Parsuram Sharma .....Revisionist(s) v. The Central Bureau Of Investigation

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Central Bureau Of Investigation for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the validity of an order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (West), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lucknow in Session Case No.709 of 2023, rejecting an application for discharge filed by the applicant in the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR bearing No. RC2162022A0012 lodged on 10.09.2022 against four persons, including the applicant, two Companies and other unknown public servants and private persons, stating that an information had been received that co-accused Anil Kumar Singh, who was posted as a Resident Engineer (RE) of M/s Voyant Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was indulging in corrupt activities for showing in National India (NHAI) projects. M/s Voyant Highway Authority of Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had been appointed as a Consultant to provide supervision and consultancy Services by NHAI. to some Companies working favour

4. The FIR states that Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist) are directors of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Mohan Sharma was an employee of the said Company. On 2 CRLR No. 824 of 2025

02.08.2022, Bedram Sharma of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. had approached Anil Kumar Singh (RE) requesting for clearing the pending bills pertaining to certain works executed by his Company and in lieu of this, Anil Kumar Singh had demanded illegal gratification. It is alleged that Bedram Sharma directed Anand Mohan Sharma to assure Anil Kumar Singh, RE that he would get the demanded bribe which he arranged to be sent to (the Anand Mohan Sharma revisionist), another Director of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. through Parsuram Sharma

5. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022 against five persons, including the revisionist - Parsuram Sharma, his brother Bedram Sharma and his Infra Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, a Company M/s SRSC supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 03.10.2024. It is stated in the supplementary charge-sheet that during the course of search conducted at the premises of co-accused Anil Kumar Singh on 10.09.2022, Rs.57,00,000/- cash was recovered. A further cash amount of Rs.29,50,000/- was seized from the residential premises of Anil Kumar Singh at Patna. The cash was found in such circumstances, as would indicate that the cash had been acquired through the commission of the alleged offences. Further investigation had been conducted regarding the entries made in a diary recovered from the co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma and recovery of cash from the premises of Anil Kumar Singh and certain other issues which had cropped up during investigation. The diary seized from the residential premises of co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma indicated regular transfer of funds from Anand Mohan Sharma to Bedram Sharma and these amounts were used for payment to a number of officials of NHAI, M/s Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its consortium partners. The entries made in the diary established that Anand Mohan Sharma had received Rs.90,15,000/- from co-accused Bedram Sharma. The revisionist had called co- accused Vijendra at 21:36:30 hours on 10.09.2022 and had asked him to remove the computer system and cash from the office.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Shree Prakash Pathak, General Manager, NHAI, who identified the voice of the revisionist Parsuran Sharma in a phone call made 3 CRLR No. 824 of 2025 by the applicant to this witness, although this conversation was not related to the offence in question.

7. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Amit Kumar Gupta, who stated that he knows Parsuram Sharma of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. (the revisionist), who is engaged in construction of National Highways for which the witness was supplying construction material. He stated that Mohit Sharma had come to his shop on 05/06.09.2022 and had handed him over a cloth bag containing Rs.15,00,000/- and had asked him to keep the money safely. He had received a phone call from the revisionist Parsuram Sharma on 10.09.2022 at about 12:31:36 hours asking him to arrange Rs.25,00,000/- and to handover the amount to Mohit Sharma. He stated that he had told the revisionist that he would arrange the amount but he could not arrange this amount and the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- kept by him as given by Mohit Sharma was handed over to Mohit Sharma on 10.09.2022. He stated that Parsuram Sharma had kept the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with him due to safety reasons because the Company's Office is situated in a Forest area.

8. The revisionist sought his discharge by the trial Court on the ground that the aforesaid evidence does not make out a case of his trial for commission of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court rejected the discharge application on the ground that from the recorded conversation available on the record, it is clear that on the direction of Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma, co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma had handed over Rs.15 Lakhs to co-accused Anil Kumar Singh. A number of conversations between Bedram Sharma and Anil Kumar Singh are available on record, which establish that Anil Kumar Singh was demanding illegal gratification from Bedram Shama. Hence, the accused persons Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma are actively involved in commission of the offence.

