2026:JHHC:21111 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No.1171 of 2025 ----- Gopal Sharma, S/o Late Ram Bilash Sharma, R/o 81 C/o Sharma General Stone, Strt Mohalla D.S. Colony, Chira Gora, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Nirsa, District-Dhanbad. ..........Petitioner. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand ........... Opp. Party ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Pallav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. ----- Reserved on 10.07.2026 Pronounced on 17.07.2026 1. The present criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge (ACB), Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 2532 of 2024 in connection with Special (Vigilance) Case No. 22/2016, whereby the petition dated 4th October, 2024 filed by the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C to discharge him from the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”) has been dismissed. 2. The prosecution’s case as borne out from the record is that a complaint was lodged by one Santosh Labh Karn (a Clerk posted in G.N.M. +2 High School, Katrasgarh, Dhanbad) alleging that the petitioner had demanded gratification of Rs.20,000/- from him for placing his file before the District Education Officer, Dhanbad in order to get his suspension revoked. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau (A.C.B.), Ranchi got the allegation verified by 2026:JHHC:21111 2 Indu Shekhar Jha, Inspector-cum-Verifier, A.C.B. Ranchi. He thereafter submitted the verification report to the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad Division, ACB, Ranchi. Pursuant to the said verification report, an FIR being Vigilance P.S. Case No.20 of 2016 was registered under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had initially demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant to put up his file regarding revocation of suspension, however, he subsequently demanded Rs.35,000/- for the said work and an additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for getting a favourable report from the concerned Block Education Extension Officer. Thereafter, a trap exercise was conducted during which five notes of Rs.1,000/- treated with phenolphthalein were recovered from the right palm of the petitioner. The fingers of both the hands of the petitioner were dipped into the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the same turned into pink colour. 4. The Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet bearing No. 37 of2016 dated 13.05.2016 against the petitioner under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Act, 1988. Thereafter, cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections was taken by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Dhanbad. 5. The petitioner filed a discharge petition dated 4th October, 2024 under Section 227 Cr.P.C which was registered as M.C.A. No. 2532 of 2024, however, the said petition has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Spl. Judge (ACB), Dhanbad vide order dated 24th September, 2025. 2026:JHHC:21111 3 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the trial court is not only contrary to law but it has also not taken into consideration the evidence and material available on the record. 7. It is further argued that the impugned order does not contain any reason as to why the discharge petition has been rejected. No evidence or any material available on record has been discussed in the impugned order. In fact, there is no substantive material on record against the petitioner for framing of charge. 8. It is further contended that the impugned order is a stereotyped order which suffers from complete non application of mind. 9. It is also submitted that the learned Special Judge (ACB) has failed to take into consideration that petitioner was not the competent authority to take any decision on the pending service issues of the complainant and hence there was no occasion to demand bribe for revocation of his suspension, however, on false and frivolous allegations, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. 10. It is further submitted that the learned Special Judge (ACB) has failed to take into consideration that no independent witness came forward to corroborate the allegation of taking bribe of Rs. 5,000/- as alleged against the petitioner. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge (ACB) merely on the basis of the statement of the complainant and a false trap exercise conducted against the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:21111 4 12. It is also argued that the learned Special Judge (ACB) has failed to consider that the complainant had lodged a false case against the petitioner out of his personal grudge. Moreover, the sanction order which was filed along with the charge sheet, lacked proper application of mind that too the same was granted by a incompetent person. 13. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner was posted as Head Clerk in the office of District Education Officer, Dhanbad at the relevant time and thus he coming in the administrative hierarchy, was entrusted with responsibility of moving all necessary files relating to the department including that of the complainant. 14. It is further submitted that the petitioner had initially demanded a gratification of Rs. 20,000/- for putting up the file of the complainant before the District Education Officer, Dhanbad in order to get his suspension revoked. Subsequently, the petitioner demanded Rs.35,000/- for the said work and Rs.5,000/- for obtaining a favourable report from the Block Education Extension Officer. 15. It is also submitted that during investigation, the complainant fully supported the case of the prosecution as would be reflected from paragraph no.23 of the case diary. The witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner so as to establish his complicity in the alleged offences. 16. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 2026:JHHC:21111 5 17. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not the decision-making authority particularly in the matter of revocation of suspension of the complainant and the said fact itself falsifies the allegation made against him. 18. Before coming to the merit of the contention of the petitioner, it would be profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of T.N. by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Vs. N. Suresh Rajan & Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709. In the said case, it has been held that at the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record by the prosecution are true. The Court is to evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It has further been held that at the stage of considering an application seeking discharge, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. 19. In the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 756, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the time of framing of charge, a mini trial is not permissible. The trial court has to proceed with the material brought on record by the prosecution and determine whether the facts emerging from the material taken on its face value, disclose 2026:JHHC:21111 6 the existence of the ingredients necessary of the offence alleged. It is a settled law that the scope of interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and should be exercised very sparingly, specifically in the instances where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or any material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or in a perverse manner by framing the charge. 20. Thus, at the time of framing of charge or consideration of discharge application, the trial court has to see as to whether there are grounds available on record to form prima facie opinion that the offence has been committed by the accused and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. The revisional jurisdiction is to be exercised with restraint that too in such cases where the decision under challenge is grossly erroneous, or there is non- compliance of mandatory provisions of law, or the finding recorded by the trial court is based on no evidence, or material evidence is ignored or the exercise of judicial discretion while framing the charge is arbitrary or perverse. 21. In the present case, none of the grounds for exercise of revisional jurisdiction as discussed in the case of Jaspal Singh Kaural (Supra.) is available. On perusal of the impugned order dated 24.09.2025, it would be evident that while dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Special Judge (ACB) has taken into consideration all the materials available on 2026:JHHC:21111 7 record. It has been observed that the petitioner was a public servant and the tainted notes were allegedly recovered from his possession. It has further been mentioned that during investigation, the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It also appears that the learned Special Judge (ACB), Dhanbad has elaborately discussed the materials placed before him and only thereafter, has rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. 22. It transpires from the record that the complainant was a Clerk in G.N.M. +2 High School, Katrashgarh, Dhanbad and was suspended on 19.02.2016 by the order of the District Education Officer, Dhanbad. The petitioner who was the Head Clerk in the office of the District Education Officer, Dhanbad was entrusted with the responsibility to place the file of the complainant before the District Education Officer, Dhanbad. The representation of the complainant for revocation of suspension was pending in the office of the District Education Officer, Dhanbad and the allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded gratification for placing the file before the District Education Officer, Dhanbad. During the trap exercise, five tainted notes having denomination of Rs.1,000/- were also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Thus, there are prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioner. Even if, the petitioner was not the decision-making authority in the matter of the complainant, his role of placing the file to the District Education Officer, Dhanbad cannot be discarded particularly at this stage. 2026:JHHC:21111 8 23. The other limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no independent witness was present during the trap exercise which questions the alleged recovery of the tainted notes from the possession of the petitioner. 24. It is a well settled principle of law that the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the sole ground of absence of independent witnesses. The law is that in absence of independent witnesses, the statements of official witnesses are to be scrutinized with greater care and caution. Thus, I am of the view that the said factual pleas taken by the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage and the same can effectively be taken during trial which can be considered by the trial court on the basis of the evidences of the parties. 25. For the reasons as aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X-cum-Special Judge (ACB), Dhanbad in MCA No. 2532 of 2024 in connection with Special (Vigilance) Case No. 22 of 2016. 26. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 17th July, 2026 N.A.F.R. Rohit Uploaded on 17.07.2026