The court also observed that nothing incriminating was found against them.

District Judge Naresh Kumar Laka was hearing the case against former customs officer Mahesh Sharma, customs house agent or broker Sunil Kumar, and Manoj Dang of Dang Trading Company Pvt Ltd.

According to the CBI, there was a conspiracy between Sharma and the other two to induce the then additional commissioner of customs Dinesh Meena for a favourable order to clear some seized consignments of the company.

It had alleged that Sharma was apprehended with Rs 1 lakh bribe, which was meant to be given to the superior officer.

In an order passed on May 2, the court said, "From the perusal of entire record, there is no iota of material or evidence brought on record to show that the amount of Rs one lakh which was recovered from accused no.1 ( Sharma) was ever offered or meant to be given to Dinesh Meena."

Considering the intercepted call recordings submitted by the CBI, it said there was also no conversation in this regard between any of the accused persons.

"From the conversation between accused no.1 and Dinesh Meena, nothing is found to show that accused no.1 had induced or exerted any personal influence on him to seek a favourable decision," the court said.

It noted the submission of the defence counsel who argued that since Meena was not made an accused in the case, there was no impropriety in his order for release of the company's seized goods.

"This court finds substance in the said submission. Even from careful perusal of transcriptions of voice recording, this court did not find anything incriminating or substantial to attract the alleged offences and a charge cannot be framed merely on the basis of a guess, doubt or suspicious circumstances," the court said.

It said as the call recordings had some "doubts" and ambiguities, they could not be held as incriminating.

The court also said that the essential ingredients of one of the alleged offence under Section 9 (bribing a public servant by commercial entity) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not made out as there was nothing on record to suggest that Sharma and the broker Kumar were working as a body of persons or association.

The court said, "There is no sufficient ground on record so as to attract the substantial offences under sections 7A (taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence) 8 (offence relating to bribing of a public servant ) and 9 of the PC Act nor the offence of criminal conspiracy under 120 B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is made out against the accused persons.

"Consequently, all the accused are discharged from this case."