1 2025:CGHC:37839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 939 of 2025 • Smt. Lily Pushplata Beck W/o Late Egracious Beck Aged About 53 Years Sub - Registrar Saraipali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) R/o Q.No. 131 D Block, Vijeta Complex New Rajendra Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Ps- Acb/eow, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 01/08/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mahasamund (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.H-02/2025, whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the applicant under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant is also challenging the charge sheet filed against him. 3. As per the case of prosecution, the applicant was working as Sub-Registrar in the office of Sub-Registrar, Saraipali, Mahasamund. A complaint was made DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA 2 by one Bhupendra Patel that he wanted to execute a gift deed for 5 acres of land in favour of his wife for which the applicant was asking for Rs. 35,000/- as bribe. The complainant made a complaint before the anti-corruption bureau, Raipur on 08.09.2024 and he was given a voice recorder for recording the conversation with the applicant. On 10.09.2024 the conversation was recorded and the applicant agreed to take a bribe of Rs. 26,000/- thereafter trap proceedings were organized on 12.09.2024 and the complainant was sent with cash of Rs.26,000/- which he gave to one Shatrughan Tandi who is alleged to be the accomplice of the applicant. Thereafter, the trap team apprehended Shatrughan Tandi who said that he had taken the amount upon being told by the applicant. Thereafter the cash was kept on the office table of the applicant which was later on seized. After other proceedings were conducted, the FIR was registered against the applicant and the co accused person under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 13.09.2024. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant before the learned trial court which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. H-02/2025 and vide order impugned dated 08.07.2025, the learned Trial Court has framed the aforesaid charges against the applicant, against which the present revision has been filed by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has wrongly been implicated in the crime in question. The conversation was recorded on 12.09.2024 at about 07:45 hours, its transcript clearly shows that no illegal gratification has been demanded by the applicant from the complainant whereas the applicant has asked the complainant to pay the amount in respect of the trees planted on the 5 acres of land as per the map, the amount which the complainant is legally bound to pay. The applicant herein has never made any demand for any kind of illegal gratification. The applicant herein had only stated that the complainant did not disclose the 3 number of trees properly in the gift deed which is clear from the map and he is liable to pay additional amount of stamp duty for the number of trees which he has not disclosed. The complainant very conveniently, to escape the payment of stamp duty which he is legally bound to pay, had not disclosed the number of trees, however, when the same was demanded by the petitioner, he has malafidely filed a complaint against the petitioner, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspects of the matter and has framed aforesaid charges against the applicant. Therefore, the instant revision may kindly be allowed. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel and the applicant has been found involved of receiving illegal gratification of Rs.26,000/- through the co-accused Shatrughan Tandi, as such the prayer of the applicant cannot be entertained at this stage and as such the revision may kindly be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. In the instant case, the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant being Sub Registrar had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.35,000/- from the complainant for execution of gift deed for 5 acres of land in favour of the wife of the complainant Bhupendra Patel and through the co-accused Shatrughan Tandi an amount of Rs.26,000/- was received by the applicant and the said amount was also seized by the trap team. 8. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant is a Sub Registrar and being a Sub Registrar, she is alleged to have taken Rs.26,000/- as bribe through the co-accused Shatrughan Tandi, who stated that upon applicant’s saying, he received the aforesaid amount from the complainant Bhupendra, and the charge sheet has also been filed against the applicant, as such the allegation against the applicant is subject 4 to trial and only thereafter truth can come out, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly proceeded ahead to conduct trial against applicant by framing aforesaid charges against her, hence there is no illegality or infirmity found in the order passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this revision at this stage. 9. Consequently, the criminal revision is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge