The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has produced interceptions of alleged telephonic conversations between a retired Odisha High Court Judge, alleged middlemen and owner(s) of a Lucknow Medical Institute to substantiate its charge of demand and payment of illegal gratification by private individuals to obtain a favourable order from the Supreme Court.A detailed charge sheet filed by CBI, in the infamous medical college bribery scandal, has placed reliance on 80 such intercepted telephonic conversations between retd Odisha HC Judge I M Quddusi and co-accused who stand stand charge sheeted by the agency.The conversations refer to bribe money as as “prasad, gamla, ped, aadmi, samaan” and speaks of Justice (retd) Quddussi meeting “number 1” in the Supreme Court to discuss the case relating the medical institute. The conversations also repeatedly mention of one “Captain” who, one of the middlemen says, was capable to get “work” done “anywhere in India”.In one of the intercepted conversations, one of the middlemen also cautions the briber giver that the “government of chaiwala is keeping an eye on everyone” and hence “Sir” has informed that he “will not meet anyone”. Describing these conversations as “incriminating”, the CBI has produced conversations between Justice (retd) Quddusi and an Odisha based alleged middleman Biswanath Agarwala who was hired to obtain a favourable order for B P Yadav from the Supreme Court.Quddusi, Agarwala and co-accused stand charge sheeted for hatching a conspiracy to settle a Medical Council of India (MCI) debarment against a medical college co-owned by B P Yadav. They were booked by CBI in September 2017.The agency, in its charge sheet, has produced one such alleged telephonic conversation between Agarwala and Quddusi to demonstrate that the date of the case was extended by the Supreme Court after the middleman (Agarwala) assured the same on payment of illegal gratification.Quddusi asked Agarwala to get a date, fixed in the Supreme Court, extended by three to four days. To this, Agarwala informed that the same could be done if a part of the bribe was given immediately, reads the CBI’s charge-sheet, accessed by ET.Significantly, the Supreme Court on the said date (September 11, 2017) directed to list the matter for September 18, 2017. One of the co-accused Bhawna Pandey in a telephonic conversation told the bribe giver (Yadav) that Quddusi had gone to Supreme Court to meet “number 1”.Promising future works to be done, the middleman (Agarwala), according to the charge sheet, also told Quddusi that “Sir will be sitting for the next 14-15 months and more work can be got done through him”. She also assured the bribe giver (Yadav) that his case is a “matter of prestige” for them (Pandey & Quddusi).The accused referred to High Court and Supreme Court as “Mandir (Temple)” as codes to enquire as to where the case was pending.In one of the telephonic conversations dated August 23, 2017 one of the accused became “uncomfortable” on the mention of one “Shukla” by the bribe giver (Yadav) and refrained from discussing the case on phone. The co-accused told Yadav that he was well aware of his (Yadav) plans to get the “work” done from the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court The conversations between the accused also insist on hiring a man from “Odisha” to ensure that a favourable order is obtained from the Apex Court.Biswanath assured Quddusi that the “work” would be done 100 percent as the same was being done through “Captain”.Biswanath further confirmed that the demand of Rs 3 crores and informed that Rs 2.5 crores would be given to “Captain” and Rs 50 lacs would be kept by themselves.Biswanath confirmed to Quddusi that “he” has asked for three (crores) out of which 2.5 (crores) would be paid there and 50 (lacs) will be kept for themselves.Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, counsel for Justice (retd) Quddusi said “CBI has realised that this chargesheet is baseless and would not stand in court as there is no public servant involved. That is why they have registered another FIR however they have not realised that registration of another FIR on the same incident will damage both their cases. The chargesheet clearly states that forensic reports are yet to be received. So trial is not likely to start in near future”.As mutually agreed amongst the accused, Agarwala was asked to come to Delhi to collect the illegal gratification from a hawala operator in Chandni chowk , Delhi. The code word used between the hawala operator and Biswanath (over the phone) was about a “ten rupees note”.According to CBI’s charge sheet, Agarwala claimed very close contacts with senior relevant public functionaries and assured that he would get the matter favourably settled in lieu of which he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs 3 crores.