CRL.RP/1547/2025 of SRI G K JALAN Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION on 21 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. This revision petition is filed against the order of rejection passed on the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. wherein prayer was sought for discharge of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The counsel appearing for the accused would contend that there are no materials at this stage to show that there was a demand on the part of the accused as the illegal gratification. But the Trial Judge has taken note of recovery of Rs.75,000/- from the possession of the accused which itself makes prima facie to proceed against him. The FSL report also

HC-KAR

has taken note of by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the same clearly discloses to proceed against the petitioner since when FSL report read along with other materials, the records make it very clear that there are sufficient materials so as to proceed against the accused. Though, it is contented by the learned counsel for the accused that when the tainted amount was recovered from the accused there was no work pending before him. But the said fact has to be appreciated only after full-fledged trial. In view of the fact that accused was the Principal Chief Engineer and he was having control over the entire tender process allotted the complainant. The Trial Court having taken note of all these materials with regard to the recovery as well as FSL report rejected the application.

4. The very contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this court that the Trial Judge has committed an error in rejecting the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and committed an error in coming to the conclusion that it is a case for trial. The reason assigned for rejection of the application is that no work was pending is a

HC-KAR

matter of trial and the same is erroneous. Apart from that the counsel would vehemently contend that the FSL report also not goes against the petitioner herein.

5. The counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that not only the tainted money of Rs.75,000/- was recovered from the accused but also the FSL report goes against him. Apart from that even the very trap was videographed. Thus, it is a matter of trial.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and particularly taking note of the reasons assigned in paragraph 30 by the Trial Court that the amount of Rs.75,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused and apart from that FSL report also goes against the petitioner and whether work was pending or not it is a matter of trial and all these factors can be considered only during the course of trial. At the time of considering the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, the court cannot conduct a mini trial. It is trite law that even if there is a strong suspicious circumstances, that itself is enough to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, the contentions raised by the counsel for the

HC-KAR

petitioner themselves cannot be accepted since the Trial Court while rejecting the application for discharge has given the reasoning particularly in paragraph 30 and also in paragraph 31 also taken note of material placed before the court i.e., FIR, complaint, entrustment mahazar, post-trap mahazar, statement of witnesses, FSL reports, conversation transcripts and comes to the conclusion that there are materials for trial and all these materials requires to be considered during the course of trial and the Trial Court cannot conduct a mini trial at the time of consideration of discharge application. Under such circumstances, there is no ground to set aside the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN