Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108004 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1759 of 2025 Revisionist :- Subhash Chandra Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri B.K. Ojha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant revision U/s 438/442 BNSS has been preferred to set aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act in Criminal Case No. 13/561 of 2023 (State vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma) arising out of Case Crime No. 55 of 2023 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station- Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad, whereby discharge application filed by the revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that by way of instant revision, revisionist challenged the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 by which his discharge application has been dismissed. 4. He further submitted that applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in Rural Engineering Department and as per allegation, he made a demand of Rs. one lakh from the complainant to clear his remaining bill and thereafter he was arrested red handed by the trap-team while he was receiving bribe from him but entire allegation levelled against him is totally false. 5. He further submitted that being Junior Engineer, revisionist was not having any authority to clear bills of the complainant and the same was vested with the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the revisionist. 6. He further submitted that even from the record, it reflects, the alleged Firm, which conducted the work, was of the brother of the complainant and complainant being power of attorney holder acted on his behalf and, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for the complainant to give bribe to the revisionist. He further submitted that if demand of bribe was made by the revisionist then it was the duty of the complainant, who was power of attorney holder of real owner of the Firm that he should apprise this fact to the real owner and this fact again suggests that on the basis of false allegation revisionist has been implicated in the present matter by the complainant with the connivance of the trap-team. 7. He further submitted that while passing impugned order, court concerned could not consider the above facts and wrongly dismissed the discharge application moved by the revisionist and, therefore, impugned order dated 21.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer of the revisionist and submitted that applicant was apprehended red handed by the trap-team while he was receiving bribe from the complainant and at this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the proceedings of the trap. 9. He further submitted that even from the record it reflects, revisionist was the person, who made demand of bribe and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 11. As per allegation, applicant was posted as Junior Engineer in the Rural Engineering Department and he made demand of Rs. one lakh from the complainant to clear his bill and thereafter he was apprehended red handed by the trap-team while he was receiving bribe from him, therefore, prima facie, it appear, revisionist committed offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 12. Further, law is settled, if prima facie, alleged offence is made out then an accused cannot be discharged. 13. Further, record also suggests that during pendency of the instant revision, charges have already been framed against the revisionist by the trial court. 14. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 and in my view, discharge application moved by revisionist was rightly dismissed by the court concerned. 15. Accordingly, the instant revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad