Allahabad High Court
Pramod Krishne Srivastava vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. ... on 21 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH In The Honble High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Sitting at Lucknow * * * Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49596 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 826 of 2025 Revisionist :- Pramod Krishne Srivastava Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru. Branch Head Lucknow And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Abhishek Misra,Shivam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Honble Subhash Vidyarthi J.
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 442/438 B.N.S.S./Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the validity of an order dated 31.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge C.B.I. (W), Lucknow in Sessions Case No.1770 of 2022, arising out of RC No.0062017A0027, under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, whereby the revisionists application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 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 irregularities and malpractices committed in the matter of supply of Hard Drawn Grooved Copper contact wire (HDGC), 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 Caste 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 further states that a firm named M/s Chandra Metals had obtained approval from RDSO for supply of HDGC contact wire to railways drawn through CCC wire rods imported from certain firms by falsely submitting that those firms were licensee of Southwire Technology and manufacturer of CCC wire rod through Southwire Technology whereas the firms were neither Southwire licensee nor manufacturer of CCC wire rod through Southwire Technology. After 2012-13 M/s Chandra Metals had shown procurement of CCC wire rods from indigenous firm M/s Hindalco Limited. Random checking of invoices for the period 2012-13 to 2015-16 from M/s Hindalco Limited had revealed submission of several non-genuine invoices by M/s Chandra Metals with their bills to CORE (Central Organization for Railway Electrification). Certain firms had submitted invoices to CORE for payment showing procurement of CCC wire rods to indigenous firm M/s Hindalco Limited and M/s Hindustan Copper Limited but several invoices were found to be forged and manipulated having variation in dates and other details. The Officers of the Finance Department of CORE were to make payments after checking the inspection certificate and receipted challans of the consignee. The payments were to be made as per a price variation clause formula based on the prevailing price of the copper at London Metal Exchange (LME). The price of copper is very volatile and changes on daily basis. The firms submitted forged and manipulated invoices having different dates knowingly and fraudulently and received excess payment from CORE to the tune of Rs.7,76,21,578/-. Engineers/officials of RITES had conducted inspection of the material in which aforesaid excess payment was discovered. It was the responsibility of the inspecting engineers to send the purchasers copy of the inspection certificate to CORE but they did not ensure dispatching the purchasers copy of inspection certificate after making the invoices a part of the same and rather submitted the same to their office with case papers. The bills for aforesaid excess payments were submitted by the suppliers to CORE along with forged manipulated and changed invoices which were checked by the Senior Section Officer (Accounts), CORE and passed by A.K.L. Srivastava, the then Senior AFA Core.
5. The complaint also states that two samples of HDGC contact wire supplied by M/s Chandra Metals and one sample of HDGC contact wire supplied by M/s Om Sai Udyog Limited were randomly sent for examination to IIT Kanpur and the samples failed on most of the parameters provided in the specifications of RDSO. It shows that the samples were wrongly passed by RITES Officials.
6. The complaint further states that two lists of suppliers i.e. Part-A and Part-B were maintained by RDSO for supply of HDGC contact wires. Any supplier was first listed in Part-B and could participate in the procurement process for 15% of the required quantity only, whereas a Part-A supplier could participate and execute supply of 85% of the required quantity.
7. The revisionist was posted as Director General, RDSO and he ordered to maintain only one list of suppliers for HDGC contact wire. The complaint alleges that due to this decision of the revisionist, undue advantage was gained by M/s Chandra Metals as it was not required to be enlisted first as Part-B supplier on restoration of firms status for supply against imported raw material.
8. After investigation, the CBI had submitted a charge-sheet dated 31.12.2021 against 13 persons (including some companies), including the revisionist. It states that M/s Chandra Metals Limited had wrongly obtained approval from RDSO by misrepresenting the facts and submitting false documents to the effect that M/s MMD Europa, Italy and M/s Kentucky Copper, USA are manufacturers of CCC wire rods with Southwire Technology. M/s Chandra Metals had been delisted for one year for this misconduct. M/s Chandra Metals had submitted an appeal against the order of delisting for one year, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority - ADG RDSO, on the ground that the delisting is correct as the vendor list is for HDGC contact wire and approval is given by RDSO for the end product and not on the basis of raw material utilized for manufacturing the same.
9. On 07.04.2014 M/s Chandra Metals wrote a letter to the Director General, RDSO (which position was held by the revisionist at the relevant point of time) for its reinstatement for supply of HDGC contact wire drawn out of indigenous raw material. The appellant marked the said letter to TI Directorate of RDSO.
10. On 17/18.04.2014, the then Member Electrical, Railway Board along with other officers of Railway Board visited RDSO. Thereafter, M/s Chandra Metals sent another letter dated 26.04.2014 to DG, RDSO for its reinstatement as approved vendor for supply of HDGC contact wire through indigenous source. The revisionist handed over this letter to Sri J.N. Lal, Senior ED TI RDSO directing him to put up a note regarding the letter in light of the discussion held with the Member, Electrical and other officials of Railway Board. Sri Lal put up a note for separating the vendors list as per source of the raw material i.e. indigenous and imported. Sri J.N. Lal, Senior ED TI sent a letter dated 23.05.2014, with the approval of the revisionist, to the Railway Board for changes in the vendor directory on the basis of raw material. The Railway Board sent a letter dated 01.07.2014 to the DG, RDSO stating that he was the competent authority to take a decision in the matter of deviation from directives. Thereafter, another note was put up for reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals and the revisionist passed an order dated 04.07.2014 on the note-sheet seeking certain clarifications regarding the past performance of M/s Chandra Metals. After obtaining clarifications from TI Directorate, the revisionist passed an order dated 13.08.2014 approving the reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals as Part-I source since the date of approval of prototype test and ordered to obtain approval from Member, Electrical, Railway Board. The Railway Board again conveyed that further action as deemed fit may be taken by the RDSO in light of the clarification issued by the Boards letter dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter, the ED TI issued a letter dated 22.09.2014 under directions of the revisionist restoring M/s Chandra Metals in the approved vendor list for indigenous sources.
11. The charge-sheet mentions that Sri Jagdev Kalia, the then General Manager, CORE had written a letter dated 19.01.2024 to the then DG RDSO Sri V. Ramchandran requesting for delisting of firms on the basis of raw material utilized by them in production of HGDC contact wire in respect of M/s Chandra Metals. It was mentioned in the said letter that delisting of M/s Chandra Metals would lead to failure in achieving the targets. Sri Jagdev Kalia later stated during investigation that this letter had been written by him under pressure for achieving the targets. He further stated that the revisionist should have taken decision as per the prevailing rules. The charge-sheet further states that M/s Chandra Metals was reinstated four months earlier than the stipulated completion of the delistment period and was given supply work of raw material worth Rs.15,92,70,096.75. There was no provision of appeal after rejection of appeal by ADG RDSO yet the revisionist entertained the representation of the firm and accepted the same by misusing his official position, reinstated the firm and caused wrongful gain to it, for which he is liable for prosecution.
12. The revisionist filed an application before the learned trial court seeking his discharge stating that no case for his trial is made out from the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet.
13. The discharge application has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 holding that the prosecution case prima facie indicates involvement of the revisionist in a criminal conspiracy for committing the offence and there was no good ground for discharging him. The trial court referred to the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Esher Singh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: AIR 2004 SC 3030, Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander: (2012) 9 SCC 460, State of Delhi Vs. Gyan Devi: AIR 2001 SC 40, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.B. Jans: J.T. (2000) 1, Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary: (2008) 10 SCC 681, Rakesh Vs. State of U.P.: (2009) (67) 191, Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and others: (2020) 2 SCC 217, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mohanlal Soni: (2000) 6 SCC 338, State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: (2011) 11 SCC 191 and Prabhu Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P.: 2008 (60) SC 59 (though some of the citations appear to be wrongly mentioned in the order of the trial Court).
14. The respondent-CBI has filed a counter affidavit opposing the revision stating that the revisionist had wrongfully reinstated M/s Chandra Metals enabling it to make supplies to CORE thereby gaining undue advantage and the revisionist is liable to be prosecuted for the alleged offences.
15. The revisionist has filed a rejoinder affidavit refuting the averments made in the counter affidavit.
16. Assailing the validity of the impugned order, Sri. Satyendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the only allegation against the revisionist is of having curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals by four months. M/s Chandra Metals had made supplies to CORE and not to RDSO. The RDSO was not instrumental in either issuing the supply order or checking the quality/quantity of the material supplied or making/approving payments to the firms for the supplies made to CORE. The revisionist had curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals in furtherance of the request made by General Manager, CORE through his letter dated 19.01.2014, whereas the revisionist got posted as DG RDSO on 28.03.2014, much after the request made by the General Manager, CORE for relisting M/s Chandra Metals. The revisionist had put up the request before the Railway Board and the Railway Board had ordered that the revisionist was competent to take a decision in this regard and accordingly the revisionist took the decision. The revisionist had retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and no disciplinary action has been taken against him alleging that the revisionist has committed any error or illegality in taking the aforesaid decision in performance of his official duties. Therefore, the passing of the aforesaid order by the revisionist in performance of his official duties does not make out commission of any offence and the revisionist is not liable to be prosecuted for passing the aforesaid order in performance of his official duties. He has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat: (2019) 16 SCC 547, Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.: (2022) 16 SCC 166 and C. Surendranath v. State of Kerala: 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 210.
17. Per Contra, Sri. Anurag Singh, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments in the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: (2021) 11 SCC 191, Sanghi Bros. (Indore) (P) Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary: (2008) 10 SCC 681, State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa: (1996) 4 SCC 659,
18. In Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat: (2019) 16 SCC 547, the Honble 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.
(Emphasis added)
20. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa: (1996) 4 SCC 659, the Honble Supreme Court held that: -
32.if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accusedmight havecommitted the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accusedhascommitted the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.
21. The above principle was followed in Sanghi Bros. (Indore) (P) Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary (Supra).
22. In State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: (2021) 11 SCC 191, the Honble Supreme Court held that: -
11.1.at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 CrPC, if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
23. Thus it is clear that while considering an application for discharge the court has to see whether a case of trial of the accused is made out from the material collected by the prosecution during investigation. The only allegation against the applicant is of having ordered reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals in the list of suppliers and of having curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals by four months. M/s Chandra Metals had made supplies to CORE and not to RDSO. RDSO was not instrumental in either issuing the supply orders or checking the quality/quantity of the material supplied or making/approving payments to the firms for the supplies made to CORE. The revisionist had curtailed the period of delisting of the firm M/s Chandra Metals in furtherance of the request made by General Manager, CORE through his letter dated 19.01.2014, whereas the revisionist got posted as DG RDSO on 28.03.2014, i.e., much after the request made by the General Manager, CORE for relisting M/s Chandra Metals. The revisionist had put up the request before the Railway Board and the Railway Board had ordered that the revisionist was competent to take a decision in this regard and accordingly the revisionist took the decision.
24. The revisionist had retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and no disciplinary action has been taken against him alleging that the revisionist has committed any error or illegality in taking the aforesaid decision in performance of his official duties. Therefore, the passing of the aforesaid order by the revisionist in performance of his official duties does not make out commission of any offence and the revisionist is not liable to be prosecuted for passing the aforesaid order in performance of his official duties.
25. In C. Surendranath v. State of Kerala: 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 210, it was held that: -
20.A reading of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act would reveal that a public servant can be prosecuted only if he has abused his position as a public servant and obtained for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The intention of the legislation is not to punish a public servant for erroneous decision, but to punish for corruption. To fall within the four corners of sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the PC Act, the decision/conduct of the public servant must be dishonest, amounting to corruption.
21.To attract the term abuse as contained in Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution has to establish that the official concerned used his position for something it is not intended. The sum and substance of the discussion is that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
27.Dishonest intention issine qua nonto attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant.
30.Dishonest intention is the crux of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The question of whether violation of the rules and departmental norms would amount to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was considered by the Apex Court inC.K. Jaffer Shariefv.State[(2013) 1 SCC 205]. The Apex Court held thus:
If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant.
31.InM. Narayanan Nambiarv.State of Kerala(AIR 1963 SC 1116), while dealing with Section 5 of the 1947 Act, the Apex Court held that dishonest intention is the gist of the offence.
32.In the present case, the prosecution records reveal only a violation of the rules and departmental norms or procedural norms for the tender process. The prosecution failed to produce any material to show that the petitioners, with dishonest intention, committed any acts.
19. There is no allegation that the revisionist has obtained or received any illegal gratification for passing the order in question regarding curtailment of the delisting period of Ms Chandra Metal. In Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 441, the Honble Supreme Court held that: -
22.The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is that, if there is a demand and acceptance of bribe, then there is a presumption that it is to dishonestly carry out some activity by a public servant, for which, first, proof will have to be offered of the demand and acceptance. It is not otherwise that, if there is a misuse of authority then there is always a presumption of a demand and acceptance of bribe, resulting in a valid allegation of corruption.
26. The revisionist is charged with the offence under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act and he has not been charged for the substantive offences. However, besides having passed the order curtailing the delisting period of the firm, there is absolutely no allegation of commission of any act by the revisionist.
27. In Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P.: (2022) 16 SCC 166, it was held that: -
29.The charge of conspiracy alleged by the prosecution against the appellant must evidence explicit acts or conduct on his part, manifesting conscious and apparent concurrence of a common design with A-1 and A-2. InState (NCT of Delhi)v.Navjot Sandhu[(2005) 11 SCC 600], this Court held:
101. One more principle which deserves notice is that the cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to the conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution.
(emphasis supplied)
31.It is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused. However, an implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, in the majority opinion ofRam Narayan Popliv.CBI[(2003) 3 SCC 641], this Court had held:
354. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is not sufficient.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the allegations leveled in the charge-sheet on the basis of material collected during investigation do not make out commission of any offence by the revisionist. The revisionist had taken the decision for reinstatement of M/s Chandra Metals in furtherance of a request made by GM CORE who stated that because of delisting of M/s Chandra Metals the desired target of electrification of railway line could not be achieved and it was necessary for achieving the target that the company should be relisted. The revisionist had sought approval for reinstatement of the firm from Railway Board and the Railway Board had clearly directed the revisionist that he was entitled to take a decision in this regard. The revisionist has taken a decision for reinstatement after the Railway Board directed him to take a decision in this regard. No disciplinary action has been instituted against the revisionist for having taken the decision and there is no allegation at the departmental level that the decision was taken erroneously or illegally or with some ulterior motive.
29. In these circumstances, taking a decision for reinstatement of firm M/s Chandra Metals in performance of official duties of the revisionist does not make out commission of any offence. No case for trial of the revisionist is made out from the prosecution material. The revisionist deserves to be discharged and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge C.B.I. (W), Lucknow in Sessions Case No.1770 of 2022, arising out of RC No.0062017A0027, under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow is hereby set aside. The revisionist is discharged of the charges leveled against him in Sessions Case No.1770 of 2022, arising out of RC No.0062017A0027, under Sections 120-B/420/467/468/471 I.P.C. and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) Order Date: 21.08.2025
-Amit K-