Chandigarh, April 28 -- Demolishing the foundation of the 2023 corruption case registered by Haryana anti-corruption bureau (ACB) against under-suspension former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge, Sudhir Parmar, the court of additional sessions judge, Panchkula has held that the electronic evidence - WhatsApp chats and audio recordings - produced against Parmar does not satisfy the legal standards for admissibility at trial. The FIR of April 17, 2023, was registered by ACB against Haryana judicial officer Sudhir Parmar, his nephew, Ajay Parmar and director of real estate company M3M India Pvt Ltd Roop Bansal under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of "reliable source information", WhatsApp chats and recordings of the accused. Additional sessions judge (ASJ), Panchkula, Rajeev Goyal had on April 20 discharged Parmar, Roop Bansal of the M3M, Lalit Goyal of the IREO, Anil Bhalla of the Vatika Group and Ajay Parmar, the nephew of the suspended judicial officer. The discharge implied that the judge decided there was not enough evidence to proceed with the case. Hence, the accused were released from the charges at that stage without a full trial. "As a result of the foregoing and detailed reasons set out, it is observed that no offence under section 120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 8, 11 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is made out against the accused persons as evidence on the record is not such as can be translated into admissible evidence at the stage of trial. Therefore, present is not a case where the accused persons are subjected to the ordeal of full fledged trial in the absence of sufficient evidence. Hence, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after considering the rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against any of the accused and hence, all of them are discharged,'' reads the detailed judgment. Sudhir Parmar who is a member of Haryana Superior Judicial Services in the rank of additional district and sessions judge was accused by the ACB of alleged favouritism to real estate developers Roop Bansal and his brother Basant Bansal of M3M and Lalit Goyal of IREO Group, as per the April 2023 FIR registered by the ACB. The Bansals and Goyal were named as accused by the CBI and the ED in cases pending before the special CBI court -- a court that was presided over by Parmar. In his 84-page judgement, the Panchkula additional sessions judge wrote that the prosecution itself admitted that it has no information about the original source of the alleged WhatsApp chats and audio recordings as well as the devices used for making the audio recordings. "The prosecution is not even in a position to file a certificate under Section 65-b of the Evidence Act as it is not in know of the original device/digital record source from which the WhatsApp chats and audio recordings were prepared/taken. In view of this, electronic evidence in shape of WhatsApp chats and audio recordings produced in this case is not such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. Hence, the evidence on record does not make out a prima-facie case against the accused persons nor does it give rise to grave suspicion which are the conditions precedent for framing charge in a criminal case," the court ruled. ASJ Rajeev Goyal, while deciding the matter of framing of charge, examined the law on the point citing Supreme Court (SC) judgement in Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal. "That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC the judge which under the present code is a senior and experienced judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial,'' the apex court had ruled. The SC had said the judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the CrPC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. On an alleged draft order related to the IREO case which was recovered from Sudhir Parmar's residence and allegedly gave a clean chit to Lalit Goyal, court held that what was actually seized were only brief notes and a rejoinder. "Nothing can be inferred from the circumstances of the case that these documents were supplied to accused Sudhir Parmar by accused Lalit Goyal with a view to have his case decided in his favour,'' the ASJ said....