High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of the present criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S., 2023) against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 9, Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow wherein the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. The brief facts stated by the revisionist are that a complaint was made before the director, Uttar Pradesh Vigilacne Establishment, Lucknow that father in law of the complainant, namely, Jagdish Singh had taken a voluntary retirement on 21.02.2018 and Rs. 50,000/- were demanded by the revisionist when he was posted as Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Education at Hamirpur. The said amount was demanded by the revisionist as bribe for sanctioning and providing gratuity. It was subsequently stated for release of the gratuity initially the demand was of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently Rs. 40,000/- was to be paid in two installments.

4. On the aforesaid allegations and complaint a team was duly constituted after approval of the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department of its Vigilance on 12.01.2021 and a trap was made on 19.02.2021. The revisionist was trapped and arrested on 19.02.2021 and it was stated that the complainant had given bribe of 12 currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- and 02 currency notes of 500/- total of 25,000/- to the revisionist. Independent witnesses were also present during the said trap. Phenolphthalein test was also conducted which is part of the report.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken and the revisionist was summoned by the trial court. At this stage, an application for discharge was moved by the revisionist stating that gratuity was in fact not admissible to the father in law of the complainant and accordingly the entire set of facts are false and the super structure constructed by the prosecution on the basis of improbable and impossible facts to the collapse and accordingly prayed for discharge.

6. The trial court has duly considered the entire facts and stated that all the issues raised by the revisionist are argumentative and subject to there being proved in evidence during the trial and no finality can be made at the stage of discharge. Accordingly, it rejected the application for discharge considering the fact that from the material available on record there was clear case made out against the revisionist and all the pleas taken by him at the stage of discharge were a mere defence which would be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage of trial.

7. Learned counsel for revisionist again reiterated the arguments raised by him before the trial court and submitted that in fact the father in law of the complainant was not admissible to be paid gratuity and further stated that at the time of arrest no recovery was made but the recovery was made only subsequently and the recovery itself is doubtful and accordingly prayed for allowing the revision and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2025.

8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision and has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance only the material adduced by the police investigation would be considered by the trial court and the accused does not have liberty to adduce any evidence or documents in support of his claim. He further submits that a perusal of the first information reprot as well as charge-sheet would indicate that a cogent offence has been made out and accordingly there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court dismissing the application of discharge. It has been vehemently submitted that the law in this regard has clarified by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai, Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2021 SC 2351, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors., 1979 (3) SCC 4 and State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568.

9. Having considered the rival contentions. It is noticed that on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, a trap was made and the revisionist was arrested during the process of obtaining illegal gratification for release of the gratuity to the father in law of the complainant. There was substantial material on record linking the revisionist to the said offence.

10. The issue as to whether any gratuity was payable to the father in law of the complainant is a disputed question of fact and would be adequately considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Even if he was not entitled to be paid gratuity, it will have to be demonstrated as to what was the motive for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant. Law in this subject has been clarified in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai(Supra) where the trial court would examine only the evidence and material on record as brought forth by the complainant as well as during investigation by the police. The accused does not have any right to adduce any evidence or material and only the material on record has to be duly considered.

11. From the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge. The grounds raised by the revisionist would be adequately considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. No ground for interference is made out at this stage. Accordingly, present criminal revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

12. The observations made hereinabove, by this court shall not effect the proceedings of the trial before the trial court. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui,learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. By means of the present criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. (Now Section 438/442 of B.N.S.S., 2023) against the impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 9, Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow wherein the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected.

3. The brief facts stated by the revisionist are that a complaint was made before the director, Uttar Pradesh Vigilacne Establishment, Lucknow that father in law of the complainant, namely, Jagdish Singh had taken a voluntary retirement on 21.02.2018 and Rs. 50,000/- were demanded by the revisionist when he was posted as Finance and Accounts Officer in the Office of Basic Education at Hamirpur. The said amount was demanded by the revisionist as bribe for sanctioning and providing gratuity. It was subsequently stated for release of the gratuity initially the demand was of Rs. 50,000/- and subsequently Rs. 40,000/- was to be paid in two installments.

4. On the aforesaid allegations and complaint a team was duly constituted after approval of the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department of its Vigilance on 12.01.2021 and a trap was made on 19.02.2021. The revisionist was trapped and arrested on 19.02.2021 and it was stated that the complainant had given bribe of 12 currency notes of Rs. 20,000/- and 02 currency notes of 500/- total of 25,000/- to the revisionist. Independent witnesses were also present during the said trap. Phenolphthalein test was also conducted which is part of the report.

5. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken and the revisionist was summoned by the trial court. At this stage, an application for discharge was moved by the revisionist stating that gratuity was in fact not admissible to the father in law of the complainant and accordingly the entire set of facts are false and the super structure constructed by the prosecution on the basis of improbable and impossible facts to the collapse and accordingly prayed for discharge.

6. The trial court has duly considered the entire facts and stated that all the issues raised by the revisionist are argumentative and subject to there being proved in evidence during the trial and no finality can be made at the stage of discharge. Accordingly, it rejected the application for discharge considering the fact that from the material available on record there was clear case made out against the revisionist and all the pleas taken by him at the stage of discharge were a mere defence which would be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage of trial.

7. Learned counsel for revisionist again reiterated the arguments raised by him before the trial court and submitted that in fact the father in law of the complainant was not admissible to be paid gratuity and further stated that at the time of arrest no recovery was made but the recovery was made only subsequently and the recovery itself is doubtful and accordingly prayed for allowing the revision and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2025.

8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision and has submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance only the material adduced by the police investigation would be considered by the trial court and the accused does not have liberty to adduce any evidence or documents in support of his claim. He further submits that a perusal of the first information reprot as well as charge-sheet would indicate that a cogent offence has been made out and accordingly there is no infirmity in the order of the trial court dismissing the application of discharge. It has been vehemently submitted that the law in this regard has clarified by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai, Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2021 SC 2351, Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Ors., 1979 (3) SCC 4 and State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568.

9. Having considered the rival contentions. It is noticed that on the basis of complaint made by the complainant, a trap was made and the revisionist was arrested during the process of obtaining illegal gratification for release of the gratuity to the father in law of the complainant. There was substantial material on record linking the revisionist to the said offence.

10. The issue as to whether any gratuity was payable to the father in law of the complainant is a disputed question of fact and would be adequately considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. Even if he was not entitled to be paid gratuity, it will have to be demonstrated as to what was the motive for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant. Law in this subject has been clarified in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rai(Supra) where the trial court would examine only the evidence and material on record as brought forth by the complainant as well as during investigation by the police. The accused does not have any right to adduce any evidence or material and only the material on record has to be duly considered.

11. From the aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge. The grounds raised by the revisionist would be adequately considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage. No ground for interference is made out at this stage. Accordingly, present criminal revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

12. The observations made hereinabove, by this court shall not effect the proceedings of the trial before the trial court. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Ravi/ RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench