Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10063
Judgment Reserved on: 17.10.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 13.11.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024
Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma -- Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another -Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. U.K. Uniyal learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshit Sanwal,
Advocate for the Revisionist.
Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present Criminal Revision has been instituted under Sections
397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the revisionist, Dr. Tapan
Kumar Sharma, assailing the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Court of the
IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Prevention of
Corruption Act, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of
2023 titled State vs. Tapan Kumar Sharma and others.
2. By the said order, the learned Special Judge rejected the revisionist's
application seeking discharge and proceeded to frame charge under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against him.
3. Aggrieved by the rejection of discharge and framing of charge, the
revisionist has approached this Court contending that the impugned order suffers
from illegality and non-application of judicial mind, thereby warranting
interference in revisional jurisdiction.
1
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10063
4. The revisionist, Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma, at the relevant time, was
posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Deputy CMO) at Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar.
5. On the basis of a written complaint made by one Shri Rajendra Singh
Mehta, submitted to the office of the Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, an
FIR bearing Case Crime No. 03 of 2023 was registered under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. In the complaint, it was alleged that the revisionist had demanded an
undue monetary advantage (bribe) in connection with work-related payment
concerning the complainant's firm. Acting upon the complaint, the Vigilance
Establishment formed a trap team and prepared a trap memo/panchnama.
7. The complainant was provided with currency notes, the numbers of
which were recorded in the trap memo. It is also recorded that the trap team
equipped the complainant with a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) for recording the
trap proceedings.
8. The trap team, along with the complainant and a shadow witness,
proceeded to the designated location. The prosecution claims that during the trap
proceedings, money was recovered by the Vigilance Team, and on that basis, a
case was registered against the revisionist.
9. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the
Special Judge (P.C. Act). Along with the charge sheet, the prosecution also filed
the SFSL report relating to the DVR. As per the report, the DVR allegedly
containing the trap conversation was found to be "corrupted".
10. The revisionist filed an application for discharge, asserting that the
case records do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7
of the P.C. Act. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected the discharge
2
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10063
application on 20.11.2023, and on the same day, framed charge under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
11. The revisionist has now filed the present Criminal Revision,
contending that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the discharge application and
framing the charge.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. U.K. Uniyal, assisted by Mr. Harshit
Sanwal, argued that the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 rejecting the discharge
application and framing charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, has been passed without proper judicial application of mind. It was
submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case is absent, as the material
on record does not indicate any specific demand of illegal gratification by the
revisionist.
14. The learned counsel drew the Court's attention to the complainant's
statement and submitted that nowhere does the complainant attribute a clear and
conscious demand of bribe to the revisionist. According to the learned counsel, the
prosecution's own documents show that the due amount of ₹86,400/- had already
been released to the complainant's firm before the alleged trap, thereby negating
the existence of any motive or reason for the revisionist to demand money from the
complainant.
15. It was further argued that although a digital voice recorder (DVR) was
used in the trap proceedings, the SFSL report records that the DVR was corrupted
and no audio could be retrieved. Since the DVR recording would have been the
best electronic evidence of demand and acceptance, counsel claimed that its
absence weakens the State's case to the extent that no charge could have been
validly framed.
3
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10063
16. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the mandatory
requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which
mandates prior approval of the competent authority before any inquiry or
investigation relating to acts done in discharge of official duties was not complied
with.
17. Opposing the revision, learned A.G.A. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi,
submitted that the Trial Court has committed no illegality in rejecting the discharge
application. Learned counsel submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the
Court is not required to undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence or
determine whether the material will ultimately result in conviction. It is sufficient
if the material placed by the prosecution creates a prima facie case warranting trial.
18. The learned State counsel argued that recovery of currency notes
during the trap proceedings corroborates the allegation against the revisionist.
According to the State, the trap operation and recovery memo form sufficient basis
to proceed against the revisionist, and the question of whether demand was actually
made is a matter to be tested by evidence during trial.
19. With regard to the argument relating to non-availability of DVR
audio, it was submitted that even if electronic evidence is not available, the oral
testimony of trap witnesses is sufficient to justify framing of charge. The State
contended that the absence of DVR evidence is not fatal at this stage.
20. The learned State Counsel also submitted that Section 17A is not
attracted, as demand of illegal gratification does not fall within the scope of acts
done in discharge of official duties. Therefore, according to the State, no prior
approval was required before conducting the trap proceedings.
21. It was argued that revisional jurisdiction is narrow in scope and
cannot be exercised to re-appreciate evidence or to substitute the Trial Court's
findings merely because another view is possible. The State therefore prayed that
the revision be dismissed.
4
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10063
22. This Court proceeds to observe that the foundation of the State's case
rests on the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. However, from
a plain reading of the material produced along with the charge-sheet, there is no
direct evidence of any demand made by the revisionist from the complainant. The
statement of the complainant recorded during investigation does not specifically
attribute any demand of money to the revisionist. The alleged audio recording,
which could have been the best corroborative evidence, has been found to be
corrupted and unreadable as per the SFSL report, thereby leaving the prosecution
without any reliable primary evidence of demand or acceptance.
23. Further, it remains undisputed that the amount claimed by the
complainant towards his work had already been cleared and paid by the department
prior to the alleged trap operation. Once the payment stood disbursed, no occasion
existed for the revisionist to demand any further gratification. The element of
motive which forms the backdrop for demand thus stands negated on the face of
record.
24. The Court also notices that the State has not placed on record any
material to show compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 17-A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, which protects public servants from
investigation for acts done in discharge of official duty without prior approval of
the competent authority. The alleged acts of the revisionist, even as per the State's
case, were connected with his official functions, and therefore an inquiry
undertaken without such approval cannot be sustained.
24. It further emerges that during the trap proceedings, the person actually
caught with the tainted currency was one Mr. Anil Joshi, and not the present
revisionist. The only link sought to be established is an alleged telephonic call
between them, which too has neither been produced nor verified. Such indirect
inference, unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence, cannot justify framing
of charge under Section 7 of the Act, which requires clear proof of both demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification.
5
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10063
25. The learned Special Judge, while rejecting the discharge application,
has not undertaken any objective scrutiny of these aspects and has instead
proceeded to frame charge mechanically. The law is well settled that at the stage of
framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that the basic ingredients of the
offence exist on the record; mere suspicion, conjecture, or the existence of an
incomplete chain of events cannot substitute the legal requirement of establishing a
prima facie case.
26. In the present matter, neither demand nor acceptance is supported by
any admissible or credible material. The entire State's version, therefore, fails to
disclose the essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Continuation of proceedings in such circumstances
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
ORDER
Accordingly, the criminal revision is allowed.
The impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Haldwani, District Nainital, in Special
Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2023, is set aside.
Consequently, the revisionist Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma is discharged
from the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f
BINJOLA
21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00
E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2025.11.14 18:34:13 +05'30'
Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024- Dr. Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma v State of Uttarakhand and
Another.
Ashish Naithani J.
