Bombay High Court
Vijaykumar Dnyandev Raut vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31903
-1-
Cri-Revn-205-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 205 OF 2025
Vijaykumar W/o. Dnyandev Raut,
Age : 57 years, Occu. : Superintendent,
CGST, Range - I Ahmednagar,
R/o. Sai Siddhi Bunglow, Rahinjmala,
Kedgaon, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Applicant
(Accu. Nos.1 in FIR/Charge Sheet)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through In-charge Police Station Officer,
CBI, ACB Police Station,
District Pune.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Anti Corruption Bureau, Pune.
2-A. The Inspector of Central Bureau
of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Pune. ... Respondents.
......
Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Senior Counsel a/w Ms. Rakshanda Jaiswal
i/b. Mr. Ramankumar Dodiya, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. S. Panale, Special P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-A.
......
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 13 NOVEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20 NOVEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT :
1. Revisionist challenges the impugned order dated 30.04.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on
Cri-Revn-205-2025
Application Exh.5 seeking discharge from the offences punishable under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code i.e. by invoking section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO INSTANT REVISION ARE AS UNDER
2. One Yash Ashok Bora filed report with Central Bureau of
Investigation, Anti Corruption Bureau (CBI-ACB), Pune and contended
that, present revisionist and another non applicant Murli Manohar, who
are working as Superintendent and Inspector, respectively, in the CGST
office at Ahmednagar, demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for carrying out
physical verification which was required by informant in view of the new
business venture alleged to be undertaken by him.
3. Based on above report, CBI-ACB office registered crime for
offence punishable under section 7 of P.C. Act and under section 120-B of
IPC.
4. Application Exh.5 was thereby preferred before Special
Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar and urging discharge on
the ground that there is no material to face or frame charge and thereby
prayers for discharge were raised.
Cri-Revn-205-2025
5. After hearing, learned tribunal was pleased to reject the
application by order dated 30.04.2025, precisely which is challenged here
by filing instant revision application.
6. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Deshmukh for revisionist
apprised this court about above factual background and would point out
that, present applicant is Superintendent of CGST, has been falsely
implicated. That, he was arrested in above crime on 04.01.2023. On
applying for bail, he was duly released also by order dated 07.01.2023 by
learned Judge, Special Court (ACB) & Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar. Thereafter, application for discharge bearing Special Case
No.163 of 2023 was filed, but the same came to be rejected, which
according to learned Senior Counsel, is without proper consideration and
application of mind. That, in-fact, revisionist had never raised any
demand. He submitted that, learned trial court has failed to appreciate
the complete transcript allegedly relied by prosecution and selective
interpretation of part material has been made to implicate the applicant.
He further pointed out that, here, even sanction accorded was without
proper application of mind, and as such, sanction itself was invalid. That,
prosecution has not annexed electronic evidence certificate i.e. certificate
under section 65B of the Evidence Act, in support of alleged recording of
conversation.
Cri-Revn-205-2025
7. He further emphasized that, there was no material in the
charge-sheet to show that there was meeting of minds between both
accused so as to charge them for offence of criminal conspiracy. He
further pointed out that, in absence of credible and reliable material,
prosecution has been launched and accused is made to face ordeal of
trial. Therefore, applicant had invoked provisions under section 227 of
Cr.P.C. seeking discharge. That, the learned trial court was expected to
see that there was no prima facie material to make the applicant face
trial. It was a fit case for discharge, but because of improper analysis of
papers as well as non consideration of settled legal position, he urges that
the said order is required to be set aside.
In support of above contentions, learned Senior Counsel
seeks reliance on the following rulings :
(i) Sanjay S/o. Laxman Kholapurkar v. State of Maharashtra,
2021 All MR (Cri.) 3808;
(ii) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors,
MANU/SC/0595/2019;
(iii) State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Anup
Kumar Srivastava, MANU/SC/0955/2017;
(iv) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A. P., AIR 1979 SC 677.
8. In answer to above, learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri
Panale for respondent CBI would point out that there is sufficient and
Cri-Revn-205-2025
strong material suggesting demand of bribe. That, there is prompt
lodgment of report. He pointed out that, even CBI authorities had carried
out verification of demand. Only on due satisfaction about demand being
raised, FIR has been entertained. According to him, there is sufficient
material for accused to face the trial and it not being a fit case for
discharge, he finds no fault in the impugned order and ultimately urges
to dismiss the application for want of merits.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent
CBI seeks reliance on the following rulings :
(i) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Pramila Virendra
Kumar Agarwal and Anr., 2019 DGLS(SC) 1284;
(ii) Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation,
(2010) 9 SCC 368;
(iii) Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency,
(2019) 7 SCC 148;
(iv) State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R.
Soundirarasu etc. AIR 2022 SC 4218
9. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and proper
to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge application
under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly settled position
that, at such stage, Court dealing with such application is merely
expected to determine existence of prima facie material for proceeding to
frame charge and make accused persons face trial. Material gathered
Cri-Revn-205-2025
during investigation is expected to be sifted with limited purpose to find
out whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against accused.
Neither in-depth analysis nor meticulous analysis of evidence is expected
at such stage. Thus, the only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there
is prima facie material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for
the offences, which are alleged to be committed.
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4, and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others. (2014) 11
SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency (2019) 7 SCC
148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC
651.
10. Here, on going through the record or papers, it is emerging
that, a written complaint was received by CBI-ACB Pune at the instance
of One Yash Askhok Bora. The written complaint being a short, for easy
reference, is reproduced as under :
Cri-Revn-205-2025
"A written complaint dated 04.01.2023 has been received
from Shri Yash Ashok Bora, R/o. 305, Sai Sona Paradise,
Chanakya Chown, Burudgaon Road, Ahmednagar regarding
demand of undue advantage of Rs.1,000/- by Shri Vijay
Raut, Superintendent and Shri Murli Manohar, Inspector,
both of CGST, Range-l, Ahmednagar for processing his GST
Registration Application, applied through only GST portal.
Since electricity bill submitted by the complainant is in the
name of his father, Shri Vijay Raut, Supdt. demanded the
undue advantage and directed the complainant to hand over
the said amount of Rs.1,000/- to his junior Shri Murli
Manohar, Inspector threatening him that if he did not pay
the said amount, the verification process of his application
for GST registration would not be processed further.
The allegation mentioned in the complaint has been verified
in presence of independent witnesses. The verification has
disclosed the demand of undue advantage of Rs.1,000/- on
part of the aforesaid accused persons in conspiracy with each
other.
The aforesaid complaint and its verification prima facie
disclose commission of offence punishable under Section
120-B IPC r/w. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(as amended in 2018) against Shri Vijay Raut,
Superintendent and Shri Murli Manohar, Inspector, both of
CGST, Range-l, Ahmednagar. Hence, a Regular Case has
been registered and entrusted to Smt. Sheetal Shendge, PI,
CBI, ACB, Pune for investigation.
The complaint dated 04.01.2023 and Verification Report
Cri-Revn-205-2025
dated 04.01.2023 of the Verification Officer are enclosed
herewith."
11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent CBI has
pointed out that, informant Yash was interested in taking agency of oil
and as such, he had applied for GST registration via online portal. That
non-applicant, who is subordinate of present applicant namely, Murli
Manohar had made telephone call from his mobile. That, informant was
called to CGST office and there said Murli Manohar introduced informant
to present applicant, who was senior of Manohar and that some
objections were raised regarding electricity bill tendered by informant to
be standing in the name of his father and that for removing the said
objection, present applicant had himself directed informant to pay
Rs.1,000/- to subordinate Murli Manohar.
12. It is pointed out that, said conversation and receipt of said
call of mobile are duly verified by investigating machinery and as such
there is sufficient material.
13. The principle ground for seeking discharge is that there is no
material. However, on going through the papers and record before this
court, as stated above, both present applicant and non applicant Murli
Manohar are named by complainant specifically. Said Manohar is said to
be subordinate of present applicant. It is specific case of prosecution is
Cri-Revn-205-2025
that he was acting on and at the instance of present applicant, who is his
superior. Objections about non availability of certificate under section
65B as well as question of validity of sanction, are not required to be
gone into at this stage and said aspects can be dealt at the time of trial
itself.
14. At this stage, only this court is expected to see whether court
dealing with section 227 of Cr.P.C. is merely expected to ascertain
availability of prima facie material or existence of grave suspicion about
available material about involvement of question in any crime and only
on the basis of the same, the revision application can be decided here,
even this court finds availability of sufficient material. Aspect of
verification being done prior to FIR, has not been touched or refuted by
the learned Senior Counsel.
15. For above reasons, this court does not find any merit in the
revision and accordingly proceed to pass the following order :-
ORDER
The revision application stands dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
