Parsuram Sharma vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 22 August, 2025

Allahabad High Court

Parsuram Sharma vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation … on 22 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49399
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 824 of 2025
 
Court No. - 13
 
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Central Bureau Of Investigation for the State and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the validity of an order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (West), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lucknow in Session Case No.709 of 2023, rejecting an application for discharge filed by the applicant in the aforesaid case.

3. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR bearing No. RC2162022A0012 lodged on 10.09.2022 against four persons, including the applicant, two Companies and other unknown public servants and private persons, stating that an information had been received that co-accused Anil Kumar Singh, who was posted as a Resident Engineer (RE) of M/s Voyant Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was indulging in corrupt activities for showing favour to some Companies working in National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) projects. M/s Voyant Solutions Pvt. Ltd. had been appointed as a Consultant to provide supervision and consultancy Services by NHAI.

4. The FIR states that Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist) are directors of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Mohan Sharma was an employee of the said Company. On 02.08.2022, Bedram Sharma of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. had approached Anil Kumar Singh (RE) requesting for clearing the pending bills pertaining to certain works executed by his Company and in lieu of this, Anil Kumar Singh had demanded illegal gratification. It is alleged that Bedram Sharma directed Anand Mohan Sharma to assure Anil Kumar Singh, RE that he would get the demanded bribe which he arranged to be sent to Anand Mohan Sharma through Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist), another Director of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd.

5. After investigation, the C.B.I. submitted a charge-sheet dated 05.11.2022 against five persons, including the revisionist – Parsuram Sharma, his brother Bedram Sharma and his Company M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 03.10.2024. It is stated in the supplementary charge-sheet that during the course of search conducted at the premises of co-accused Anil Kumar Singh on 10.09.2022, Rs.57,00,000/- cash was recovered. A further cash amount of Rs.29,50,000/- was seized from the residential premises of Anil Kumar Singh at Patna. The cash was found in such circumstances, as would indicate that the cash had been acquired through the commission of the alleged offences. Further investigation had been conducted regarding the entries made in a diary recovered from the co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma and recovery of cash from the premises of Anil Kumar Singh and certain other issues which had cropped up during investigation. The diary seized from the residential premises of co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma indicated regular transfer of funds from Anand Mohan Sharma to Bedram Sharma and these amounts were used for payment to a number of officials of NHAI, M/s Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its consortium partners. The entries made in the diary established that Anand Mohan Sharma had received Rs.90,15,000/- from co-accused Bedram Sharma. The revisionist had called co-accused Vijendra at 21:36:30 hours on 10.09.2022 and had asked him to remove the computer system and cash from the office.

6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Shree Prakash Pathak, General Manager, NHAI, who identified the voice of the revisionist Parsuran Sharma in a phone call made by the applicant to this witness, although this conversation was not related to the offence in question.

7. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Amit Kumar Gupta, who stated that he knows Parsuram Sharma of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. (the revisionist), who is engaged in construction of National Highways for which the witness was supplying construction material. He stated that Mohit Sharma had come to his shop on 05/06.09.2022 and had handed him over a cloth bag containing Rs.15,00,000/- and had asked him to keep the money safely. He had received a phone call from the revisionist Parsuram Sharma on 10.09.2022 at about 12:31:36 hours asking him to arrange Rs.25,00,000/- and to handover the amount to Mohit Sharma. He stated that he had told the revisionist that he would arrange the amount but he could not arrange this amount and the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- kept by him as given by Mohit Sharma was handed over to Mohit Sharma on 10.09.2022. He stated that Parsuram Sharma had kept the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with him due to safety reasons because the Company’s Office is situated in a Forest area.

8. The revisionist sought his discharge by the trial Court on the ground that the aforesaid evidence does not make out a case of his trial for commission of any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court rejected the discharge application on the ground that from the recorded conversation available on the record, it is clear that on the direction of Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma, co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma had handed over Rs.15 Lakhs to co-accused Anil Kumar Singh. A number of conversations between Bedram Sharma and Anil Kumar Singh are available on record, which establish that Anil Kumar Singh was demanding illegal gratification from Bedram Shama. Hence, the accused persons Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma are actively involved in commission of the offence.

9. The trial Court referred to the judgments in the cases of Ishar Singh v. State of A.P.: AIR (2004) SC 3030, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander: (2012) 9 SCC 460-468, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh: (1977) 4 SCC 39, State of Delhi vs. Gyan Din: 2001 (42) ACC 39, Madhya Pradesh vs. SB Johri JT: 2000 (1) Supreme Court 169, Shanghvi Brothers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sanjay Chowdhary: (2008) 10 SCC 681, Rakesh vs. State of UP: 2009 (67) ACC 191 Allahabad, Bhavna Bai vs. Ghanshyam & Others: (2020) 2 ACCC 217, MP State vs. Mohanlal Soni: (2000) 6 ACCC 338, State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: (2011) 11 SCC 191 and Prabhunath Yadav vs. State of UP: 2008 (60) ACC 59 HCDB.

10. The C.B.I. has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith transcripts of conversation between the accused persons. There was some conversation between the revisionist and Amit Gupta regarding some transactions, although the conversation is not in explicit terms.

11. A copy of the recovery-cum-seizure memo dated 10.09.2022 has been annexed with the counter affidavit wherein it is mentioned that Anand Mohan Sharma confessed that he had delivered an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- provided to him by Suresh Sharma on behalf of Bedram Sharma of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd., who had directed him to handover Rs.15,00,000/- to Anil Kumar Singh. Anil Kumar Singh confessed that Anand Mohan Sharma had handed over Rs.15,00,000/- cash to him out of which he had returned Rs.1,00,000/- to Anand Mohan Sharma for his use. A total of Rs.57 Lakhs was recovered from the house of Anil Kumar Singh and he could not give any satisfactory reply regarding the cash found in his house.

12. The transcript of another telephonic conversation that took place between revisionist and Bijender, an employee of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Construction, on 10.09.2022 at about 09:29 PM (shortly after the trap conducted at 08:40 PM), has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-4 in which the revisionist had instructed for removal of computer system and any cash present in the office of the Company.

13. The revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit and copies of numerous telephonic conversations have been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit also. A conversation that took place between co-accused Bedram Sharma and Anand Mohan Sharma contains references to some payments to be made by the revisionist with reference to Residential Engineer (RE) and efforts being made for early clearance of bills. Another conversation between the revisionist and Amit Gupta has also been annexed with the rejoinder affidavit which contains reference for handing over some amount, though the conversation was not very explicit. A conversation between the revisionist and Shree Prakash has been annexed, from which Shree Prakash has identified the voice of the revisionist.

14. Assailing validity of the impugned order rejecting the discharge application, Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the entire evidence does not contain anything to establish that the applicant had paid for bribe or any other illegal gratification to any public servant. He has relied upon the judgments in the case of Baliya @ Bal Kishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2012) 9 SCC 696, Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat; (2019) 16 SCC 54 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); (2023) 4 SCC 471.

15. In Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat; (2019) 16 SCC 54, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“23. At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the principles which have been laid down by this Court, what the court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office. The court must indeed sift the material before it. The material to be sifted would be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting is not to be meticulous in the sense that the court dons the mantle of the trial Judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion suffices. However, a strong suspicion must be founded on some material. The material must be such as can be translated into evidence at the stage of trial. The strong suspicion cannot be the pure subjective satisfaction based on the moral notions of the Judge that here is a case where it is possible that the accused has committed the offence. Strong suspicion must be the suspicion which is premised on some material which commends itself to the court as sufficient to entertain the prima facie view that the accused has committed the offence”

16. In Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“at the initial stage considering the discharge application, the Court has to only prima facie, consider the material on record and if a strong suspicion arises from the materials produced; that the accused has committed an offence, then there can be no sufficient ground for discharge. Immediately, we have to notice that this is not the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, but only the prima facie satisfaction, based on the materials available with the Court at the initial stage so as to not appropriately discharge the accused, but proceed to examine the evidence in a full-fledged trial?.”

However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discharged the appellant as there was no material regarding even an accusation against the appellant, as to the demand of bribe. The allegation initially was only against the first accused who was the Minister of State in the Government of Gujarat. There was an allegation that the complainant had delayed the initiation of prosecution, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court found to be not valid keeping in view the facts of the case. The complainant had not made any allegation against the appellant Minister, nor did the statement recorded at the pre-evidence stage before the Special Judge raise such an allegation. The allegation was only that the Minister of State had granted the rights on an upset price, without following the Government Policy of 2004, thus causing loss to the State exchequer, running to crores of rupees. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only charge was with respect to misuse of authority which did not come under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and none of the ingredients regarding demand or obtaining or acceptance of bribe or any illegal gratification had come out. The investigation report spoke only of an allegation of misuse of authority, without any allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe as against the appellant. This order was passed keeping in view the aforesaid peculiar facts of the case.

17. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi); (2023) 4 SCC 731, the following question had been referred to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: –

‘The question whether in the absence of evidence of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification, is it not permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.’

18. The larger Bench framed questions to be decided as follows: –

“3.Thus, the moot question that arises for answering the reference is, in the absence of the complainant letting in direct evidence of demand owing to the non-availability of the complainant or owing to his death or other reason, whether the demand for illegal gratification could be established by other evidence. This is because in the absence of proof of demand, a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) would not arise. Thus, the proof of demand is asine qua nonfor an offence to be established under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and dehors the proof of demand the offence under the two sections cannot be brought home. Thus, mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof in the absence of proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. Hence, the pertinent question is, as to how demand could be proved in the absence of any direct evidence being let in by the complainant owing to the complainant not supporting the complaint or turning “hostile” or the complainant not being available on account of his death or for any other reason. In this regard, it is necessary to discuss the relevant Sections of the Evidence Act before answering the question for reference.”

19. While answering the question, the larger Bench held that: –

“71. As already noted, all evidence let in before the court of law is classified either as direct or circumstantial evidence. “Direct evidence” means when the principal fact is attested directly by witnesses, things or documents. For all other forms, the term “circumstantial evidence” which is “indirect evidence” is referred, whether by witnesses, things or documents, which can be received as evidence. This is also of two kinds, namely, conclusive and presumptive. Conclusive is when the connection between the principal and evidentiary facts the factum probandum and factum probans is a necessary consequence of the laws of nature; “presumptive” is when the inference of the principal fact from the evidence is only probable, whatever be the degree of persuasion which it may generate (Best, 11th Edn., Section 293). Thus, circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances as opposed to what is called direct evidence. The prosecution must take place and prove all necessary circumstances constituting a complete chain without a snap and pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one had committed the offence vide Navaneethakrishnan v. State (“Navaneethakrishnan”).

72. The principal fact can be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from its existence or its connection with other circumstantial evidence. It is often said that witnesses may lie but not the circumstances. However, the court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. Inference of guilt can be drawn only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of an accused. In other words, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that, taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed.”

20. The question of interference at the stage of discharge was not considered by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (Supra) and, Therefore, this judgment is not relevant at this stage while this Court is examining the validity of the order rejecting the discharge application.

21. In Baliya @ Bal Kishan v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2012) 9 SCC 696, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: –

“15.The offence of “criminal conspiracy” is defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code whereas Section 120-B of the Code provides for punishment for the said offence. The foundation of the offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to cooperate for the accomplishment/ performance of an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by itself, through illegal means. Such agreement or meeting of minds create the offence of criminal conspiracy and regardless of proof or otherwise of the main offence to commit which the conspiracy may have been hatched, once the unlawful combination of minds is complete, the offence of criminal conspiracy stands committed. More often than not direct evidence of the offence of criminal conspiracy will not be forthcoming and proof of such an offence has to be determined by a process of inference from the established circumstances of a given case.

