Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

I.A. No. 2 of 2025 - Application under Section 389 Cr.P.C./430 BNSS for stay on conviction against the judgement dated 08.04.2025 and order dated 10.04.2025 in Criminal Case No.12/09

¶11

Heard Sri Wali Nawaz Khan, holding brief of Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the application under Section 430 of B.N.S.S., and the corresponding old Section 389 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Instant criminal appeal, under Section 415 (2) B.N.S.S /corresponding to old Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08/04/2025 and 10/04/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge P.C. Act, Court No. 8, Lucknow in Criminal Case Number 12 of 2009, State versus Brijesh Kumar Singh, arising out of Crime Number 4193 of 2009, under Section 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Lucknow, District Unnao, whereby the appellant was sentenced to 4 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs10,000 for the alleged offense under Section 7 P.C. Act and to further undergo an additional simple imprisonment of three months for default of stipulation. The appellant was also sentenced to 4 years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the alleged offence under Section 13(2) P.C. Act, and to further undergo an additional simple imprisonment of 3 months for default of stipulation. All the

¶13

CRLA No. 1204 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

sentences shall run concurrently.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter relates to under Section 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Kotwali District Lucknow, District Unnao.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Applicant was convicted on the basis of the perverse Judgment, dated 08.04.2025 and Order, dated 10.04.2025, in Criminal Case No. 12/09, passed by Learned Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No.-08, Lucknow on behalf of the Applicant, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment of above-mentioned fine, the Appellant has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of 3 months; under Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act the Appellant has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of above-mentioned fine, the Appellant has been directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

¶18

He next submitted that the Applicant is already enlarged on bail during the pendency of the aforenoted appeal vide order, dated 10.09.2025.

¶19

He further submitted that in the instant case an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 4193 of 2009, at Police Station-Kotwali, District- Unnao has been registered on the false and baseless allegations.

¶20

He further submitted that the trap proceedings were initiated in the house of the complainant, however the proceedings were concluded in the Police Station, which creates serious doubt over the genuineness of the trap proceedings.

¶21

He further submitted that the Complainant has failed to prove the demand of illegal consideration by the Appellant/Applicant which is

¶22

CRLA No. 1204 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

essential for convicting the person under Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶25

He further submitted that it is a settled position of law that there is no presumption of corruption due to misuse of Authority if Prosecution fails to prove proof of demand and acceptance of bribe which is missing in the instant case.

¶26

He further submitted that PW-3, Retired Teacher Shiv Shankar Shukla has given a different version from the PW-1 and PW-2 for the way and manner in which the bribe was given to the Applicant and the way he accepted it as he ahs stated that currency was given to him after taking out from the envelope which is contradictory to the version of the Complainant.

¶27

He further submitted that PW-3 has stated in his testimony before the Learned Trial Court that complainant was unaware of the name of the Appellant and his name was written in the complaint solely due to the reason when the Police Authorities asked to write name of the alleged accused.

¶28

He further submitted that the Complainant in his cross examination has categorically stated that for release of his pension he never met any officials or authorities in the department.

¶29

He further submitted that the sanction which is essential for initiation of any proceedings under the PC Act is illegal and in teeth of the statutory requirement as the Sanctioning Authority has stated that no material was placed before him to apply his independent mind for the purpose of granting sanction. It is not out of place to mention that it is a trite law that if the foundation goes, the rest of the edifice also goes away. The relevant portion of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Coal India v. Ananta Saha (2011) 5 SCC 142 is reproduced herein below:

¶30

32. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim

¶31

CRLA No. 1204 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

sublato fundamento cadit opus is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.

¶34

Per contra, the learned AGA has submitted that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as a public servant. Therefore, on the facts of the case, the conviction is not liable to be stayed. However, he raised no objection to the suspension of sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the same may be granted. The appellant has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶35

Accordingly, the application for suspension of conviction and sentence is disposed of with the direction that the execution of the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court in the instant case shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

¶36

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶37

February 6, 2026 KR

¶38

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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

Saurabh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranjeet Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Gautam Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mani Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohmmad Yasir Arfat Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others