Soubir Singh Central Bureau And Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : O.P.S. Rathore

1. Heard Shri O.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) CBI Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Special Case No 01/2022 (CBI Vs Vipin Kumar Yadav & others), under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. & Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) P.C. Act, Police Station CBI ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits by way of the instant criminal revision, revisionist challenged the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the court concerned by which his discharge application has been dismissed.

4. He further submits, revisionist was posted as Office Assistant, i.e. Peon in the bank and as per allegation, he along with other accused, including the Bank Manager, misappropriated the public fund, but entire allegations levelled against revisionist are totally false.

5. He further submits, in the present matter, it reflects revisionist has been made accused only on the ground that co-accused Vipin Kumar, the then Branch Manager, fraudulently transferred the fund of PKCC account in the account of revisionist and thereafter the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- was withdrawn. 2 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025

6. He further submits, as far as this allegation is concerned, as revisionist was fourth-class employee, therefore, he acted on the direction given by principal accused Vipin Kumar, the Branch Manager. He next submits, co-accused Vipin had given him instruction that personal money will be transferred in his bank account and after signing the withdrawal form, he will hand over the same to him and on his instruction, revisionist after signing the withdrawal form handed over the same to the principal accused Vipin Kumar and after that he withdrew the money and therefore revisionist cannot be held responsible.

7. He further submits, another allegation against revisionist is that without any approval, co-accused Naveen Kumar Sharma, who was the Assistant Manager of the bank, opened a loan account in the name of revisionist and thereafter entire money of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred in his account, which was withdrawn in cash.

8. He next submits, revisionist never applied for any loan and when he came to know about this transaction, then he immediately returned the entire money to the bank and specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No.14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision.

9. He further submits, except the above two allegations, there are no other allegations against revisionist and as revisionist has duly explained these circumstances, therefore, prima facie no offence is made out against him but in spite of that trial court has dismissed his discharge application. He further submits therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer and submitted, both the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist are the defence taken by the revisionist and law is settled, the defence taken by accused cannot be appreciated at this stage of discharge. Learned counsel further submits, revisionist also involved in the present crime along with other co-accused including principal accused Vipin Kumar.

11. He further submits, amount of more than Rs.1,00,000/- was also 3 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 transferred in his account by fraud and this amount has also been withdrawn. He further submits, even learned counsel for the revisionist did not deny the fact that the said amount was transferred in the account of revisionist and he also admitted that revisionist, after signing the withdrawal form, handed over the same to the Branch Manager, the co- accused Vipin Kumar, and, therefore, this fact reflects the involvement of the revisionist in the present matter along with others.

12. He further submits, during investigation, it was also revealed that by illegal means, a loan account was opened in the name of revisionist and a total of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred in the account, which was withdrawn in cash, and thereafter, on 28.7.2016 the account was closed and this fact also clearly shows the involvement of revisionist in the present matter.

13. He further submits, as far as explanation of revisionist with regard to this allegation is concerned, this explanation cannot be accepted at this stage. He further submits, except the bald averment made in paragraph No.14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision, there is no other evidence which can suggest that revisionist immediately transferred the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the bank. He further submits, therefore, from the facts of the case, it appears revisionist has committed the alleged offence along with other accused persons and, it appears, after considering facts in detail court concerned rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by applicant and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.07.2025. He, therefore, submits, the instant revision is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed.

14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. By way of instant revision, revisionist challenges the order dated 10.7.2025 passed by the court concerned by which his discharge application has been dismissed.

16. However, as per learned counsel for the revisionist, revisionist was a petty fourth-class employee in the bank and he never involved in the alleged commission of crime and he has been made scape goat along with other co-accused persons including Vipin Kumar, who was the principal 4 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 accused but, as far as evidence against revisionist is concerned, from the charge sheet, it reflects following evidences were collected by I.O. against revisionist: i. co-accused Vipin Kumar, the Branch Manager, fraudulently, without any authorization, transferred the fund from PKCC account to the saving account of revisionist and subsequently, the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- was withdrawn; ii. as per the CBI, during investigation, it was also revealed that by illegal means, co-accused Naveen Kumar Sharma, the Assistant Manager, opened a loan account in the name of revisionist and entire alleged loan amount of ₹1.5 lakhs was transferred in this account, which was subsequently withdrawn by cash and account was closed on

28.07.2016;

17. As far as explanation of revisionist with regard to allegation number one is concerned, however as per revisionist he did not withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- and he only signed the withdrawal form and handed over the same to the Branch Manager but being his defence, this ground cannot be appreciated at this stage.

18. Further, as far as second explanation is concerned, however, as per revisionist, he never applied for any loan and when he came to know that loan was transferred in his account, he immediately returned the same to the bank, but except the bald averment made in this regard in the affidavit, there is no evidence in this regard on record and, therefore, this explanation of the revisionist also cannot be accepted at this stage.

19. The law regarding discharge is settled that if from the material available on record prima facie alleged offences are not made out, then only accused can be discharged and his defence cannot be taken into account at this stage.

20. As from the evidence collected by the IO against accused revisionist, prima facie alleged offence against revisionist is made out, in the considered view of this court, revisionist should not be discharged and, 5 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 therefore, by dismissing discharge application, court concerned did not commit any illegality.

21. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.07.2025.

22. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. November 3, 2025 Anurag/- (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Shri O.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption) CBI Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Special Case No 01/2022 (CBI Vs Vipin Kumar Yadav & others), under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. & Section 13(2)/13(1)(d) P.C. Act, Police Station CBI ACB Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits by way of the instant criminal revision, revisionist challenged the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the court concerned by which his discharge application has been dismissed.

4. He further submits, revisionist was posted as Office Assistant, i.e. Peon in the bank and as per allegation, he along with other accused, including the Bank Manager, misappropriated the public fund, but entire allegations levelled against revisionist are totally false.

5. He further submits, in the present matter, it reflects revisionist has been made accused only on the ground that co-accused Vipin Kumar, the then Branch Manager, fraudulently transferred the fund of PKCC account in the account of revisionist and thereafter the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- was withdrawn. 2 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025

6. He further submits, as far as this allegation is concerned, as revisionist was fourth-class employee, therefore, he acted on the direction given by principal accused Vipin Kumar, the Branch Manager. He next submits, co-accused Vipin had given him instruction that personal money will be transferred in his bank account and after signing the withdrawal form, he will hand over the same to him and on his instruction, revisionist after signing the withdrawal form handed over the same to the principal accused Vipin Kumar and after that he withdrew the money and therefore revisionist cannot be held responsible.

7. He further submits, another allegation against revisionist is that without any approval, co-accused Naveen Kumar Sharma, who was the Assistant Manager of the bank, opened a loan account in the name of revisionist and thereafter entire money of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred in his account, which was withdrawn in cash.

8. He next submits, revisionist never applied for any loan and when he came to know about this transaction, then he immediately returned the entire money to the bank and specific averment in this regard has been made in paragraph No.14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision.

9. He further submits, except the above two allegations, there are no other allegations against revisionist and as revisionist has duly explained these circumstances, therefore, prima facie no offence is made out against him but in spite of that trial court has dismissed his discharge application. He further submits therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer and submitted, both the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist are the defence taken by the revisionist and law is settled, the defence taken by accused cannot be appreciated at this stage of discharge. Learned counsel further submits, revisionist also involved in the present crime along with other co-accused including principal accused Vipin Kumar.

11. He further submits, amount of more than Rs.1,00,000/- was also 3 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 transferred in his account by fraud and this amount has also been withdrawn. He further submits, even learned counsel for the revisionist did not deny the fact that the said amount was transferred in the account of revisionist and he also admitted that revisionist, after signing the withdrawal form, handed over the same to the Branch Manager, the co- accused Vipin Kumar, and, therefore, this fact reflects the involvement of the revisionist in the present matter along with others.

12. He further submits, during investigation, it was also revealed that by illegal means, a loan account was opened in the name of revisionist and a total of Rs.1,50,000/- was transferred in the account, which was withdrawn in cash, and thereafter, on 28.7.2016 the account was closed and this fact also clearly shows the involvement of revisionist in the present matter.

13. He further submits, as far as explanation of revisionist with regard to this allegation is concerned, this explanation cannot be accepted at this stage. He further submits, except the bald averment made in paragraph No.14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant revision, there is no other evidence which can suggest that revisionist immediately transferred the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the bank. He further submits, therefore, from the facts of the case, it appears revisionist has committed the alleged offence along with other accused persons and, it appears, after considering facts in detail court concerned rightly dismissed the discharge application moved by applicant and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.07.2025. He, therefore, submits, the instant revision is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed.

14. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. By way of instant revision, revisionist challenges the order dated 10.7.2025 passed by the court concerned by which his discharge application has been dismissed.

16. However, as per learned counsel for the revisionist, revisionist was a petty fourth-class employee in the bank and he never involved in the alleged commission of crime and he has been made scape goat along with other co-accused persons including Vipin Kumar, who was the principal 4 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 accused but, as far as evidence against revisionist is concerned, from the charge sheet, it reflects following evidences were collected by I.O. against revisionist: i. co-accused Vipin Kumar, the Branch Manager, fraudulently, without any authorization, transferred the fund from PKCC account to the saving account of revisionist and subsequently, the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- was withdrawn; ii. as per the CBI, during investigation, it was also revealed that by illegal means, co-accused Naveen Kumar Sharma, the Assistant Manager, opened a loan account in the name of revisionist and entire alleged loan amount of ₹1.5 lakhs was transferred in this account, which was subsequently withdrawn by cash and account was closed on

28.07.2016;

17. As far as explanation of revisionist with regard to allegation number one is concerned, however as per revisionist he did not withdraw the amount of Rs.1,00,300/- and he only signed the withdrawal form and handed over the same to the Branch Manager but being his defence, this ground cannot be appreciated at this stage.

18. Further, as far as second explanation is concerned, however, as per revisionist, he never applied for any loan and when he came to know that loan was transferred in his account, he immediately returned the same to the bank, but except the bald averment made in this regard in the affidavit, there is no evidence in this regard on record and, therefore, this explanation of the revisionist also cannot be accepted at this stage.

19. The law regarding discharge is settled that if from the material available on record prima facie alleged offences are not made out, then only accused can be discharged and his defence cannot be taken into account at this stage.

20. As from the evidence collected by the IO against accused revisionist, prima facie alleged offence against revisionist is made out, in the considered view of this court, revisionist should not be discharged and, 5 CRLR No. 6453 of 2025 therefore, by dismissing discharge application, court concerned did not commit any illegality.

21. Therefore considering the facts and circumstances discussed above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 10.07.2025.

22. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision filed by the revisionist is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. November 3, 2025 Anurag/- (Sameer Jain,J.)