Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 27.6.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad by which the discharge application filed by the revisionist in special Case No. 7 of 2024 arising out of R.C. No. 1202024A0007 dated

9.4.2024 under sections 120-B, 379, 409 IPC, Section 13(2) readwith 13(1)(a) of P.C. Act, and Section 66 read with Section 43 of I.T. Act, police station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad has been rejected and also order dated 2.7.2025 passed in the said case by which the charges have been framed against the revisionist in the said case. Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 9.4.2024 against four named persons (non revisionists) and one unknown person and according to the FIR, the named accused were employees of HPCL and they in conspiracy with other accused persons caused unlawful loss amounting to Rs. 5.82 crores to the government exchequer by committing theft of petroleum product at HPCL, Mathura Terminal, from June, 2022 to January, 2024.

4. After registration of the case, investigation was commenced and during investigation name of the revisionist was surfaced and it appears with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS revisionist has been made accused alongwith others and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and others.

5. After submission of the charge sheet court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summons to revisionist and others.

6. When revisionist filed discharge application then his discharge application has been 2 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.6.2025 and there after on 2.7.2025 charges were framed.

7. Hence, the instant revision. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist:-

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS but there is no cogent evidence in this regard against the revisionist on record.

9. He next submitted that as per CBI revisionist was a contractual engineer in HPCL and he provided his credentials to the HPCL employees and thereafter they committed theft of petroleum product but except bald and verbal allegation that revisionist provided his credential to them there is no cogent and admissible evidence in this regard.

10. He next submitted that even for the conspiracy there must be very cogent evidence on record which can show that there was meeting of minds of the revisionist and other accused who actually committed the theft of petroleum product.

11. He next submitted that admittedly revisionist was not an employee of the HPCL and there is no evidence that when the alleged theft of petroleum product was being made then he was present at spot and it appears except suspicion there is no evidence against him on record.

12. He next submitted that however, law with regard to the discharge is settled that even on the basis of strong suspicion charges can be framed but mere suspicion is not sufficient to frame the charges against an accused and suspicion must be strong enough for framing of charges and from the record it could not be reflected that there is any strong suspicion against the revisionist.

13. He further submits, as no prima facie case is made out against the revisionist, therefore, impugned order dated 27.6.2025 passed by the court concerned is illegal.

14. He next submitted that court concerned however passed a very detailed order but could not properly apply its mind on the material available on record and dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionist and thus, committed illegality.

15. He next submitted that therefore, impugned orders dated 27.6.2025 and 2.7.2025 are illegal and are liable to be set aside. Argument advanced on behalf of the CBI:-

16. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that revisionist and other accused caused loss of more than Rs. Five crores 3 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 to the Government Exchequer by committing theft of the petroleum product.

17. He next submitted that revisionist was though not named in the FIR but during investigation his name was surfaced when it was found that in committing the theft of petroleum product his credentials were used.

18. He next submitted that from the charge sheet which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant revision it reflects in paragraph Nos. 16.17 to 16.20 Investigating Officer disclosed the evidence collected by him against the revisionist.

19. He next submitted that after perusing the evidence it is apparent that revisionist involved in the commission of the present crime alongwith other accused who were employees of the HPCL.

20. He next submitted that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous examination of the evidence is neither possible nor permissible and even if evidence collected during investigation merely discloses strong suspicion then also charges can be framed.

21. He next submitted that as revisionist has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS, therefore, investigating officer could not collect any direct evidence against him and during trial, trial court will decide whether evidence collected against him were sufficient to convict him or not.

22. He next submitted that considering the evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no alleged offences are made out against the revisionist.

23. He next submitted that after considering the entire facts in detail very reasoned order has been passed and there is no illegality in the order dated 27.6.2025. He further submitted that as there is ample evidence against the revisionist which indicates that he conspired with other accused persons, therefore, he cannot be discharged in the instant matter.

24. He next submitted that therefore, instant revision is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:

25. It is a case in which as per allegation revisionist and other accused have caused wrongful loss amounting to Rs. 5.82 Crores to the Government exchequer by committing theft of the petroleum product at HPCL, Mathura Terminal from June, 2022 to January 2024.

26. Revisionist was, however, not named in the FIR and he has been made accused in 4 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 the present matter during investigation and it also reflects he has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS but from the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the instant matter which has been annexed alongwith the affidavit filed in support to the instant revision it reflects in paragraph Nos. 16.17 to 16.20 the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionist has been disclosed and from its perusal it reflects that revisionist was contractual engineer in the HPCL and he alongwith other accused persons caused huge loss to government exchequer.

27. From the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionist it reflects that he provided his credentials (password etc.) to co-accused Rahul Kumar assistant manager of HPCL and thereafter he alongwith others committed theft of petroleum product. Therefore, prima facie, offence under section 61(2) BNS is made out against the revisionist specially considering the fact that without his credentials petroleum products could not be stolen.

28. The law is settled that if from the evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, alleged offence is made out against an accused then he cannot be discharged.

29. The law is further settled that at the stage of framing charges mini trial cannot be conducted and at this stage, veracity of the evidence collected during investigation can also not be analyzed/appreciated.

30. The Apex Court in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 in paragraph no. 11 observed that:- "11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court."

31. Further, if materials placed before the Court indicates strong suspicion against the accused then also charges should be framed against him.

32. The Apex Court in the case of Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr, 1979 (3) SCC 4 observed that where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. 5 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025

33. In case at hand, as it reflects credentials of the revisionist have been used by co- accused Rahul Kumar, the Assistant Manager of HPCL and thereafter theft of petroleum product was made and applicant could not explain how his credentials i.e. password etc. has been received by co-accused, therefore, this casts grave suspicion agaisnt the applicant and in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) charges should be framed against him.

34. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, by dismissing the discharge application of the revisionist trial court did not commit any illegality.

35. Further even from the order impugned dated 27.6.2025 passed by trial court, it reflects that it is a very detailed and reasoned order and there is no need to interfere it.

36. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, instant revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

37. Accordingly, instant revision stands dismissed. September 15, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the judgement and order dated 27.6.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), CBI Court No. 2, Ghaziabad by which the discharge application filed by the revisionist in special Case No. 7 of 2024 arising out of R.C. No. 1202024A0007 dated

9.4.2024 under sections 120-B, 379, 409 IPC, Section 13(2) readwith 13(1)(a) of P.C. Act, and Section 66 read with Section 43 of I.T. Act, police station CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad has been rejected and also order dated 2.7.2025 passed in the said case by which the charges have been framed against the revisionist in the said case. Brief facts of the case:-

3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 9.4.2024 against four named persons (non revisionists) and one unknown person and according to the FIR, the named accused were employees of HPCL and they in conspiracy with other accused persons caused unlawful loss amounting to Rs. 5.82 crores to the government exchequer by committing theft of petroleum product at HPCL, Mathura Terminal, from June, 2022 to January, 2024.

4. After registration of the case, investigation was commenced and during investigation name of the revisionist was surfaced and it appears with the aid of Section 61(2) BNS revisionist has been made accused alongwith others and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against the revisionist and others.

5. After submission of the charge sheet court concerned has taken cognizance and issued summons to revisionist and others.

6. When revisionist filed discharge application then his discharge application has been 2 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.6.2025 and there after on 2.7.2025 charges were framed.

7. Hence, the instant revision. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist:-

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist was not named in the FIR and during investigation he has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS but there is no cogent evidence in this regard against the revisionist on record.

9. He next submitted that as per CBI revisionist was a contractual engineer in HPCL and he provided his credentials to the HPCL employees and thereafter they committed theft of petroleum product but except bald and verbal allegation that revisionist provided his credential to them there is no cogent and admissible evidence in this regard.

10. He next submitted that even for the conspiracy there must be very cogent evidence on record which can show that there was meeting of minds of the revisionist and other accused who actually committed the theft of petroleum product.

11. He next submitted that admittedly revisionist was not an employee of the HPCL and there is no evidence that when the alleged theft of petroleum product was being made then he was present at spot and it appears except suspicion there is no evidence against him on record.

12. He next submitted that however, law with regard to the discharge is settled that even on the basis of strong suspicion charges can be framed but mere suspicion is not sufficient to frame the charges against an accused and suspicion must be strong enough for framing of charges and from the record it could not be reflected that there is any strong suspicion against the revisionist.

13. He further submits, as no prima facie case is made out against the revisionist, therefore, impugned order dated 27.6.2025 passed by the court concerned is illegal.

14. He next submitted that court concerned however passed a very detailed order but could not properly apply its mind on the material available on record and dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionist and thus, committed illegality.

15. He next submitted that therefore, impugned orders dated 27.6.2025 and 2.7.2025 are illegal and are liable to be set aside. Argument advanced on behalf of the CBI:-

16. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that revisionist and other accused caused loss of more than Rs. Five crores 3 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 to the Government Exchequer by committing theft of the petroleum product.

17. He next submitted that revisionist was though not named in the FIR but during investigation his name was surfaced when it was found that in committing the theft of petroleum product his credentials were used.

18. He next submitted that from the charge sheet which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant revision it reflects in paragraph Nos. 16.17 to 16.20 Investigating Officer disclosed the evidence collected by him against the revisionist.

19. He next submitted that after perusing the evidence it is apparent that revisionist involved in the commission of the present crime alongwith other accused who were employees of the HPCL.

20. He next submitted that at the stage of framing of charges meticulous examination of the evidence is neither possible nor permissible and even if evidence collected during investigation merely discloses strong suspicion then also charges can be framed.

21. He next submitted that as revisionist has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS, therefore, investigating officer could not collect any direct evidence against him and during trial, trial court will decide whether evidence collected against him were sufficient to convict him or not.

22. He next submitted that considering the evidence collected by Investigating Officer during investigation at this stage it cannot be said that prima facie no alleged offences are made out against the revisionist.

23. He next submitted that after considering the entire facts in detail very reasoned order has been passed and there is no illegality in the order dated 27.6.2025. He further submitted that as there is ample evidence against the revisionist which indicates that he conspired with other accused persons, therefore, he cannot be discharged in the instant matter.

24. He next submitted that therefore, instant revision is devoid of merit and it should be dismissed. Analysis and conclusion:

25. It is a case in which as per allegation revisionist and other accused have caused wrongful loss amounting to Rs. 5.82 Crores to the Government exchequer by committing theft of the petroleum product at HPCL, Mathura Terminal from June, 2022 to January 2024.

26. Revisionist was, however, not named in the FIR and he has been made accused in 4 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025 the present matter during investigation and it also reflects he has been made accused with the aid of section 61(2) BNS but from the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the instant matter which has been annexed alongwith the affidavit filed in support to the instant revision it reflects in paragraph Nos. 16.17 to 16.20 the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionist has been disclosed and from its perusal it reflects that revisionist was contractual engineer in the HPCL and he alongwith other accused persons caused huge loss to government exchequer.

27. From the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the revisionist it reflects that he provided his credentials (password etc.) to co-accused Rahul Kumar assistant manager of HPCL and thereafter he alongwith others committed theft of petroleum product. Therefore, prima facie, offence under section 61(2) BNS is made out against the revisionist specially considering the fact that without his credentials petroleum products could not be stolen.

28. The law is settled that if from the evidence collected during investigation, prima facie, alleged offence is made out against an accused then he cannot be discharged.

29. The law is further settled that at the stage of framing charges mini trial cannot be conducted and at this stage, veracity of the evidence collected during investigation can also not be analyzed/appreciated.

30. The Apex Court in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023) 7 SCC 633 in paragraph no. 11 observed that:- "11. The law on issue as to what is to be considered at the time of discharge of an accused is well settled. It is a case in which the Trial Court had not yet framed the charges. Immediately after filing of charge sheet, application for discharge was filed. The settled proposition of law is that at the stage of hearing on the charges entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed. In case no offence is made out then only an accused can be discharged. Truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced can be done only at the stage of trial. At the stage of charge, the Court has to satisfy that a prima facie case is made out against the accused persons. Interference of the Court at that stage is required only if there is strong reasons to hold that in case the Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2023 trial is allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of the Court."

31. Further, if materials placed before the Court indicates strong suspicion against the accused then also charges should be framed against him.

32. The Apex Court in the case of Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr, 1979 (3) SCC 4 observed that where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. 5 CRLR No. 4995 of 2025

33. In case at hand, as it reflects credentials of the revisionist have been used by co- accused Rahul Kumar, the Assistant Manager of HPCL and thereafter theft of petroleum product was made and applicant could not explain how his credentials i.e. password etc. has been received by co-accused, therefore, this casts grave suspicion agaisnt the applicant and in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) charges should be framed against him.

34. Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view, by dismissing the discharge application of the revisionist trial court did not commit any illegality.

35. Further even from the order impugned dated 27.6.2025 passed by trial court, it reflects that it is a very detailed and reasoned order and there is no need to interfere it.

36. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, instant revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

37. Accordingly, instant revision stands dismissed. September 15, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)