Judgment Reserved on: 17.10.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 13.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 75 of 2024 Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma -- Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another -Respondents Presence:-

Mr. U.K. Uniyal learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate for the Revisionist.

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, learned A.G.A. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been instituted under Sections

397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the revisionist, Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma, assailing the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Court of the IInd Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of

2023 titled State vs. Tapan Kumar Sharma and others.

2. By the said order, the learned Special Judge rejected the revisionist’s application seeking discharge and proceeded to frame charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against him.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of discharge and framing of charge, the revisionist has approached this Court contending that the impugned order suffers from illegality and non-application of judicial mind, thereby warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

4. The revisionist, Dr. Tapan Kumar Sharma, at the relevant time, was posted as Deputy Chief Medical Officer (Deputy CMO) at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

5. On the basis of a written complaint made by one Shri Rajendra Singh Mehta, submitted to the office of the Vigilance Establishment, Sector Nainital, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 03 of 2023 was registered under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. In the complaint, it was alleged that the revisionist had demanded an undue monetary advantage (bribe) in connection with work-related payment concerning the complainant’s firm. Acting upon the complaint, the Vigilance Establishment formed a trap team and prepared a trap memo/panchnama.

7. The complainant was provided with currency notes, the numbers of which were recorded in the trap memo. It is also recorded that the trap team equipped the complainant with a Digital Voice Recorder (DVR) for recording the trap proceedings.

8. The trap team, along with the complainant and a shadow witness, proceeded to the designated location. The prosecution claims that during the trap proceedings, money was recovered by the Vigilance Team, and on that basis, a case was registered against the revisionist.

9. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge (P.C. Act). Along with the charge sheet, the prosecution also filed the SFSL report relating to the DVR. As per the report, the DVR allegedly containing the trap conversation was found to be “corrupted”.

10. The revisionist filed an application for discharge, asserting that the case records do not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court rejected the discharge application on 20.11.2023, and on the same day, framed charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

11. The revisionist has now filed the present Criminal Revision, contending that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the discharge application and framing the charge.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

13. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. U.K. Uniyal, assisted by Mr. Harshit Sanwal, argued that the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 rejecting the discharge application and framing charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been passed without proper judicial application of mind. It was submitted that the very foundation of the prosecution case is absent, as the material on record does not indicate any specific demand of illegal gratification by the revisionist.