Ram Narayan Chaurasiya vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2906 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2475 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Ram Narayan Chaurasiya
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhavya Sahai,Kartikeya Saran,Ram Krishna Chaurasia,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Ram Narayan Chaurasiya against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2022 passed by Incharge Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Special Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act) Meerut in Special Criminal Case No. 01 of 2020 (State Vs. Montu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1694 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(B) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the learned Court below rejected the discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

2. The learned trial court has rejected the discharge application of the revisionist on the ground that prima facie the offence against the accused-applicant is made out on the basis of evidence and material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. It has been further submitted that at the time of considering the discharge/framing of charge, prima facie case has to be seen and if from the perusal of the evidence and material placed before the Court along with the charge sheet, prima offence is made out, the accused applicant cannot be discharged.

3. Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ram Krishan Chaurasia submitted that the accused-applicant has been exonerated from all charges including the charge for preparing the public muster roll of Home Guards in the departmental proceedings. He, therefore, submits that if the revisionist has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings for the same charge, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner cannot be allowed to go on.

4. He has placed reliance on judgment in the case in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI And Another; (2020) 9 SCC 636 and the judgment in the case of P.S Rajya Vs. State of Bihar; (1996) 9 SCC 1. It is well settled law that the departmental enquiry would be based on preponderance of probabilities whereas in the criminal proceedings, the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

5. I have gone through the impugned order and also perused the discharge application.

6. Neither in the discharge application nor during the course of argument on the discharge application this point was pressed before the trial court for its consideration.

7. In view thereof I find that it would be appropriate to set aside the order impugned herein and remand the matter back to the trial court to decide the discharge application afresh and the revisionist shall be at liberty to take the ground of him being discharged in the departmental proceedings.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the revision is allowed.

.

[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.]

Order Date :- 28.1.2023

Kumar Manish.