Reserved on : 11.11.2025 Delivered on : 18.12.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.706 of 2024 Anil Kumar ......Revisionist Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Presence Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the Revisionist.

Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the Revisionist- Anil Kumar, under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in S.S.T. No. 10 of 2020, whereby the discharge application, Paper No. 144-B, was rejected.

2. The case arises out of FIR No. 05 of 2020 registered at Police Station Vigilance Sector, Dehradun, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B IPC. The allegation is that on the intervening night of 14/15.02.2020, the Revisionist, while posted as State Tax Officer at Asharodi Check Post, Dehradun, intercepted Truck No. HR 39 C 7088.

3. It is alleged that the Revisionist demanded illegal gratification of ₹ 20,000/- from the driver of the said truck and, upon non-payment, forcibly took ₹ 9,500/- from him. It is further alleged that an amount of ₹ 20,000/- was subsequently transferred through UPI into the account of the Revisionist via a co-accused.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, and charges were framed against the Revisionist by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance). The Revisionist challenged the order framing charge by filing Criminal Revision No. 96 of 2022 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated

17.02.2023.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2023, the Revisionist approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Criminal) No. 7072 of 2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 28.06.2023, dismissed the SLP, while granting liberty to the Revisionist to file an application for discharge, with a specific direction that such application shall be considered on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the earlier order.

6. Availing the liberty so granted, the Revisionist filed a discharge application, Paper No. 144-B, before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance). Along with the said application, the Revisionist placed reliance upon documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, including information relating to FASTag transactions, toll payments, and border tax, to contend that the alleged truck never travelled from Haryana to Asharodi Check Post on or around the date of the alleged incident.

7. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), by the impugned order dated 29.08.2024, rejected the discharge application on the ground that the material relied upon by the Revisionist constituted defence material, which could not be looked into at the stage of discharge.

8. Aggrieved by the rejection of the discharge application, the Revisionist has preferred the present Criminal Revision.

9. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submitted that the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 is vitiated by non-application of mind and is in direct breach of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was contended that the learned Special Judge failed to examine the discharge application on its own merits, as mandated by the order dated 28.06.2023.

10. Learned counsel argued that the documents produced by the Revisionist are not private or self-serving documents, but are official records supplied by statutory authorities under the Right to Information Act, including FASTag data and information relating to toll and border tax payments.

11. It was submitted that the said documents clearly indicate that Truck No. HR 39 C 7088 never travelled from Hisar, Haryana, to Asharodi Check Post, Dehradun, either on the date of the alleged incident or within a proximate period. According to learned counsel, once the moveme