Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 380 of 2022
Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Srish Chandra Aghinotri,Jitendra Prakash Mishra,Naresh Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri S. C. Agnihotri, counsel for the revisionist, Sri Vivek Gupta, A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 19.02.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 9, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 2293 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 2173 of 2010, under Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. Kheri, District Lakhimpur Kheri.
Earlier the revisionist had filed an Application u/S 482/378/407 No. - 6921 of 2019 (Mukesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) challenging the summoning order as well as charge sheet. This Court vide order dated 27.09.2019 disposed of the said application with the direction that the revisionist may move an application for discharge and the same may be decided by the concerned court by speaking order. In pursuance of said direction issued by this Court on 27.09.2019, the revisionist moved an application for discharge before the court below.
In the said discharge application, the revisionist had taken ground that his wife was admitted in the hospital in the year 2005 and huge amount was paid and the money was lended to him from his family members i.e. father, brother and maternal uncle which was deposited by him in his bank account but he has falsely been implicated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and charge sheet was filed in which I.O. has mentioned that Rs. 1,62,000/- was deposited in the bank account of the revisionist which was not his known source of income and on that score he was charge sheeted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the receipt of the hospital has not been considered and the statement of mother and his brother has also not been considered by the I.O. and it has wrongly been assessed that the revisionist had disproportionate income from the income of his known source.
The court below has recorded the detailed findings by relying the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and lastly rejected the discharge application of the revisionist by a detailed order dated 19.02.2022. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the revisionist had filed the present revision.
It has come on record that Rs. 1,62,000/- was deposited in the account of the revisionist which was not income of his own source and he was unable to prove the said fact before the I.O. Counsel for the revisionist has shown a letter which is part of investigation and this letter was issued by Jeevan Jyoti Hospital in which it is stated that though the wife of the revisionist was admitted in the hospital but there is no record to that effect. Counsel for the revisionist has emphasized that due to illness, his wife was hospitalized and huge expenditure was required that is why money was lended to him from his family members. The statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the material brought on record indicates that the revisionist could not prove the case before the I.O. and he charge sheeted him and an ample opportunity was also given to him to discharge the burden with respect to money which was not income of his own source.
In the discharge application, the Court has very limited jurisdiction and the Court cannot do mini trials, the Court has to see prima facie case and once the material is collected by the I.O. which speaks charges against the accused, there is no justification to interfere at the level of discharge.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 19.02.20220 passed by the court below and the same requires no interference.
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
However, it is provided that if the revisionist appears and surrenders before the court concerned within four weeks from today and applies for bail, the court concerned shall consider and disposed of his bail application expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 28.4.2022/SA
