ORDER

Singh, J. -- 1. This revision has been filed by the applicant under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against order dated 06.5.2023 passed by the Special Judge (Lokayukt), Jabalpur in Special Case No.07/2022 whereby his application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. As per prosecution case the applicant/accused was caught in trap for accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- on 13.5.2019 and a consequence thereof Crime No.93/2019 was registered against him. Charges for offences under sections 7(A), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) have been framed against the applicant. It is further averred that case of the prosecution is false and it has carelessly and negligently investigated the matter. On on 13.9.2022 the applicant has filed an application (Annexure-A/2) under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for being discharged of the charges under sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Act on the ground that mandatory procedure as prescribed under the Cr.PC. has not been followed while submitting final chargesheet. It is stated that as per section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. it the Officer Incharge of the Police Station who shall forward the charge-sheet in prescribed format to the concerned Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance of the offence. But, in this case the Investigation Officer-Inspector Oscar Kindo has filed the charge-sheet. The second ground of objection in filing of charge-sheet is that challan has not been generated and submitted before the Court through CCTNS (online mode). Accordingly, the applicant prayed that on aforesaid grounds he be discharged of above offences. The trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. by impugned order dated 6.5.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial Court has passed the impugned order mechanically and without properly appreciating the objections raised by the applicant. The mandatory provisions enshrined under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. have not been complied with. The challan has been submitted manually without following the guidelines/circulars regarding CCTNS. The trial Court erroneously observed that challan can be submitted manually if there is any technical error or default in the CCTNS portal. Hence, prayer has been made to set aside the impugned order dated 6.5.2023 and direct the respondent to investigate and final report by complying with the mandatory provisions of law.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt submits that revision is devoid of merit because on the technical grounds the charge-sheet cannot be returned and whatever legal objections are there, the same can be taken in cross-examination of the concerned witness, who can answer the said objections.

5. The question before this Court is whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 6.5.2023 is patently erroneous or perverse.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the impugned order would reflect that the trial Court while rejecting the application under section 227 of Cr.P.C. has specifically mentioned in paragraphs 10, 11 & 12 that charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant/accused on 27.6.2022 and no objection was taken to the same; at that time no objection was taken that it was not filed through CCTNS .

8. As regards objection that challan has not been filed through on-line mode of CCTNS it is observed that learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate during the course of arguments that filing of challan through CCTNS mode is mandatory and if instead of same it is filed in hard-copy, then cognizance of challan cannot be taken. Therefore, this ground is untenable and cannot be accepted. As far as the second ground which has been urged that Investigation Officer has submitted the chargesheet, and not the Incharge of the Police Station, it can be s