IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.180 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mahesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation …Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant Criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (in short “BNSS”) lays challenge to order dated 26.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (CBI), Shimla, HP, in Cr.MP No.162-S/4 of 2025, whereby an application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) for his discharge, came to be dismissed. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that FIR No.RC0962019S0002 dated 07.05.2019 came to be registered against various persons 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? including present petitioner under Sections 120-B, 409 & 471 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1) (C), 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at CBI, A.C.B., Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, on the precise allegation that ITFT Institute fraudulently claimed sum of Rs.35,85,16,653/- under Central Government Sponsored Scheme for SC/ ST and OBC categories, belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh in the name of students, who had already left the Institute during the period 2013-14 to 2017. The aforesaid amount was transferred to the bank account of ITFT Institute, which was operated by Major Gulshan Sharma and his son, who is also a Director in the Institute. Accused herein, who is a retired Air Force Officer, was also working as Admin and Accounts Officer at afore Institute. Since five demand letters sent to Department of Education for amount indicated hereinabove were signed by the accused, he also came to be named in the FIR. 3. After presentation of the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C in the competent Court of law, accused preferred an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C for his discharge (Annexure P-2) on the ground that as per terms of his appointment, he was just working as Admin and Accounts Officer and had no role in the admission process of any student or in the opening or closing of any student scholarship account. It has been averred in the 2 application that though demand letters were signed by the accused, but the same were done at the behest and under the directions of Managing Director of the ITFT Institute, who was otherwise solely competent to operate the bank account in which amount of scholarship was received. It has also been averred in the application that investigating agency has not placed on record any evidence to show that accused has illegally recovered any scholarship amounts, rather he performed his duties under the instructions of Managing Director, Gulshan Sharma. 4. While refuting the averments contained in the afore application filed at the behest of accused, respondent submitted before the learned Court below that five demand letters, pursuant to which amount was fraudulently received in the bank account of the ITFT Institute, were signed by the accused. It has been submitted in the reply that accused, Mahesh Kumar falsely claimed scholarship through these demand letters in connivance with co- accused Gulshan Sharma, as such, he has been rightly booked under relevant provisions of law. The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record, dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-4). In the afore background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his discharge after setting 3 aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2025 passed by competent Court of law. 5. Precisely, the grouse of the accused, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the accused, is that learned Court below, while passing impugned order, completedly ignored material facts with regard to nature of duties performed by the accused in the capacity of Chief Accounts Officer. Mr. Awasthi argued that since accused, in the capacity of Chief Accounts Officer, had no role in admission of students and he had no information with regard to number of candidates belonging to SC/ ST & OBC categories, there was no occasion, if any, for the CBI to make him an accused that too merely on the basis of his having sent demand letters. He submitted that though demand letters, thereby demanding amount of scholarship, were signed by the accused in the capacity of Chief Accounts Officer, but since amount claimed through afore demand letters was not received by him, rather same was deposited in the bank account of the ITFT Institute, which is only operated by Major Gulshan Sharma, the Managing Director of the Institute, it cannot be said that on account of raising demand at the behest of afore students, accused was unduly benefitted in any manner. He further submitted that Principal, namely Mr. Sandeep Guleria, who had knowledge with 4 regard to number of students and admission of the students in the Institute, has not been made an accused. He further submitted that similar demand letters were also issued by the above named Principal, but for extraneous reasons, he has not been arrayed as an accused, rather accused, who had no role to play in admissions, has been made a scapegoat. 6. To the contrary, Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order dated 26.03.2025, vehemently argued that once it is not in dispute that accused, in the capacity of Chief Accounts Officer, issued five demand letters, thereby seeking amount, which otherwise could not have been demanded, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the CBI, while registering the case against the accused. He further submitted that once bare perusal of demand letters clearly suggests that sum of Rs.35,85,16,653/- was being claimed on account of scholarships for the students belonging to SC/ ST and OBC categories, it was bounden duty of the person signing the letter to verify whether such students were actually being imparted education in the institution or not, but in the instant case, sum of Rs.35,85,16,653/- was fraudulently claimed by the accused in connivance with the co-accused Major Gulshan Sharma in the name of students, who had already left the institute during the period 2013-14 to 2017. Mr. Mahajan submitted that at 5 the time of considering a prayer, if any, for discharge, the Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case, as set out in the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., is made out or not? “Whether the accused issued demand letters merely on the askance of his Managing Director or he had no definite information with regard to enrollment of the students belonging to SC/ ST and OBC categories, are questions to be decided by the learned trial Court in totality of evidence?” 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case. 8. It is not in dispute that accused, in the capacity of Admin and Chief Accounts Officer of ITFT Education Group, sent five demand letters, thereby claiming sum of Rs.35,85,16,653/- on account of scholarship, which was to be paid to the students under Central Government Sponsored Scheme for SC/ ST and OBC categories, belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that amount, which was fraudulently claimed through five demand letters, was qua students, who had already left the institute during the period 2013-14 to 2017. Though this Court finds some force in the submission of Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the accused, that accused, in his capacity as Admin and Accounts Officer, may not have had definite knowledge with regard to admission of students under a particular category in a 6 particular year, but once he, through five demand letters, repeatedly sought amounts as indicated herein above, it was his bounden duty to verify whether the students, for whom such a huge amount is being claimed, are being imparted education in the institution or not? Chief Accounts Officer is not expected to sign each and every document merely on the askance of his superiors, especially where huge amount is involved. Once through five demand letters, a huge amount was being claimed under the Central Government Sponsored Scheme for SC/ST and OBC students, belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh, argument sought to be raised at the behest of accused that he had no knowledge with regard to number of students belonging to the SC/ST and OBC categories studying in ITFT Education group is palpably incorrect. 9. In the case at hand, Department of Education was disbursing pre-matric and post-matric scholarships under the State and Central Government Sponsored Scheme for SC/ ST and OBC students belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh getting education anywhere in the country, but no one within the boundary of State got scholarship during the last five years. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by the State Project Officer revealing a large scale mis-appropriation of funds. Investigation revealed that accused, being the Chief Accounts Officer of ITFT Institute, 7 forwarded demand letters to the Department of Higher Education, Shimla, claiming scholarships. Once scholarship is claimed against each student belonging to the categories of SC/ ST and OBC, it cannot be accepted that, while issuing demand letters, accused had no knowledge that in whose name amount of scholarship was being claimed. It is admitted case of the accused that he forwarded five demand letters to the Department of Education claiming scholarship, but under the instructions of co-accused Major Gulshan Sharma, Managing Director. However, whether afore co- accused had actually instructed the accused to raise such demands or he had actually connived with the aforesaid person is a question to be determined by the learned Court below in totality of evidence led on record by the Investigating agency. 10. Interestingly, in the case at hand, this Court finds that at first instance, amount fraudulently claimed by ITFT institute was remitted in the bank accounts of the students, who subsequently claimed before Investigating Agency that they had never opened such accounts, but later on such amount was fraudulently transferred in the bank account of the ITFT Institute. It cannot be said that Chief Accounts Officer had no knowledge with regard to aforesaid transactions, rather he, being Chief Accounts Officer, was expected to maintain the records of financial transactions of the institute concerned. Since amount was released on the basis of 8 demand letters signed by the accused, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Janesh Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent/CBI, that there is sufficient material to connect the accused with the offence alleged to have been committed by him. 11. By now it is well settled that at the time of framing of charge or considering any application for discharge filed by the accused, the Court concerned is not required to examine the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Agency along with the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C, rather for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists, the Court may sift the material on record to assess whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. At this stage, the Court is to consider whether the material on record, if unrebutted, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction or not? 12. At this stage, Mr. Suneel Awasthi, learned counsel for the accused, vehemently argued that investigating agency purposely had not adduced on record appointment letter of the accused. He submitted that bare perusal of appointment letter would show that it was not duty of the accused to take note of number of admissions made by the institute concerned. As has been observed hereinabove, the accused may not have been aware of the exact number of admissions made in the institute of candidates belonging to the SC/ ST and OBC categories, but while 9 raising the demand for scholarship payable to such candidates, it was certainly his bounden duty to verify whether students belonging to the aforesaid categories were actually being imparted education in the institute or not? 13. Moreover, this Court is of the view that scope of duties and responsibility of the accused Mahesh Kumar as well as circumstances, under which he signed the demand letters, are matters of trial and it cannot be adjudicated at this stage. Prima facie there is sufficient material adduced on record by the investigating agency to show that accused has committed the alleged offence, as such, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while dismissing the application filed at the behest of the accused for his discharge. 14. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition fails and dismissed accordingly being devoid of merit. Needless to say, any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the main case, rather same shall be decided on the basis of totality of evidence led on record by the respective parties. (Sandeep Sharma) Judge April 16, 2026 (sunil) 10