APHC010593592024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.5 OF 2025 Between: Madamala Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by DSP, CBI, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M.SRAVAN KUMAR,Spl.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR C.B.I. The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2024, passed in Crl.MP No.589 of 2024 in CC No.26 of 2022 by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada. 2 2. A charge sheet was filed against the petitioner herein, which was taken on file as CC No.26 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Vijayawada, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner, who was working as Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railway, Guntur, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from the de facto complainant namely M. Hanumantha Rao for signing agreement pertaining to extension of contract of cleaning East and West booking office and circulating area of Railway Station premises, Guntur for further period of 90 days. Later, the petitioner reduced the bribe amount to Rs.20,000/- on 03.05.2018 and accepted the same in his office and it was recovered from side table drawer in the presence of independent witnesses. 4. During the pendency of said CC, the petitioner herein filed Crl.MP No.589 of 2024, under Section 239 Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge him from the aforesaid offences and the learned Special Judge, vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024, 3 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present Crl.RC has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not the authorized person to sign any agreement or award any contract to the de facto complainant and he is only a signatory to the extension agreement, hence the question of demanding bribe amount does not arise. 6. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from the de facto complainant and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner cannot be decided in a discharge petition and the same have to be decided in trial. 7. Heard. Perused the record. 8. The accusation against the petitioner is that he demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the de facto complainant for signing agreement pertaining to extension of contract. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner 4 is that since the petitioner is not the authorized signatory for extension of the contract, the question of demanding bribe amount does not arise. The truth or otherwise of the said allegation has to be decided only during the course of trial and it is not the stage to decide the same in a discharge petition. 9. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the time of filing charge sheet, the Central Forensic Laboratory report was not received and it was not placed before Sanctioning Authority. On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI submitted that even though Forensic Laboratory report is not received, there is no bar to file charge sheet and as and when the said report is received the same would be produced before the Court. All those aspects can be decided only during the course of trial and this Court would not be in a position to conduct a roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and discharge the petitioner herein at a preliminary stage. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Crl.R.C., and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 5 11. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _______________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:23.01.2025 Nsr 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.5 of 2025 Date:23.01.2025 Nsr