Allahabad High Court
Archit Sharma And Another vs Central Bureau Of Investigation / ... on 10 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SITTING AT LUCKNOW Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:56563 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 949 of 2025 Revisionist :- Archit Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation / A.C.B., Lucknow Counsel for Revisionist :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Honble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta Advocate, the learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent - Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have assailed the validity of an order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Learned Addl. District and Session Judge/Special Judge, CBI/PC Act - West, Lucknow in Session Trial No.1770 of 2022 arising out of RC 0062017A0027 registered on 30.11.2017 in Police Station - CBI/ACB, District- Lucknow under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against 13 persons, including the revisionists. By means of the impugned order, the revisionists application seeking discharge has been rejected.
3. The aforesaid case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged in Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow on 30.11.2017 in furtherance of a written complaint of the same date sent by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI to the Head of the branch CBI/ACB Lucknow alleging certain irregularities and malpractices committed in the matter of supply of Hard Drawn Grooved Copper (HDGC) contact wire, which is used as overhead power supply wire in railway electrification. A preliminary enquiry held in this regard revealed that HDGC contact wires can be supplied to the railways by RDSO approved firms only. RDSO grants approval after conducting prototype tests. The supplier firms were required to supply HDGC contact wire drawn out of Continuous Cast Copper (CCC) wire rods manufactured through Southwire Technology. Prior to 2012-13 the firms were allowed to supply HDGC contact wires through imported CCC wire rods only, but subsequently the specification was amended on 09.05.2012 and the supply of HDGC contact wire drawn through CCC wire rods manufactured by indigenous firms through Southwire Technology was also permitted.
4. The complaint states that M/s Sriram Cables Pvt. Ltd., M/s Om Sai Udyog Ltd. and M/s J.K. Cables had submitted invoices to Central Organization for Railway Electrification (CORE), for payment showing procurement of CCC wire rods through indigenous firms namely, HINDALCO and M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. The invoices for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 were randomly checked vis-a-vis the data provided by M/s HINDALCO and M/s HCL, which revealed that many forged and manipulated invoices having variation in dates were submitted by the said firms to CORE for payment of bills.
5. The complaint further states that the raw material, i.e., CCC Wire Rod and the finished product, i.e., HDGC contact wire, are checked by RITES and the material is supplied after it is approved by RITES. The supplier is required to submit the documents regarding procurement of raw material at the time of inspection. The documents were to be made a part of the inspection certificate issued by the officials of RITES. The officers of the finance department of CORE were supposed to make payments after checking the inspection certificate and receipted challan of the consignee.
6. The payments are made as per a Price Variation clause formula based on the prevailing price of copper at London Metal Exchange (LME). The price of copper is very volatile and changes on daily basis. Thus, the aforesaid firms by submitting forged and manipulated invoices having different dates knowingly and fraudulently received excess payment from CORE. The excess Payment claimed by M/s Om Sai Udyog is said to be Rs.2,84,30,403/-.
7. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted on 31.12.2021 against 13 persons, including the revisionists Archit Sharma and Ankit Sharma Directors of M/s Om Sai Udyog India Pvt. Ltd. 11 persons, including the officials of CORE and RITES, were not charge sheeted. The charge-sheet states that it is alleged in the FIR that officers of RITES, CORE and RDSO, acting in connivance with four private firms, namely, Chandra Metals, M/s Sairam Cables Pvt. Ltd., M/s J.K. Cables and M/s Om Sai Udyog, committed the offence in approval/allowing and passing of substandard Hard Drawn Grooved Copper Contact Wire (HDGC wire) supplied by these firms during the period 2005-06 to 2015-16.
8. The charge-sheet further states that all the four firms had submitted forged invoices to CORE, which were different from the invoices submitted by them to RITES. The firms had made manipulations in dates of invoices in order to claim higher amounts, as price of copper is volatile and changes on a daily basis. Some of the invoices submitted to CORE had actually been issued against supplies made to some other parties.
9. The charge-sheet states that M/s Om Sai Udyog Ltd. (of which the revisionists are directors) had supplied HDGC Contact wire drawn through indigenous CCC wire rods only. The firm had submitted bills of M/s HINDALCO to CORE. The invoices submitted by the firm to RITES during inspection and to CORE alongwith the bill were cross-checked during investigation by CBI which revealed that 28 invoices were issued in the names of firms other than Om Sai Udyog Ltd. Thus M/s Om Sai Udyog Ltd. had obtained payments from CORE on the basis of forged invoices.
10. Upon submission of the charge-sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences.
11. The discharge application of another supplier M/s Sriram Cables Pvt. Ltd. and its directors was also rejected by the trial Court and the rejection order has been affirmed by means of a judgment and order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 858 of 2025. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has submitted that he will confine his submissions only to the points which are different from the points already raised in the aforesaid matter and decided by this Court in the judgment and order dated 28.08.2025.
12. The discharge application has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the trial Court mentioning the allegations leveled against a co-accused M/s Chandra Metals.
13. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, Sri Sudeep Seth - the learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the trial Court has not applied its mind to the averments made in the discharge application of the revisionists which renders the impugned order liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded for being decided afresh.
14. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has referred to the statement of Ms. Ruchi Kukreja, Regional Manager North, HINDALCO recorded during investigation, wherein she has stated that invoices of M/s Om Sai Udyog, Sri Ram Cables, Chandra Metals Limited and J.K. Cables were provided through a letter dated 25.03.2019 and details of the invoices were annexed as Annexure No. 1 to her statement, wherein details of 354 invoices were asked by CBI, Lucknow, most of which pertain to Om Sai Udyog, India (of which the revisionists are the Directors). Similarly details of 198 invoices were mentioned in Annexure No. 2, most of which pertain to Sri Ram Metal, 372 invoices were mentioned in Annexure No. 3, most of which pertain to J.K. Cables and 451 invoices were mentioned in Annexure No. 4, most of which pertain to Chandra Metals Ltd. She further stated that Hindalco Industries issues invoices on receipt of purchase order/ payment from the customer. Material is dispatched to the customers from multiple depot locations or from the plant which is located at Dahej, Gujarat. A unique alphanumeric number is generated by the system for each dispatch. This invoice number for each dispatch is unique and it cannot be the same in case of any two supplies.
15. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that firstly, the annexure no. 1 mentioned in the statement of Ruchi Kukreja has not been provided to the revisionists and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted on the basis of a document which has not been provided to them. He has next submitted that as per the aforesaid statement, a unique alphanumeric number is generated by the system for each invoice and this number is unique for each dispatch and, therefore, no two invoices cannot be issued for the same dispatch.
16. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation is that the accused persons had caused a wrongful loss to the Railways in connivance with the officials of the Railways whereas the names of the officials find mention in Entry No.12 of the charge-sheet which contains particulars of the accused persons not charge-sheeted. He has submitted that the investigation could not establish commission of any offence by any official of Railways and, therefore, the revisionists cannot be tried for having committed any offence in connivance with the officials of Railways.
17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application seeking discharge on cogent reasons as at the stage of discharge, the Court is not required to see whether a case is made out for conviction of the accused persons or not rather the trial Court merely has to see that whether there is sufficient ground for trial of the accused persons or not and the trial court has rightly come to a conclusion that a case for trial of the accused persons is made out.
18. So far as the first submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists is concerned, this Court cannot go into this disputed question of fact while deciding this revision. It has to be presumed that the trial court has acted in accordance with law and has supplied all the relevant prosecution papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C. In case any document has erroneously been omitted to be supplied to the revisionists, it was open for it to have apply to the trial court demanding a copy of of that document.
19. So far as the submission that each invoice number contains a unique alphanumeric number, suffice it to say that the allegation against the accused persons is of having forged the invoices. What the witness has said is that no two genuine invoices can have the same alphanumeric authentication number but this statement does not mean that even a forged invoice cannot have the same alphanumeric number. Therefore, this submission does not make out a ground for discharge of the revisionists.
20. The trial court has committed an error in rejecting the discharge application by mentioning facts pertaining to M/s Chandra Metals. However, this error appears to have crept in because several accused persons have filed discharge applications before the trial court and it appears that while rejecting discharge applications of the firms, the facts have jumbled. Although the learned counsel for the revisionists has prayed that the order passed by the trial court should be set aside and the matter should be remanded for being decided afresh, as the entire material relevant for deciding the discharge application is available before this Court and this Court has already adjudicated upon the validity of orders rejecting discharge application of four co-accused persons-rejection of discharge by one of the co-accused persons Pramod Krishna Srivastava has been set aside by means of a judgment and order dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 826/2025 and the rejection of discharge of co-accused persons Sri Ram Cables Pvt. Ltd. and its directors Anil Garg and Sunil Garg has been upheld by means of a judgment and order dated 28.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 858/2025, instead of remanding the matters, this Court thinks it appropriate to examine the plea regarding discharge of the revisionists.
21. Having gone through the FIR and charge-sheet, it appears that the FIR categorically mentions that the revisionist No.1 had submitted different invoices of raw material to officials of RITES and to Officials of CORE along with the bills. Random checks conducted regarding excess payment of Rs. 2,84,30,403/-. to M/s Om Sai Udyog Ltd., of which the revisionists are directors, due to submission of forged invoices.
22. The allegations clearly make out commission of cognizable offences by the revisionists. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined at this stage while examining validity of an order rejecting discharge application of the revisionists. This exercise would be conducted by the trial Court after the parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective cases.
23. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists that the charge-sheet alleges that the offences have been committed in connivance with the officials of Railway whereas none of the officials of Railway has been charge-sheeted, suffice it to say that in case the charge-sheet makes out commission of an offence by an accused person, he may be tried for commission for the alleged offence. Merely because the charge-sheet alleges that the offence had been committed in connivance with some person and that other person has not been charge-sheeted, the charge-sheeted accused persons cannot seek their discharge on this ground as it is for the trial Court to examine whether the charge-sheeted accused person is guilty or not. Further, merely because a person named as an accused in the FIR, has not been charge-sheeted, it would not affect the powers of the trial Court to summon that accused person to face trial at the appropriate stage.
24. Therefore, mere non submission of the charge-sheet against certain co-accused person would not make out a case ground for discharge of the applicant, when the allegation make out a case of commission of offence by the revisionists.
25. The trial Court has rightly sifted the material produced and relied upon by the prosecution. While examining the correctness of the sifting done by the trial Court at this stage, this Court in exercise of its revisional power is not required to examine the material so meticulously, and it will be done by the trial Court after hearing the arguments after the entire evidence has been adduced. This Court is satisfied that the prosecution material supporting the allegations make out a strong suspicion against the revisionists and a case is made out for the revisionists to face trial. It is not open at this stage to weigh the pros and cons of the evidence without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the allegations at the appropriate stage by producing the evidence, after which the revisionists will have the opportunity to defend themselves.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting the discharge application, the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 is based on cogent reasons which warrant no interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
27. The revision lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. It is clarified that any observation made in this order will not affect the trial on its merits.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) Order Date: 10.09.2025
-Amit K-