1 2025:CGHC:57930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1433 of 2025 Tek Ram Verma S/o Late Ramadheen Verma Aged About 63 Years R/o Dolphin Plaza Mowa Daldalsiwani Thana Pandari Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption, Bureau Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pragaya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally at motion stage. 2 2. The present criminal revision is filed by the applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 25.10.2025 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under Sections 227, 228 and 229 of Cr.P.C., 1973 in Special Criminal Case (under PC Act No. 01/2024) by Special Judge (PC Act), Dhamtari and other irregularities vitiating the proceedings. 3. Brief facts of the case leading to the disposal of this criminal revision is that the petitioner was posted as forest range officer (Dugli Forest Division Dhamtari) the officers of EOW/ACB Raipur collected the secret information about the disproportionate property of Mr. Tika Ram Verma (Forest Range Officer) and the Inspector Brijesh Kumar Tiwari completely verified the information and prepared “Sutra Satyapan Prativedan” undated which is marked with the present criminal revision as Annexure P/2. In turn, the Superintendent of Police (ACB) wrote on the Sutra Satyapan Prativedan ordered registration of FIR without any date against Tika Ram Verma. Thereafter the inspector (ACB) registered Dehati Nalsi 0/2016 dated 14.01.2016 at 11 am and on the same day he sent zero FIR to the SP (ACB) thereafter SP (ACB) wrote a letter to the SHO Thana ACB and EOW dated 14.01.2016. FIR bearing no. 01/2016 dated 14.01.2016 was registered at 12:05 PM wherein SSHO had copy pasted the same. SHO sent a letter dated 14.01.2016 to SP informing him having registered FIR No. 01//2016 u/s 13(1)E and 13(2) of PC Act against Tika Ram Verma (Forest Range Officer) which was 3 received in the office of SP ACB Raipur at receipt no. 32 on 20.01.2016. The SP had already passed authorisation order on 14.01.2016 in favour of Inspector (ACB Brijesh Tiwari) on the FIR No. 01/2016 under the provision of Section 17 of PC Act. Thereafter Investigation Officer wrote an application unnamed/undated/without address to the Learned First Additional District Judge Pc Act, Raipur for search warrant for suspected Tika Ram Verma Range Officer. Thereafter, the learned ADJ issued search warrant against another person namely T. R. Verma. Anti Corruption Bureau passed an order under Section 165 of Cr.P.C. to Inspector Lambodar Patel for partial search and partial inquiry dated 16.01.2016 for FIR no. 01/2016 against the suspected officer T.R. Verma. Thereafter in compliance of order of SP they went to Dugli and conducted search in the official residence of petitioner where they found and seized Rs. 3,30,300/- which was alleged to be government money and furnishing articles amounting to Rs. 2,25,000/- approx. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the entire action of ACB is full of irregularities that would result in vitiating the proceedings under the provisions of section 461 of Cr.P.C. The charge sheet filed by inspector Suresh Soni without any authorisation is bad in law and violation of Section 17 of PC Act and it vitiates the entire proceedings rendered in SC judgment State Inspector of Police Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram 2006 SCC (7) 180. The SHO had already completed the 4 investigation and prepared the charge sheet therefore it is illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of SC Judgement Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala in Criminal appeal no. 1381/2023. The name of father of the real suspect was not in the Annexures, therefore investigation officials of ACB were in position to manipulate the proceedings and implicate the innocent petitioner. He would further submit that Tika Ram Verma was also a Forest Range Officer who retired on 01.09.2023 therefore suspicion and defence of the petitioner is not baseless. 5. Learned Counsel for the State opposes the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Record reveals that the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Sections 227, 228 and 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and framed charges under Section 13(1)(e), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act holding that on one hand, the main ground of the applicant was that the case is registered against a person named as Tika Ram Verma and the EOW/ACB officials are falsely implicating the applicant in the case and on the other hand, the applicant is also upset with the procedure adopted by the EOW/ACB officials as the officials have violated the rules. 8. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsels, this Court found that prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the charges have already been framed 5 against him. Therefore there is no perversity or illegality or any jurisdictional error in the order dated 25.10.2025 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (P.C. Act) No. 01/2024. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima