Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mulayam Prasad Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2026
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10593
1 CRR-548-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 548 of 2026
MULAYAM PRASAD AHIRWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prateek Rusia - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Abhinav Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent/Special Police
Establishment (Lokayukta)
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This criminal revision is filed by the trapped accused Mulayam Prasad Ahirwar, who was working as S.D.O. (P.E.) Public Works Department, Sagar on the ground that learned trial Court i.e. Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)/ First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Special Session Case No.19/2023 vide order dated 20.01.2026 has rejected an application filed by the accused to draw voice samples of the person, who had led the trap i.e. Rajesh Khede (PW-9).
It is submitted that the evidence is very crucial to connect the chain of events and in absence of that voice sample being taken, a great prejudice is going to be caused to the applicant, as he will not be able to effectively cross-examine the prosecution witness Rajesh Khede (PW-9).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 06-02-2026 11:32:32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:10593 2 CRR-548-2026 Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent formally objects to the prayer and submits that it is not relevant to prove the case.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, Shri Prateek Rusia has placed a lot of emphasis on paragraph-70 of the evidence of Rajesh Khede (PW-9), DSP but when we have gone through the paragraph-70, we find that even after reading paragraph-70 of his deposition, we are not in a position to make out that how the voice sample of the person, who had led a trap is relevant to the controversy especially when in our opinion, voice sample of the accused is relevant because demand is to be proved through the voice sample of the accused and not through the voice sample of the person, who led the trap and therefore, we are of the opinion that no case is made out to cause indulgence in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN)
JUDGE JUDGE
RC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
TIKARAM CHIKANE
Signing time: 06-02-2026
11:32:32