Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28400 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 205 of 2025 Revisionist :- Abhay Kumar Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Shukla,Preeti Shukla (Tiwari) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. (Order on application for condonation of delay) 1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. In view of the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing the present revision, the delay is condoned. (Order on Revision) 1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of present criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge / Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) 07, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 973 of 2020; Case Crime No. 250 of 2018; U/S 7 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Police Station - Reusa; District - Sitapur; pending before Additional District Judge / Special Judge (prevention of Corruption Act) 07, Lucknow by means of which the discharge application of the revisionist has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that a first information report was lodged by respondent No. 2 against the revisionist on 31.08.2018 alleging that on the date of incident which is on the night of 22/23.08.2018 at 11 p.m. when the complainant was taking a tractor trolley loaded with foodgrains to be sold in the open market, he was stopped by the accused and illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 lakh was demanded. It was further threatened that in case he does not pay the said amount he would be sent to jail and it is in this circumstances he made a call to the former pradhan Sarvan Tiwari they collected Rs. 1 lak and paid to the respondent No. 2 on which tractor trolley was released. 4. With the aforesaid facts, the first information report was lodged U/S 7, 8 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subseqeuntly the matter was investigated and a charge- sheet was filed in the court and the revisionist was summoned. He appeared before the trial court and moved an application for discharge which has been rejected by means of impugned order dated 09.01.2025. It has further been submitted that against the first information report, the revisionist had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Misc. Bench No. 25512 of 2018 which was dismissed on 07.09.2018. 5. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the trial court has rejected the application for discharge in the most cursory manner without any application of mind only on the ground that the evidence has yet to be adduced and consequently has failed to consider the grounds raised by the revisionist in the application for discharge. The ground raised by the revisionist which are apparent from the impugned order are that it was stated that revisionist is innocent and even after due consideration of the facts which has emerged after the police investigation, no offence is made out against the revisionist and consequently it is a fit case for discharge. 6. One of the main contention raised by revisionist is that the F.I.R. was lodged at the behest of the local MLA which fact is evident from the opening line of the first information report and accordingly the entire proceedings against the revisionist are motivated and hence prosecution at the behest of such a first information report should not be initiated against the revisionist. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the revision. He has submitted that the charges against the revisionist who is a police constable and was posted in P.S. Reusa, District Sitapur had stopped the tractor trolley and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The matter did not end there but in fact it was settled for an amount of Rs. 1 lakh and as per the material adduced during investigation out of Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 95,000/- was to be paid by the former pradhan while Rs. 5000/- was paid by the complainant and accordingly submits that all the ingredients of offence U/S 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was fulfilled. 8. He further submits that during investigation statements of various persons were recorded and the statement of the complainant would clearly indicate occurrence of the cognizable offence and accordingly at the stage of u/S 227 of Cr.P.C. where the only material before the trial court is the chargesheet and reliance has to be made only on the material before the court, there is no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application for discharge and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the present revision. 9. I have heard rival contention and perused the record. 10. Without reiterating the facts as mentioned, it is noticed that at the stage of consideration of the application U/S 227 Cr.P.C. the only material before the trial court was the charge-sheet which was filed by the police after investigation. During investigation the statement of the complainant was recorded. Accordingly to his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C., it was stated that on 22/23.08.2018 at around 11.00 to 11.30 in the night when his tractor trolley loaded with 58 Qnt. of wheat which was to be taken to the Mandi for being sold where on the way the complainant met certain other persons, namely, Balram Porwal who requested them to wait for certain time so that another tractor trolley could come and after they can go together to Mandi to sell the wheat. It is during this period that the revisionist along with another constable Radhey Shyam Yadav came on the spot and stopped the tractor trolley. It is at this stage the revisionist stated that the complainants selling the activities probably is for black marketing of the foodgrains which is a cognizable offence and accordingly they asked them to accompany him to police station. 11. At this stage, he demanded Rs. 50,000/- on which the complainant stated that he did not have the said amount which was a big amount of money and as the settlement could not arrive, he directed them to take tractor trolley to the police station. There after reaching the police station, he stated that he is speaking to the higher officials and came back demanded an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for releasing three tractor trolleys. After certain time, he again came back stating that the matter can be settled in case the revisionist gives Rs. 1 lakh and accordingly the complainant gave Rs. 5,000/- and the former pradhan Shravan Tiwari who had been called by the complainants stated that he stands surety for Rs. 95,000/- which will be paid to them. It is at 5.30 a.m. that in the aforesaid facts the tractor trolleys were released and subsequently they proceeded to the Mandi and sold the entire food-grains for Rs. 3.10 lakhs and complainant further stated that out of the proceeds of the sale, he immediately gave Rs. 95,000/- to the former pradhan Sharavan Tiwari, the amount which he has promised to pay to the revisionist. 12. From the perusal of the aforesaid statement, it is clear that there are allegations on the revisionist demanding illegal gratification inasmuch as he had taken the tractor trolleys to the police station. 13. When a pointed query has been made from the revisionist as to whether any case was registered against the complainants for black marketing for any other purpose, this Court has been informed that no such complaint has been registered. Accordingly, from the bare perusal of the statement of the complainant, it is clear that there was a demand of illegal gratification and subsequent to that demand it is alleged that Rs. 5,000/- was paid at the very spot and Rs. 95,000/- was subsequently paid to Shravan Tiwari which was to be paid to the revisionist. 14. From the aforesaid, this Court finds that all the ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been made out. How these facts are to be proved will be an issue which shall be looked into at the stage of trial. At the stage of discharge, it is the duty of the Magistrate to consider the material before the court and in case no offence is made out then he has a discretion to allow the application for discharge. In the impugned order, the trial court has clearly recorded the fact that after perusal of the chargesheet a cognizable offence is made out and he has also narrated the sequence of events in his order and found that prima facie a case for proceeding against the revisionist is made out. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision being bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. 16. It is made clear that trial court shall not influence by any of the observations made by this Court in the present case and proceeding in the matter in accordance with law. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench