Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35919 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1796 of 2025 Appellant :- Chandra Bhan Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. The instant appeal has been filed seeking following reliefs:- "Wherefore it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned judgment and order dated 05.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Court No.6, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.2592 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.398 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Chandra Bhan Singh) under Section 13(1) B & 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended 2018, Police Station Sushant Golf City, District Lucknow and further be pleased to quash the entire criminal proceedings in respect of aforesaid case, in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution in question was initiated on the basis of complaint of one Member of Parliament and thereafter on the basis of fabricated inquiry, the FIR of case in question was lodged by the Inspector Anti Corruption Organization. During the course of investigation, all the income details have been given by the appellant and his family members along with documentary evidence but the Investigating Officer failed to consider all these evidences and submitted charge sheet establishing a case of disproportionate assets. Thereafter discharge application was filed before the court below but the same was rejected with the observation that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of accused cannot be considered. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and has also submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by learned court below and he also supported that the defence of appellant cannot be considered at the appropriate stage. He relied on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, Kanti Bhadva Shah and another vs State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722 and Dinesh Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and another (2014) 13 SCC 137. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant materials,it is evident that after fact finding inquiry, FIR was lodged by the Inspector Anti Corruption Organization, and charge sheet was filed establishing a case of disproportionate assets. Thereafter discharge application was filed on the ground that at the time of investigation evidence provided by the appellant was not considered. It is well settled that the defence of accused cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge. The Presiding Officer is duty bound to consider the material available on the case diary. There is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 6. Accordingly, the present appeal is misconceived and is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.6.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench