The High Court · 2025

Order

The present criminal revision case is filed by the pe titioner/ accu sed No.1 under Sections 397 and 40 I of Cr.P.C., aggrieved b), the ordcr dated 12.01.2022 in Crl.MP No.266 of 2020 rn CC No.5 of 2Ol2 passcd by the learned III Additional Special .Iudge for CB[ Cases, Hyderabad wherein the prayer of the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge hirn from the offences punisl-rable under Sections 120-8 read with Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section i3(i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected.

2. Heard Sri KRKV Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ CBI.

3. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein are that the petitioner While working as a Professor at the Mititary College of Electronics and Mechanical trngineering (MCtrMtr), was implicated in a case arising out of a trap l'age No. 4 allegedly iaid on 04.03.20 1O by Col.Akash P I ,li, Head of the DepartmenI of Mcchanical trngineering, acting upor complaint by one Major Jasbir Singh Cluman. The allegation made a l jnst the petitioner is thal hc demandcd an illegal gratlfication of Rs..l ,'O,OO0/ from the de-facto complainant/ Major Jasbir Singh Guman I r pass him in the subject of Mechanical Vibration and in that pro: ss, the petitioner advised him to pa1' the amount to his conduit/A2. Subsequently, the said amount u'as rcduced to Rs.60,OO0/- Havirt: not rvilling to p:r1 such amount, thc de-facto complainanl compill red the same to Col.Akash Popli on 04.03.201O. On 04.03 20 l0 n s ;m of Rs.'15,0O0/ was recovered from one Shri Modhugu Srinir :rl at Lal Bazar, Secunder:rba<1, ailegedly received on behalf of the I e,titioner. Col.Popli forwarded an C)ccurrence Report dated O i :)3 .20 10 to Sdperintendcnt ol Police, CBI, Hyderabad, rcsulti: 1in registration ol FIR No.R.C.6(A)/2010 dated 05.03.20 10 undcr Siection 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arraying the pt ,itioner a s accuseci No, 1. The petitioncr was arrested on 10.03-2O 1tl a.nd later he was enlarged on bail. (a) Subsequently, the CBI filed a hnal r: 173 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 120-B ),rrt under Section )C and 13(2) r/ tv 13(1)(d[r) & (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption a ;t. The petitioner's earlier Criminal Petitions viz. Crl.P.Nos.6267 of 20l I and 6433 of 2Ol2 seeking quash of the FIR and final report were isposed of by this Page No. 5 Court. granting liberty Lo the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial Court. (b) Accordingly, the pctilioner hled a discharge petition under Sectiorr 239 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.266 of 2020 in C.C.No.S ot 2012 beforc the trial Court. The trial Court, by order dated 12.01.2022, dismissed lhe petition, holding lhat, in view of the observations made by this Court irr Criminal Petition No.6433 of 2Ol2 daLed 26.O9.2O16, thc grounds raised involve disputed questions of fact that can only be adjudicated afler a full-fledged trial. The trial Court further notcd that the grounds raised in the discharge application are identical to those previously raised, that there exists prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner and that the contentions raised are matters to be determined during [rial and not at the dischargc stage. Aggrieved [l-rereby, thc petitioner filed the present criminal revision CASC

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and in violation of the mandatory provisions under Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police trstablishment Act, 1946. The petitioner's earlier challenge to the FIR on the grouncl of absence of prior sanction from the Central Governrnent vvas disposed of u,ith libertlz to raise the issue after hling of the final report. Despitc this, the trial Court failed to appreciate that an investi[Eti6n conducted without the requisite sanction is lvithout I i! l'age No. 6 jurisdiction, thercbv rendering the charge sheet nul and void. The tnaL Court also failed to apply the binding precedent 1.r :i down in Dr.R.R. Kishore Vs. CBI1, r.vhich undcrscores thc n,r rC.1tory nature oa compliance with Section 6A( 1) oi Lhe Act. Moreor ::'. rhe prehminarl inquiry conducted by Col.Akash Popli and his teanr ivho are not police officers, prior to the registration of the FIR, is ill,: zr1 and vitiates the entire proceedings, amounting to an abuse of tl-re p: r;ess of lzuv. (a) Learned counsel lor the pelitioner frrlt rer submitted lhat the prosecution's reliance on alleged electrl ric recordings is unsustainable in light oi the judgment in Arr' ar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer2, as the said recordings lack thc necessrlr'' cerlificatron under Section 658 of the Evidence Act. Further, thc...r: is no independent evidence to establish eitl-rcr demand or ac: 'ltance of illegal gratihcation. The charge sheet cloes not disclose trt ma[erial sufficient to prima facie constitute offences under Sections I Lnd 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, or under Section 120 B of the IPC. Consequently, the trial Court's finding of a p ima facie case is erroneous. (b) The learned counsel for the petitiont: further submitted that the trial Court also failed to consider the well's rttled principle that an investigation conducted without lawful au t ' rrit1, renders both ' rLR (2006) tr Dethi 10391 ' (201 4) 10 scc 473 :-:i-i Page No. 7 cognizance and subsequent trial invaiid, as held in State of U.p, Vs. Singhara Singh: and Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs, State of Meghalayaa. (c) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted rhat the trial Court failed to appreciate that Co[.Akash Popli, Head of the DepartmenL ol Mechanical Engineering at the Military College of Electronics and N'[echanical Engineering, being a non-police officer, was not legally competcnt to inquire into or examine any complaint against the petitioner. It u,as contended lhat Col.Popli acted without authoriry by constitutlng a team ol subordinates and conducting an investigation, thereby taking the law into his own hands. In the absence of an FIR registered by a competent authoiity, the so-called "Occurrence Report" prepared by Col.Popli and his team Iacks legal sanctity and cannoL withstand judicial scrutiny. (d) it was further argued that the respondent/ CBI, by accepting the said Occurrence Report and registering RC No.6(A) of 201O for an offence under Seclion 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, acted in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The actions of Co1. Akash 7\ a-L t a.tR 196+ sc a58 ' (2ooo) 8 scc 323 Page No.8 Popli, in allegedly interfering with thc admir facilitating the commission of bribery involving a 1r a Student Officer, rvho was a Commissior.red Offi<: r slr.rtion ol justice, . rlic servant namely, in the Indian Arm1,, arc unlawful. Moreover, it ts subrnitred that thr CBI ought to have examined Col.Popli's role critically and consider.cr Student Officer as an accused, being thr: particularly as he did not approach the CBI un l arraigning thc sard : llcged bribe-givcr, 'r- Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (e) The learned counsel further submittecl hat the trial Court committed a manifest error in lailing to apprecia t : the Lotal absence o[ corroborative evidence or any material substantia I rg the investigation, which was conducted by a non-police officer anc :rerlicated upon an illegitimate trap- In the complete absence of any : 'rdence establishing ttie alleged demald, acceptance, or cnminal cons riracy involving the petitioner, the trial Court,s conclusion that prima :.cie material exists to lrame charges against the petitioner is fundamer ,allv unsustainable. Crucially, there is not even an allegation that the. ertitioner personally demanded or accepted any gratification. On the : ntrary, the tarnted currency was recovered from an entirely drfferent p t -son / accused No.2. The absence of any demand strikes at the verv loundation of the prosecution and renders the essentiai ingredients r . the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act wholly absent In such a factual ti7) Page No. 9 matrix, no convictlon can be sustained, irrespective of the recovery of alleged tainted money. This position finds clear support in the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.P.s and B. Jayaraj Vs. State of A.P.o yet the trial Court egregiously failed to apply this settled law. Further, the fact that the alleged bribe amount recovered from a "vas third party wholly unconnecled to the petitioner decisively undermines the prosecution's narrative and erodes any semblance of a credible case. In these circumstances, the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offcnccs :rrising lrom a frivolous and motivated complaint, rather than protecting the integrity of the administrative and investigative processes from abuse. The petitioner's position is thus fortifred by both fact and law, demonstrating that the prosecution's case is devoid of arry merit and cannot withstand scrutiny. (f) The learned counsel lor the petitioner further submits that the charge sheet contains no recital or sequence of events that would suggest any knowledge on the part of the petitioner regarding lhe alleged discussion by accused No.2 about the bribe. There is, in fact, a complete absence of evidence indicating any demand made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on [he. ' (2o 15) ro scc 152 o (2o 14) 13 scc ss I'age No. l0 findings ol this court in crl.RC No.222 of 2020, f, ther contended that fundamental defects in the prosecution,s case pr: lnde the framing of charges. Stating thus, the learned counsel for the pert icncr see,ks to allorv Ihe present criminal revision case.

5. Opposing the present criminal revisi : r case, the learne d special public prosecutor appearing lor the respoj.r ,:ntlCBI br' liling a counter, vehemently contended that the pctitione ri serving as a Professor at the Military Collc,; t rccused No. 1, r,r'hilc oI Electr-onics & Mechanical Engineering, Trimulgherry, Secunr,lr al;acl, abuscd his ofhcial position by demanding illegal gratificat ic r from a Student Officer, Mr.Jasbir Singh Ghuman and engagerl conduit to collect the bribe. Upon being appr,r i:hecl by A' r:cu sed No.2 as a complainant informed Colonel Akash popli, u,ho irr lec,liatel1, formcd a team that apprehended A-2 in the act of accepting r re bribe. The team. along with the complainant, submitted a written cr nrplaint, the seized bribe amount and other rerevant material to Lhe cEI i,rr tlrthcr action. (a) Based on the said complaint and supp rting material, thc CBI Hyderabad, registered FIR No.RC.6(A)/2OlO clrL :d O5.03 2010 and commenced investigation. During the course of ir, :stigation, the CBI cp.lJqcted both oral and documentary evider , ,. ir-rdicating lhe i(-,\ Page No. l1 involvement of the petitioner/ accused No. 1 and accused No.2 in the alleged offences punishable under Section 120-8 IPC, Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Upon conclusion of investigalion, sanction for prosecution was obtained from the competent authorlty and a charge sheet was duly hled before the competent Court (b) The petitioner's claim that the investigation is vitiated for lack of prior approval under Section 6A of the DSPE Act is untenable, as no proof of holding a Joint Secre [ary equivalent post was furnished. In any case, valid sanction for prosecu[ion was obtained before laying charge sheet. The allegation thal [he rnvestrgation was based soleiy on the investigation done by a non-police personnel is baseless. The CBI registered the FIR independentll' and conductecl a lawful investigation L,ased on credible material disclosing a cognizable offence. The initial complaint to Colonel Akash Popli led to the apprehension of A.2 and all relevalt materials were duly handcd over to the CBI. It is settled law that private individuals may detain persons caught in the act and hand them over to authoritres. The CBI conducted a professional investigation and filed a charge sheet supported by oral and <iocumentary evidence, establishing a strong prima facie case. The pe4itioner's claim of "no case" is a bald assertion. At the stage of Page No. l2 framing charges, detailed scrutiny of evidence i not required. Thc revision lacks merit, is premature and amounts to i buse of process. (c) The investigation was conducted inclel) nde r-rtlv bv the CBI. reLy-ing on thc occurrence report oi Military offic z s only to ascer[ain thc genuineness of the complaint and not as the brr is of cvidcncc. Prior sanction under Section 6A of the DSptr Act was rrt requir-ed, as the accused was apprehended on the spot for clemar r :rncl acc cplance ol illcgal gratification and Section 6A has been hclc: ,'nconstiLutional b-v the Hon'ble Supreme Court with retrospective r:ff ct. The bribe givcr nced not have directly iodged a complaint and pro(l dural rccluiremenLs re garding phone evidence have been duly comp I :d rvi th. Sufhcient material exists to constitute a prima facie case an<l rightly proceed to frame charges without delving the tnal Court mav - to [he t:r,identi:rn, weight. (d) Apart from making the above submiss r ns, learned Special Public Prosecutor for cBI relied upon the decisiorLr renderecl in state of Rajasthan Vs. ShambhoogiriT, Dr.Subrama nian Swamy Vs. Director, cBr & anothers, cBI vs, RR Kishoree ir rd central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh Etc.,ro ar I contended that Appcal (( rl. | \o q55 of 2001 ofHon'ble Supreme Courr ' \ Pt( ivil) No.l8oilqqTolHon.blc Suprcme Coun " ",crl.,r No:uoi of202r ofHon'hle Supreme Coun Jl2A33 Livelaw 1SC) 292 Pagc No. l3 statutory and constitutional safeguards like authorisation to investigate, requirement of prior sanction, limits on quashing porvers exist to ensure fairness, prevent abuse o1-prosecutorial power, protect rights of accused and maintain rule of lalr,but, rhcsc safeguards must not become insurmountable barriers or tools of impunity, especially in cases of public corruplion or serious offences, since doing so would undermine the rule of law, equalitl, before the law and the very power of investigation or prosecution. He lurthe r submits that the Courts in these cases are concerned with delineating the circumstances in q,hich procedural irregularities or statuton' impediments warrant the quashing or invalidation of proceedings, as opposcd to those in which such defects are curable and do not vitiate the process.

6. This Court has carefullv considered the submissions advanced by both parties and examined the record. The petitioner contends that the inves[igation and charge sheel stand vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPtr Act) and that the preliminary inquiry was illegally undertaken by Army personnel lacking s[atutory authority. It is further urged that there is no evidence of demand, acceptance or consprracy and that the electronic evidence is inadmissible under Section 658 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the Pagc No. I4 charge sheet discloses no prima facie case ancl .,r lunts to an abuse ol- thc process of lalr,, (a) Uncier the statutory framework, [hc r] invesligatc offences under the pC Act only upt information and conducting an independen t Sections 69 and 70 of the Army Act, 195O, a per:;, 3l is empou,ercd to : receiving crcdible ,rerrllcation. Under n subject to the Act u'ho commils a civil offence may be tried either Ir court marLial or in an ordinary criminal court. In cases involving c_ 'r-upl.ion or olfen ces under the Prevention of Corruption Act by militarr it ls both necessary and desirable to have coordirr: appropriate civil investigative agency to ensure ( dual-jurisdiction framework and to determine tLi: CBI cannot rely solely on departmental reports z investigation is mandatory. This proposition star judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in State T.N. Sudhakar Reddy (supralrr. r,'rsonnel, thereforc. .:on rvith rhc CBI or rmpliance $.ith tl.re correct lbrum. Thc rLd an independent cts fortified b,y the of Karnataka Vs. (b) Section 6 of the DSpE Act restricts th : ,CBI,s investigative powers to cases where consent has been granted r.y the State or the Central Government. Under Section 17 of the F( Act, investigative po\\,ers, including the laying of traps, are vested or .,r in police officers " $iF@riminaly No. I3264 of 2024) otHon,ble Supreme Courr Page No. 15 not below the rank of Inspector or those spcciflcally authorized by lau,. Army ofhcials, irrespective of rank, cannot conduct criminal investigations or trap operations unless duly notihed or acting under the supcrvision of a competent investigative agenc-y (c) In the present case, the alleged trap r.r.as orchestrated solely by Army ofhcials led by Colonel Akash Popli, u,ithout registration of an FIR or coordination u,ith either the CBI or the ACB. This renders the entire operation unauthorized and procedurally flawed. .Iudicial precedents such as State of West Bengal Vs. Swapan I{umar Guhar2, State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singhra and State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singhr+ rcaffirm that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is indispensable in corruption cases and deviation from prescribed procedure vitiaLes the investigation and renders the evidence inadmissible. (d) The active participation of Army officials in the investigative process, beyond mere reporting or assislance, cor-rstitu[es an unlawful exercise of investigative power. In the absence of legal sanction, any trap or evidence thereby obtained stands vitiated and subsequent proceedings by the CBI cannot cure this foundational illegality. Traps unft:r the PC Act must be conducted only by competent authorities \ '' (1982) I scc 56i '' (1999) 6 scc tz2 '' (r964) scR (4) 485 Page No. 16 {' such as thc CBI or ACB duly empovgered under I ection 17 of the PC Act and thc DSPE Act. In State of Madhya pr r.desh Vs. Mubarak Alils, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that complian( : with Section 17 ol the Act is mandatory and an investigation by an r-L iruthorizcd officer is incr-trably defective. Similarly, in CBI Vs. R.R. reiterated that sanction and authorizaLior-r Kishore 16, it u.as are jurisdictional prerequisites. Deparlmental vigilance ofhcers rrray onlv galhcr prcliminary information and report it to the compc j )nI agencl, and their cannot conduct or iay traps independently. AIr1 cvidence collectcd through such unauthorized means is tainted and i: rd missi b1e. (e) While State of Karnataka Vs. T.N. Sudh tkar Reddy (supra) clarified that a preliminary inquiry is not mandar(,r I in every case and this discretion does not extend to unauthorized inc rziduals conclucting covert operations under the guise of investigation. (f) The trial Court, while taking cognizance, zrrled to appreciate the settled principle that an investigation condr- r led without lawful authority vitiates both the cognizance and the subs(1uent trial. As herd in H.N.Rishbud Vs. The State of DelhilT and r( lflirmed in R.AII. " 1zozzl to scc 509 'u 1zo2s1 scc OnLine SC 1029 '' 1t9ss) t scR u5t] Page No. l7 siguran vs. shankare GowdarE, illegality in investigation cannrt be cured by later proceedings. The trial Court,s acceptance of the charge sheet despite the unlawful investigation is, therefore, teg.rlly unsustainable. In NK Janoo Vs. State of Up and anotherls it was hcld that a Magistrate cannot rely upon extraneous materlal not forming part of the case diary while taking cognizance. Further, Gaurav Maini Vs. State of Haryanazo and Dipakbhai Jagadishchandra patel Vs. state of Gujarat2l emphasized that courts must caretully evaluatc the material before them and cannot act as mere post offices. (g) On merits, there is no credible evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed. to establish any dernand or acceptance of illegal gratil.ication by the petitioner and that too recovery was made from a co_accused unconnected to the petitioner' Demand and acceptance are sine qua nonfor offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the pC Act. Mere recovery of tainted money, particularly from another person, cannot sustain conviction. This principle has been consistently upheld by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in P.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of A.p.(supra) and B.Jayaraj Vs. State of A,p.(supraf. The trial Court,s failure to appty this settled '' 1z0tz.1 t6 scc tzr re crl.p No.3 l67i of20l6 20 '' (20|q ) 16 scc sJ7 Crl. A.Nos og5 ot 20 l0 of Hon.ble Suprenre Coun I I I I i I i i []ase No. 18 :_i law while rejecting the petitioner,s plea for disltarge constitutes a serlous error (h) When examined in light of the above t 5Ja1 princrples, it is e'ide,t Lhat the triai Court committed a grave er 1)r 1n accepting thc charge sheet despitc multiple procedural irregrr,antres namely, the unauthorizcd trap and investigation by Army : rrso.nel, failure to register an FIR prior to the trap, absence of prior Ianction, rccovery of tainted currency from a co-accused rather than tr: petitioncr and the lack of cvidence substzrntiating the alleged clemanc. (i) The absencc of prior sanction under Secri: r 6A(1) of the DSptr AcL :rnd the unauthorized preliminary inquirT vitiate the CBI,s jurisdiction. A.y evidence obtained through srr:l-r irregularities is tainted ab lnitio and subsequent proceedings cannot cure thc foundational illegatiq.. The cBI has faiied to rel rte the petitioner,s assertion that he held a Joint Secretary equivalenr rost at the relevant time, therebv necessitating prior sanction. 7 . In light of the foregoing, it is evident tF rt the investigation was conducted without lawful authority, in viol€1 0n of the pc Act. DSPtr Act and settled judicial precedent unautholized Army officials rvithout sanction \ I competent inves tigative agencies, the inquiry anc. r'esultant evidence are fundamentally tainted. The absence of crec ible evidence and r itiated solely o - coordination by. V Page No. 19 disregard for mandatory procedural safeguards vitiate the CBI's jurisdiction, rendering the proceedings lega y untenable. Accordingly, the cognizance and trial based on such defective proceedings cannot be sustained. The investigation and charge sheet, being devoid of legal loundation, are liable to be quashed

8. In the result, the present criminal revision case is allo',ved. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.O1.2022 passcd in Crl.M.P. No.266 of 2O2O in C.C.No.5 of 2012 by the learned III Additional Special Jtrdge for CBI Cases, Hydcrabad is hereby set aside and the pctitioner, accordir-rgly, is drscharged from the offences punishable under Sections 12O-B reacl rvith Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section I3(l)(d) oI Prevcntion of Corruption Act, 1988 pertaining to the sard calendar CASC. To, 9 Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, stand closed SO/. A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER one Fair Copv to the Hon'ble Sri Justice (Fbr His Lordships kind Perusa Venugopal

1. The lll Additional Speciial Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad' 2. The Station House Officer, CBI/ACB Police Station, Hyderabad' 3 11LR CoPies qfn"UnO"rsecretary,Unronoflndia,MinistryofLaw'JusticeandCompany Affairs, New Delhi The Secretary, Advocates Association Library High Court for the State of Telangana, iign court Buildings at Hyderabad i*" ctrii, tn6 pubtic prosecJtor, Hilh court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to SRI K.R.K.V. PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRL T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY' SC FOR CBI [OPUC] Two CD Copies t) 7 9 o q&r&;*&i t ( HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.99 o12022 \ (( 1i (HE- S ,, .r,! , 1i'I l I ltri * I :: PA -'l * ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION C qSE t1 ,\gr o ItrL