. No.3/2018 before the Court and put the same to the complainant, Panch and the trap laying Officer. The learned trial Court had already relied upon the evidence led by the prosecution including the voice recordings to record a conviction of the appellant. The approach of the learned appellate Court in remanding the matters back again for a de novo trial only on the ground that the voice recordings in V.P. No.3/2018 were not put to the complainant, Panch and the trap laying Officer, is a flimsy reason to order a de novo trial. The de novo trials are not to be directed as a matter of course and unless the exceptional case is made out, the trial could not have been directed to again conducted by the first appellate Court. Most importantly, there was no prejudice caused to the accused by not putting the said voices in V.P. No.3/2018, to the said witnesses. The prosecution also did not move any application for leading additional evidence.

6. As it is the accused could have been given the benefit of the fact that the said voice recordings from V.P. No.3/2018 were not put to the complainant, Panch and the trap laying Officer and it was not necessary that the advantage of the complainant denying about acquaintance of Sudhakar Rathod was to be given to the accused. In such a case, in the background of such evidence led by the prosecution as well as the cross-examination by the accused, it was totally unwarranted that the learned first appellate Court resorted to the retrial only on the ground of playing the VP recordings. The impugned judgment, is therefore, erroneous and suffers from material irregularity, and therefore, calls for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

7. The learned Counsel for the convict Mr. Gandhe, appearing in Criminal Revision Application No.136/2026 submits that the de novo trial has been directed only on the ground that the V.P. No.3/2018, was not put across to the complainant, Panch and the trap laying Officer. By issuing such direction, the prosecution has been given one opportunity to fill up the lacuna in their case.

8. The fact that the said the recordings in V.P. No.3/2018, was not put to the complainant, had gone to the advantage of the accused as the complainant had denied the existence and acquaintance with Sudhakar Rathod when the questions were put in the cross-examination by the accused.

9. The learned first appellate Court in paragraph 42 of its judgment, has specifically recorded that the benefit of such cross-examination cannot go to the accused and as such had directed the de novo trial only on that ground. The said directions of conducting a de novo trial, in fact gives one opportunity to the prosecution to fill up the lacuna which could have otherwise gone to the advantage to the accused. On the very same point, the appeal could have been allowed in favour of the appellant and instead of allowing the appeal the learned trial Court has directed a fresh trial further directing the prosecution to play voice recordings in V.P. No.3/2018 before the learned trial Court and recall the complainant, Panch and trap laying Officer for identification of the voices.

10. The judgment is, therefore, illegal and in violation of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that a retrial of a criminal case is to be made only in exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it, or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity.

11. According to the learned Counsel Mr. Gandhe, in the impugned judgment, does not record any satisfaction either on the point that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to trial or on the point that the trial itself stood vitiated because of the non-playing of the voice recordings in V.P. No.3/2018. He therefore, submits that such a Court course not have been adopted by the first appellate Court in casually directing a retrial. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ukha Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in [AIR 1963 SC 1531] to buttress his submission. He, therefore, prays that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside by maintaining the order of setting aside of the judgment.

12. I have gone through the judgment dated 17/07/2023 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the accused Nilesh Karlekar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 171 of the IPC as well as Section 419 of the IPC. The perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in RCC No.1107/2012 would show that the evidence of PW-6 - Dipak Kumar Tanwar was considered by the learned trial Court and found that the forensic and technical soundness of the forensic analysis done by him, can be read in evidence in context of the transcription as the said witness PW-6 had identified the SD card received from the CBI office. The voice specimen sample of the accused was also tallied with the voice conversation and after the audit, the voice conversation was found to be similar in respect of the linguistic and phonetic features, frequencies, distributions, intonation, formats and other features in the voice grams. The report (Exhibit-P-6/111) was thus exhibited. Interestingly enough, the defence did not challenge the said forensic facet and had failed to cross-examine the said witness on the opposite aspects. Thus, it appears that the prosecution has adopted a certain procedure to prove the voice recordings and voice conversations as well as the spectrographic analysis done by the prosecution witnesses to support their claim. The inference drawn by the trial Court, thus can be said to be within its discretion, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the prosecution and the cross-examination by the defence to such witnesses. It is for the prosecution to decide in which manner they would establish the evidence against the accused persons. In the absence of any proper procedure being followed by the prosecution, the advantage shall naturally go to the benefits of the accused as per the criminal jurisprudence. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate Court, had made an unwarranted interference, in the course adopted by the prosecution to prove its case. Such an exercise directed to be now again conducted by the trial Court, in my view, would amount to the filling up of the lacuna of the prosecution case which is specifically prohibited. The appellate Court had directed the retrial by observing as under:

                    “43. Had the voice recordings in V.P. No.3/2018 been played before the Court and the voices identified and then contents of the transcript proved, it would have been a rare possibility that complainant would have denied about existence, acquaintance of Sudhakar Rathod when asked in cross examination by the accused. Possibility of such denials in cross examination are sometimes outcome of anxiety of witnesses to the question of defence and in apprehension even admissions are rendered in misbelief of outcome. Question also arises whether to clarify this, in re-examination the voice recordings could have been played. I rather find that reason for not showing the transcripts to the complainant by the accused in cross examination is obvious that he would not have denied it. Benefit of such choosing cross examination cannot go to the accused. Benefit of fault of prosecution cannot add to falsify evidence of complainant. However, I do find that for want of voice being identified before the Court and for want of reasoning for deviating from the procedure under para 24 of the Criminal Manual of Bombay High Court, certainly when corroboration was available and is not sought to be proved, terming the evidence of the witness as untruthful version is not called for. Undeserving advantages to the accused are to be avoided. However, in the present circumstances as the evidence falls short of proof beyond reasonable doubt, a retrial is rather warranted for reasons to follow. Points No.1 and 2 are therefore answered in negative.”

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ukha Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra) pleased to observe as under:

                    “15. An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in substance there had been no real trial or that the Prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge, and in the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on his trial again. An order of re-trial wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding, and exposes the person accused to another trial which affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial, and will not ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead either on account of insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or for other reasons.”

14. The impugned judgment directing the retrial only on the ground that had there been such recordings being played before the Court and the voices identified, the evidence of the witness could not have been termed as untruthful and that undeserving advantage to the accused are to be avoided, does not appear to be the appropriate reason for calling for a retrial and setting aside the conviction of the appellant of that ground.

15. The retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that count, in substance, there had been no real trial or that the prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge and in the interest of justice, the appellate Court deems it appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case that the accused should be put on his trial again.

16. It is almost a settled law that the order of retrial wipes out from the record of the entire earlier proceeding and exposes the person accused to another trial which affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial, and will not ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead either on account of insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or for other reasons.

17. In the present case, the prosecution had been able to prove the charge against the accused and the accused was imposed with a conviction of one year under Section 170 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/- as well as conviction of two years under Section 419 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-. The prosecution had not come up with any application for leading additional evidence to that effect or with any explanation that they were not able to put the said voice recordings in VP No.3/2018 to be played before the Court and the voices identified and their contents of the transcript could have been proved. In the absence of any such application on behalf of the prosecution, it was wholly unwarranted for appellate Court to interfere and direct the retrial only on that ground. The reasons recorded by the appellate Court for directing a retrial, does not live up to the standards within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Ukha Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra (supra).

18. In my opinion, therefore, the case is made out for interference of this Court under its revisional jurisdiction, I am therefore, inclined to pass the following order:

                    (i) Both the criminal revision applications are hereby allowed.

                    (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 21/05/2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 and Special Judge (CBI Court), Amravati in Criminal Appeal No.157/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside.

                    (iii) The matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for its decision afresh on merits from the stage of the pendency of the appeal before passing of the judgment.

                    (iv) Learned appellate Court shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution as well as the accused and then decide the appeal on its own merits as per the evidence recorded before the trial Court without getting influenced by any observations made by this Court.

19. Needless to mention that since the trial is pending from the year 2012, the learned appellate Court is requested to make an endeavor to decide the appeal expeditiously and not beyond a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order.

20. Both the criminal revision applications are disposed of accordingly.