Investigation and charges deemed void due to lack of lawful authority and failure to adhere to procedural safeguards, making subsequent proceedings untenable.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2022 in Crl.MP No.266 of 2020 in CC No.5 of 2012 passed by the learned III Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad wherein the prayer of the petitioner under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., seeking to discharge him from the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B read with Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was rejected.

2. Heard Sri KRKV Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/CBI.

3. The brief averments of the case of the prosecution against the petitioner herein are that the petitioner while working as a Professor at the Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering (MCEME), was implicated in a case arising out of a trap allegedly laid on 04.03.2010 by Col. Akash Popli, Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, acting upon a complaint by one Major Jasbir Singh Guman. The allegation made against the petitioner is that he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant/Major Jasbir Singh Guman to pass him in the subject of Mechanical Vibration and in that process, the petitioner advised him to pay the amount to his conduit/A2. Subsequently, the said amount was reduced to Rs.60,000/-. Having not willing to pay such amount, the de-facto complainant complained the same to Col. Akash Popli on 04.03.2010. On 04.03.2010 a sum of Rs.45,000/- was recovered from one Shri Modhugu Srinivas at Lal Bazar, Secunderabad, allegedly received on behalf of the petitioner. Col. Popli forwarded an Occurrence Report dated 05.03.2010 to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Hyderabad, resulting in registration of FIR No.R.C.6(A)/2010 dated 05.03.2010 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arraying the petitioner as accused No.1. The petitioner was arrested on 10.03.2010 and later he was enlarged on bail:

(a) Subsequently, the CBI filed a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 120 -B IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)(i) & (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner’s earlier Criminal Petitions viz. Crl.P.Nos.6267 of 2010 and 6433 of 2012 seeking quash of the FIR and final report were disposed of by this Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge before the trial Court.

(b) Accordingly, the petitioner filed a discharge petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P. No.266 of 2020 in C.C.No.5 of 2012 before the trial Court. The trial Court, by order dated 12.01.2022, dismissed the petition, holding that, in view of the observations made by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6433 of 2012 dated 26.09.2016, the grounds raised involve disputed questions of fact that can only be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial. The trial Court further noted that the grounds raised in the discharge application are identical to those previously raised, that there exists prima facie material to frame charges against the petitioner and that the contentions raised are matters to be determined during trial and not at the discharge stage. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law and in violation of the mandatory provisions under Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The petitioner’s earlier challenge to the FIR on the ground of absence of prior sanction from the Central Government was disposed of with liberty to raise the