HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1459 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.B.S. Rathaur, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant and Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. 2. The applicant has filed this application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer: “(i) To quash/set aside chargesheet and summoning order dated 02.07.2025 passed by Special Judge (P.C.Act.) Court No.-06, Lucknow (State of U.P. Versus Ajay Singh) in S.T.No.1004/2025, case crime No. 0004/ 2025, U/S -7 P.C.Act.-1988 as Amended -2018 P.S. -U.P. Satkarta Adhishthan, C.I. Sector, Lucknow which is contained as Annexure No. 01 & 02 to this petition. (ii) To quash/set aside the impugned 17.09.2025 on discharge application UPLKO10125012025 passed by Special Judge (P.C.Act.) Court No.-06, Lucknow (Ajay Singh Versus State of U.P.) in S.T.No.1004/2025, case crime No. 0004/ 2025, U/S -7 P.C.Act.-1988 as Amended -2018 P.S. -U.P. Satkarta Adhishthan, C.I. Sector, Lucknow which is contained as Annexure No. 03 to this petition. (iii) To direct the court concerned to allow the petitioner appearance through counsel in S.T.No.1004/2025, case crime Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ajay Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) No. 0004/2025, U/S 7 P.C.Act.-1988 as Amended -2018 P.S. U.P. Satkarta Adhishthan, C.I. Sector, Lucknow in the interest of Justice. (v) To issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice may also be passed.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the basis of fabricated trap-report the prosecution of the case in question has been initiated. He further submitted that in the entire case-diary there is no evidence of prior demand. It is also submitted that merely on the basis of testimony of the complainant, the applicant should not be tried for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned counsel also relied on a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2014 (relevant para Nos. 18 and 19). 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant was working as Incharge, Agricultural Protection Unit, Auras, District Unnao. The father of the complainant applied for getting subsidiary on the purchase of certain agricultural articles and his application was accepted, but the same was not being processed by the applicant, as he was demanding Rs. 10,000.00. Thereafter the complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Establishment) of the concerned Sector and thereafter discrete inquiry was ordered and after receiving the inquiry report the trap-team was constituted and trap was conducted. Thereafter, taking precautionary measure the applicant was shifted to Auras Police Station and thereafter he was brought to a safe place and his hands were also dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, and it was found that the applicant has received Rs. 10,000.00 and thereafter memo was prepared and F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and after investigation chargesheet was submitted against him. 5. Learned A.G.A. submitted that facts of the case relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of P. Somaraju (supra) are not NA528 No. 1459 of 2025 2 applicable in the present case, as in the said case no positive result in Sodium Carbonate solution was found and merely on the basis of oral testimony of the complainant accused cannot be tried, however, in the present case test in the Sodium Carbonate solution was found positive, therefore, it cannot be said that merely on the basis of oral statement of the complainant applicant is being tried. 6. 6. Considering submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through contents of the application as well as the impugned order and the application of discharge filed before the court below and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the applicant in the case of P. Somaraju (supra), as in the present case, the result of the test of Sodium Carbonate was found positive, therefore, it cannot be said that merely on the basis of oral testimony of the complainant, applicant is bring tried, therefore, no case for interference is made out. The application is misconceived. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. November 3, 2025 A.Nigam NA528 No. 1459 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench