Ashok Kumar Choudhary vs Central Bureau of Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Heard Shri Purnendu Chakravarti, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Saxena, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Aakash Prashad, Advocate and Sri Himanshu Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel representing respondent/Central Bureau Of Investigation and perused the records.

¶10

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 05.02.2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, CBI, Court No.4, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.36 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No.RC00662023A0030 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences and has summoned the petitioner to face the trial. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 28.12.2023 submitted by the CBI after conducting investigation in furtherance of the aforesaid F.I.R., along with all consequential proceedings.

¶11

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one Abhinav Chaubey, Proprietor- Nirmal Enterprises, gave a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB Lucknow stating that his firm had been awarded a tender for supply of transformers to North-Eastern

¶12

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

Railways, Gorakhpur and a purchase order dated 03.04.2023 was issued for supplying 32 transformers of 25 KV each. He had submitted a final bill through online mode on 31.10.2023 which was pending in the accounts section. The applicant Ashok Kumar Choudhary working in the accounts section was demanding Rs.32,000/- bribe through Jitendra. The complainant stated that the applicant had demanded bribe directly also through whatsapp calls made on 05.12.2023 and 07.12.2023 and had directed him to transfer the money to google pay account of co-accused Jitendra. Thereafter Jitendra has also made several phone calls/whatsapp calls demanding bribe for the applicant Ashok Kumar Choudhary.

¶15

After discreet verification of the complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged on 13.12.2023. A trap was set up. The complainant transferred Rs.7,000/- to the co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava through google pay. The co-accused Jitendra was arrested from his residence at about 7.30 p.m. on 14.12.2023 and the applicant was arrested at about 11.30 p.m. on the same date from the Irrigation Department's Guest House after calling him there from his office.

¶16

After investigation the CBI has submitted a charge-sheet dated 28.12.2012 and the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the offences by the impugned order dated 05.02.2024 nd has summoned the applicant to face the trial.

¶17

The C.B.I. has filed a counter affidavit opposing the application wherein it has inter alia been stated numerous telephone conversations have been recorded which established the demand of bribe made by the petitioner. It is only regarding a voice identification memo dated 21.12.2023 that the name of co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava has been typed inadvertently in place of the petitioner Ashok Kumar Choudhary. However, the rest of the However, the rest of the conversations have taken place between the complainant and the petitioner, the transcripts whereof have been annexed with the counter affidavit. The transcripts of conversations prima facie established demand of bribe made by the petitioner for processing the bills of the complainant.

¶18

Assailing the validity of the charge-sheet and the cognizance summoning order, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the requisite sanction for prosecution has not been taken as required by Section 17-A of

¶19

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings including carrying out investigation, submission of charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offences stand vitiated.

¶22

The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the bribe money has allegedly been demanded and received by the co-accused Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and not by the petitioner. Co-accused Jitendra is a freelancer working for several suppliers, including the complainant and he has acted as an authorized representative for the complainant also. He has further submitted that no money has been transferred or paid to the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from him.

¶23

Sri. Chakravarty has thirdly submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.12.2023 at 16.35 Hrs. whereas the petitioner had already processed the complainant's bill on 13.12.2023 at 09.18.28 Hrs. After having processed the bills the petitioner had no occasion to demand any bribe for passing the bill.

¶24

The fourth submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CBI has admitted in the counter affidavit that the telephonic conversation of the complainant has wrongly been referred to as a conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, whereas the conversation was in fact between the complainant and the coaccused Jitendra. Therefore, there is no material to connect the complainant with the commission of the alleged offence.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that although it is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had made phone calls on 05.12.2023 and 07.12.2023 to the complainant for demanding bribe, there is no material to establish this allegation.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State through CBI Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava : (2017) 15 SCC 560 and Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : (2023) 4 SCC 731.

¶27

In response to the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Aakash Prasad, the learned Counsel for the respondent – C.B.I. has drawn attention of the Court to the provision contained in Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as follows: -

¶28

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶29

4

¶30

" 17-A. Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties . - (1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval—

¶31

(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;

¶32

(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;

¶33

(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:

¶34

Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:

¶35

Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month."

¶36

Sri. Prasad has submitted that the petitioner was arrested during the trap proceedings, which shall be treated as an arrest made on the spot. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of CBI v. Santosh Karnani : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427, the contention raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court was that prior approval of investigating as mandated Section 17-A of Prevention of Corruption Act had not been obtained and therefore the proceedings initiated against the accused stood vitiated. The facts of the case were that the accused - respondent No. 1 had contacted the complainant on 29.09.2022 and told him to meet him on 03.10.2022. The complainant met him at the Income Tax Office where he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30 lakhs to help the complainant with a case. This conversation was recorded by the complainant on a Digital Voice Recorder which was handed over to the investigating authorities. The complainant was directed to deposit the amount in the account of one Vardhman in the Dhara Angadia Firm. The complainant lodged a complaint the next morning and a trap was then

¶37

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶38

5

¶39

laid. The complainant's employee was sent to with the bribe money amounting to Rs. 30 lakhs along with personnel from the ACB trap team. Upon depositing Rs. 30 lakhs with Dhara Angadia firm, the complainant contacted the accused through WhatsApp call which was recorded by the ACB team wherein he acknowledged payment of the amount. Immediately thereafter, one ACB team went to detain and arrest the accused, who along with some staff members, physically assaulted the ACB team and escaped from the office due to the ensuing chaos. While escaping from the office, the accused handed over his mobile phone to a colleague. Simultaneously, another ACB team recovered the bribe amount deposited with Dhara Angadia. Noting the aforesaid facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected this contention by holding as under: -

¶40

" 33 … Section 17A merely contemplates that police officers shall not conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority. The first proviso to the section states that such approval is not necessary in cases involving arrest of the person on the spot on the charges of accepting undue advantage.

¶41

34. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No. 1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi-judicial or administrative capacity."

¶42

CBI v. Santosh Karnani (supra) has been followed in the case of Surendra Dhariwal Vs. State of Rajasthana and another : Crl. Appeal Nos.3717-3718 of 2025, decided on 25.08.2025.

¶43

In CBI v. Santosh Karnani (supra), the accused could not be arrested at the spot during the trap and he had absconded, yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the investigation against a person accused of demanding a bribe does not require any previous approval of the Central Government. In the present case also, the

¶44

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶45

6

¶46

petitioner was not arrested on the spot but he was arrested as a part of the trap proceedings and he is accused of demanding bribe. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. Santosh Karnani (supra), the investigation against the petitioner did not require any previous sanction of the Government and the first submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings stand vitiated for want of prosecution sanction, has no force and the same is rejected.

¶47

In reply to the second submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for C.B.I. has submitted that Jitendra Kumar Srivastava used to work as a representative of the petitioner also. It has been established in investigation that he had demanded and received money under instructions and on behalf of the petitioner. I am of the view that whether Jitendra Kumar Srivastava had demanded and accepted the bribe money under instructions and on behalf of the petitioner, is a question of fact to be decided by the trial Court. This dispute cannot be gone into at this stage and at this stage, merely this much is sufficient that prima facie it has been established in investigation that Jitendra Kumar Srivastava had demanded and accepted the bribe money under instructions and on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the second submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is turned down.

¶48

While replying to the third submission of the learned Counsel, it is to be noted that it has been stated in the counter affidavit that the first pre-verification of the complaint was made on 12.12.2023 and the second pre-verification was made on 13.12.2023. Therefore, the complaint had already been filed prior to processing of the bills by the petitioner on 13.12.2023 and the submission that the petitioner had processed the bill prior to lodging of the complaint and he had no occasion to demand any bribe after processing the bill, is also without force.

¶49

Regarding the fourth submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CBI has admitted in the counter affidavit that the telephonic conversation of the complainant has wrongly been referred to as a conversation between the complainant and the petitioner, whereas the conversation was in fact between the complainant and the co-accused Jitendra, the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. has pointed out that this error has been committed in respect of one conversation only and there are recordings of other conversations

¶50

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶51

7

¶52

which prove demand of bribe by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not refute this reply given by the learned Counsel for the C.B.I. and the matter rests here.

¶53

In support of the last submission that there is no material to establish the allegation that the petitioner had made phone calls on 05.12.2023 and 07.12.2023 to the complainant for demanding bribe, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty has relied upon the judgment in the case of State through CBI Vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava : (2017) 15 SCC 560. In that case, the charge-sheet alleged that the respondent, who was posted as the Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I Commissionerate, along with other persons of the Department and with a private person Hemant Gandhi, had planned a fake raid at the premises of Mr Dilip Aggarwal and Anand Aggarwal in order to obtain illegal gratification. There were telephonic conversations showing that search was conducted with the sole motive of obtaining illegal gratification and the owners of the premises were pressurised to obtain illegal gratification and final settlement was arrived at for an amount of Rs 60 lakhs. The private person Hemant Gandhi is said to have informed telephonically about the recoveries during the search, success of the mission and the settlement of Rs 60 lakhs in a cryptic language by saying "mission successful" and "six zero" and the same was acknowledged by the respondent herein by saying "ok". T he words "mission successful" and "six zeroes" were used in the call between Mahender Kapoor and Hemant Gandhi. In the aforesaid factual background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -

¶54

" 31. ...it is not proved that they were talking about the same raid as they have used certain other cryptic codes as mentioned above which makes the call highly improbable for connecting the respondent herein in commissioning of the offence. Even otherwise, in Call No. 51, the benefit of doubt must go to the respondent herein where the language of the call is dubious and no logical understanding of the actual conversation can be drawn. Further, in the absence of any details with regard to the amount of "six zero", we are of the view that Call No. 48 categorically brings out that the respondent herein did not have any knowledge of the alleged criminal conspiracy and Call No. 51 is also unable to prove the complicity of the accused in the crime because of its out of the context conversation. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Calls Nos. 48 and 51, heavily relied upon by the prosecution, lack object and purpose to prove the complicity of the respondent herein in the crime."

¶55

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶56

8

¶57

The aforesaid judgment has been given keeping in view the peculiar facts where the telephonic conversations were cryptic and did not prove the demand of bribe, whereas the transcript of telephonic conversations in the present case clearly make out demand of bribe and, therefore, the case of Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case.

¶58

In Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : (2023) 4 SCC 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered numerous precedents and summarised the law as under: -

¶59

" 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.

¶60

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶61

88.3 (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶62

88.4 (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶63

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶64

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶65

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal

¶66

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶67

9

¶68

gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.

¶69

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and inturn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶70

88.5 (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

¶71

88.6 (f) In the event the complainant turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶72

88.7 (g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶73

88.8 (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."

¶74

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no evidence to even prima facie establish commission of alleged offence by the petitioner, is not correct and the ample

¶75

A482 No. 10203 of 2024

¶76

10

¶77

evidence has been connected with the counter affidavit in the shape of transcripts of the telephonic conversation of the complainant with the petitioner.

¶78

The material available make out a prima facie case for trial of the petitioner for the alleged offences. Since the correctness of the allegations made by the prosecution and defence taken by the petitioner is to be done by the learned trial court, this court is refraining from conducting a detailed scrutiny of allegations and counter allegations and only this much is sufficient to observe that the allegations and the material filed in support thereof with the counter affidavit clearly makes out a case for trial of the petitioner.

¶79

In view of the forgoing discussions, I find no force in the petition, which is dismissed accordingly. However, it is clarified that the trial Court will decide the case on merits without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶80

March 30, 2026 Ram.

¶81

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶82

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. Central Bureau of Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. Central Bureau of Investigation / Anti Corruption Bureau Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ar Landcraft Llp, Ltd. Liability Partnership Thru. Auth. Signatory vs U.P. Real Estate Applellate Tribunal Thru. Registrar Lko. and 2 Others

Smt. Preety Agarwal vs Tushar Agarwal

Omaxe Residency-Ii Resident Welfare Association Thru. Secy. Suneel Kumar Agnihotri vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Prince @ Ramu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Laden @ Mohd. Ali Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.