1 29-revn-112-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 112 OF 2025 Kailesh Vitthal Rohi Versus State of Maharashtra through its Police Station Officer, Police Station Washim (City) Tah. & Dist. Washim and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Rahul S. Kurekar, Advocate for the applicant. Shri A.M.Ghogare, APP for the non-applicant/State. CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATED : 24th AUGUST, 2026. The applicant has approached this Court challenging the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Washim, whereby the application for discharge filed by the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as ‘P.C.Act’). 2. Shri Kurekar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that even thought application was filed for discharge on two grounds one on merit and another on the ground that the provision of Section 17-A of the PC Act was not followed, however, in the present revision application, the applicant is challenging the impugned order only on merits. According to Shri Kurekar, learned counsel for the applicant SKNair 2026:BHC-NAG:11193 2 29-revn-112-25.odt there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the present applicant, who is a public servant under Sections 17 and 12 of P.C. Act. The evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient enough to frame a charge under Sections 7 and 12 of P.C. Act. Shri Kurekar, learned counsel further submits that mere assertion of some amounts as allegedly reflected in the transcript of the conversation recorded on the date for verification of the demand, would not by itself sufficient enough an evidence to proceed and frame of charge of serious offences under Sections 7 and 12 of P.C. Act. According to Shri Kurekar, learned counsel for the applicant the First Information Report itself would suggest even after complaint was registered on 24.06.2020, and after verification of the demand, the complainant did not turn up for registration of the First Information Report, which would show that the charge itself is bereft of any evidence which could not be sufficient enough to proceed against the applicant. The registration of the First Information Report by the police authorities even though complainant did not turn up for registration of the FIR, would itself suggest that the trial would result into acquittal of the applicant and that the prosecution of applicant would otherwise amount to an abuse of process of law. The SKNair 3 29-revn-112-25.odt learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise evidence collected by the prosecution is not sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the present applicant in the said crime. The learned trial Court without taking into consideration the aforesaid submission has simply held that whether there is sufficient evidence or not will be decided at the conclusion of trial without going into merits and simply rejected the application on the ground of Section 17-A of the PC Act, as raised by the applicant. The impugned order, is, therefore liable to be interfered by this Court and prays for setting aside the impugned order in the said crime. 3. As against this, Shri Ghogre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the present application on the ground that there is enough evidence collected by the prosecution. Shri Ghogare, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the complainant has filed a written complaint on 24.06.2020, thereby narrating the demand made by the applicant for making those necessary entries in the 7/12 extract, in view of the partition of the properties between the relatives. The said compliant was taken in writing by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Washim on 24.06.2020. A trap was laid down SKNair 4 29-revn-112-25.odt thereafter, to verify the demand. The demand was verified and the conversations which have taken place during verification was thereafter recorded in the voice recorder. The voice recorder has recorded a particular demand made by the present applicant. Even though, the complainant was thereafter called upon for registration of the FIR, however, he did not turn up thereby apprehending threats to the complainant at the behest of the present applicant and certain officials. The police authorities found from the conversation as well as written complaint made by the complainant that an offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the P.C. Act was made out and hence registered the FIR. The applicant’s voice sample was collected and sent to the forensic expert for obtaining spectrographic report. The spectrographic report was received by the prosecution on 10.04.2023 which says that voice sample taken of the present applicant matches with the voice as recorded in the voice recorder on the date of the verification panchanama. Thus, an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, can be clearly established against the present applicant. The learned Additional Public Prosecution therefore prays for rejection of the present application, as the application for discharge has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. SKNair 5 29-revn-112-25.odt 4. I have gone through the charge-sheet in the present crime. The perusal of the complaint dated 24.06.2020 would show that there is a specific demand made by the present applicant who is referred to as Talathi in the complaint recorded by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Washim on 24.06.2020. The said demand was then verified by preparing detailed pre-trap panchanama which was recorded on 24.06.2020 itself. The demand was verified by putting a voice recorder on the person of the complainant. The voice recorder transcript was then prepared in the presence of the panchas. The said transcript is also filed along with the charge-sheet. The perusal of the said transcript of the conversation would clearly show that the demand as reflected in the complaint dated 24.06.2020 is corroborated by the conversation which is reflected in the transcript made by the present applicant. It appears from the record that the voice sample of the present applicant was also taken, while the applicant was in custody and sent for obtaining spectrographic report. Forensic Laboratory at Amravati had submitted its report on 10.04.2023, thereby confirming that the voice sample taken of the present applicant matches with the voice recorder in the conversation recorded on 24.06.2020. Thus, there is sufficient SKNair 6 29-revn-112-25.odt evidence to proceed against the present applicant. It is almost a settled law at the stage of deciding the discharge application and framing of charge all that required is to be seen, if there is sufficient evidence to proceed without going into the details of the defence taken by the accused persons. The perusal of the documents annexed along with the charge-sheet, the spectrographic report, the complaint and the conversation transcript placed on record clearly shows that there is sufficient material to proceed against the applicant. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to call for interference of this Court under revisional jurisdiction, the revision application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 5. Needless to mention that whether the evidence led by prosecution during trial is sufficient enough to establish the guilt of the present applicant or not is a matter to be evaluated by the learned trial Court, without getting influenced by any observations made by this Court. [MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.] SKNair