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Central Bureau Of Investigation for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the validity of an order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (West), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lucknow in Session Case No.709 of 2023, rejecting an application for discharge filed by the applicant in the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR bearing No. RC2162022A0012 lodged on 10.09.2022 against four persons, including the applicant, two Companies and other unknown public servants and private persons, stating that an information had been received that co-accused Anil Kumar Singh, who was posted as a Resident Engineer (RE) of M/s Voyant Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was indulging in corrupt activities for showing in National India (NHAI) projects. M/s Voyant Highway Authority of Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had been appointed as a Consultant to provide supervision and consultancy Services by NHAI. to some Companies working favour

4. The FIR states that Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist) are directors of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Mohan Sharma was an employee of the said Company. On 2 CRLR No. 824 of 2025

02.08.2022, Bedram Sharma of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. had approached Anil Kumar Singh (RE) requesting for clearing the pending bills pertaining to certain works executed by his Company and in lieu of this, Anil Kumar Singh had demanded illegal gratification. It is alleged that Bedram Sharma directed Anand Mohan Sharma to assure Anil Kumar Singh, RE that he would get the demanded bribe which he arranged to be sent to (the Anand Mohan Sharma revisionist), another Director of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. through Parsuram Sharma

5. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022 against five persons, including the revisionist - Parsuram Sharma, his brother Bedram Sharma and his Infra Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, a Company M/s SRSC supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 03.10.2024. It is stated in the supplementary charge-sheet that during the course of search conducted at the premises of co-accused Anil Kumar Singh on 10.09.2022, Rs.57,00,000/- cash was recovered. A further cash amount of Rs.29,50,000/- was seized from the residential premises of Anil Kumar Singh at Patna. The cash was found in such circumstances, as would indicate that the cash had been acquired through the commission of the alleged offences. Further investigation had been conducted regarding the entries made in a diary recovered from the co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma and recovery of cash from the premises of Anil Kumar Singh and certain other issues which had cropped up during investigation. The diary seized from the residential premises of co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma indicated regular transfer of funds from Anand Mohan Sharma to Bedram Sharma and these amounts were used for payment to a number of officials of NHAI, M/s Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its consortium partners. The entries made in the diary established that Anand Mohan Sharma had received Rs.90,15,000/- from co-accused Bedram Sharma. The revisionist had called co- accused Vijendra at 21:36:30 hours on 10.09.2022 and had asked him to remove the computer system and cash from the office.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Shree Prakash Pathak, General Manager, NHAI, who identified the voice of the revisionist Parsuran Sharma in a phone call made 3 CRLR No. 824 of 2025 by the applicant to this witness, although this conversation was not related to the offence in question.

7. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Amit Kumar Gupta, who stated that he knows Parsuram Sharma of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. (the revisionist), who is engaged in construction of National Highways for which the witness was supplying construction material. He stated that Mohit Sharma had come to his shop on 05/06.09.2022 and had handed him over a cloth bag containing Rs.15,00,000/- and had asked him to keep the money safely. He had received a phone call from the revisionist Parsuram Sharma on 10.09.2022 at about 12:31:36 hours asking him to arrange Rs.25,00,000/- and to handover the amount to Mohit Sharma. He stated that he had told the revisionist that he would arrange the amount but he could not arrange this amount and the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- kept by him as given by Mohit Sharma was handed over to Mohit Sharma on 10.09.2022. He stated that Parsuram Sharma had kept the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with him due to safety reasons because the Company's Office is situated in a Forest area.

8. The revisionist sought his discharge by the trial Court on the ground that the aforesaid evidence does not make out a case of his trial for commission of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court rejected the discharge application on the ground that from the recorded conversation available on the record, it is clear that on the direction of Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma, co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma had handed over Rs.15 Lakhs to co-accused Anil Kumar Singh. A number of conversations between Bedram Sharma and Anil Kumar Singh are available on record, which establish that Anil Kumar Singh was demanding illegal gratification from Bedram Shama. Hence, the accused persons Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma are actively involved in commission of the offence.