* * *

17. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence or to achieve a lawful object through unlawful means. Such a conspiracy would rarely be hatched in the open and, therefore, direct evidence to establish the same may not be always forthcoming. Proof or otherwise of such conspiracy is a matter of inference and the court in drawing such an inference must consider whether the basic facts i.e. circumstances from which the inference is to be drawn have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and thereafter, whether from such proved and established circumstances no other conclusion except that the accused had agreed to commit an offence can be drawn. Naturally, in evaluating the proved circumstances for the purposes of drawing any inference adverse to the accused, the benefit of any doubt that may creep in must go to the accused.”

(Emphasis added)

22. Per contra, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for C.B.I. has submitted that while deciding an application seeking discharge as well as while examining the validity of the order rejecting the discharge application, the Court is not required to arrive at a satisfaction that there is sufficient material for conviction of the persons seeking discharge. What the Court is required to examine is whether there is sufficient material for trial of the accused persons for the offences alleged. He has submitted that the material collected during investigation and referred to above is sufficient for trial of the revisionist for offences under Section 120-B IPC r/w Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

23. In the present case, the FIR states that Bedram Sharma and Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist) are directors of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Anand Mohan Sharma was an employee of the said Company. Bedram Sharma had approached Anil Kumar Singh (RE) for clearing the pending bills pertaining to certain works executed by M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. and in lieu of this, the latter had demanded illegal gratification. It is alleged that Bedram Sharma directed Anand Mohan Sharma to assure Anil Kumar Singh, RE that he would get the demanded bribe which he arranged to be sent to Anand Mohan Sharma through Parsuram Sharma (the revisionist), another Director of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. The supplementary charge-sheet states that a diary recovered from the co-accused Anand Mohan Sharma indicated regular transfer of funds from Anand Mohan Sharma to Bedram Sharma and these amounts were used for payment to a number of officials of NHAI, M/s Voyants Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its consortium partners. The entries made in the diary established that Anand Mohan Sharma had received Rs.90,15,000/- from co-accused Bedram Sharma. The revisionist had called co-accused Vijendra at 21:36:30 hours on 10.09.2022 and had asked him to remove the computer system and cash from the office. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Amit Kumar Gupta, who stated that he knows Parsuram Sharma of M/s SRSC Pvt. Ltd. (the revisionist). He stated that Mohit Sharma had come to his shop on 05/06.09.2022 and had handed him over Rs.15,00,000/- and had asked him to keep the money safely. He had received a phone call from the revisionist Parsuram Sharma on 10.09.2022 at about 12:31:36 hours asking him to arrange Rs.25,00,000/- and to handover the amount to Mohit Sharma. From the aforesaid material, prima facie it appears that the applicant was a Director of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. which company had paid bribes for obtaining undue advantages. The applicant being a Director of the company, is responsible for its transactions. He has been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy for commission of the offences by the company and its other director Bedram Sharma ? brother of the revisionist. The transcript of another telephonic conversation that took place between revisionist and Bijender, an employee of M/s SRSC Infra Pvt. Ltd. Construction, on 10.09.2022 at about 09:29 PM (shortly after the trap conducted at 08:40 PM), has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-4 in which the revisionist had instructed for removal of computer system and any cash present in the office of the Company.

24. I am of the considered view that the aforesaid material is sufficient for trial of the applicant and there need not be any direct evidence of the revisionist’s involvement in criminal conspiracy for commission of the offences involved in the case. There is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. (West), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lucknow

25. The instant revision lacks merits and the same is dismissed. It is clarified that any observation made in this order will not affect the merits of the case.

August 22, 2025

-Amit K-