BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. - (1.)This criminal revision has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dtd. 26/2/2022 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Court No. 9, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 957 of 2018 (State Vs. Vikas Asthana and Others) whereby the application for discharge filed by the revisionist has been rejected as well as to quash the order dtd. 6/4/2022 whereby the ourt below has framed the charges against the revisionist under Sec. 7/13 (1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Sec. 8/13 (1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, under Sec. 420 I.P.C. and under Sec. 120B I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2017, under Ss. 7, 8, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Ss. 410, 420, 120B, 34 I.P.C, PS Barhpura, District Etawah and discharge the revisionist-accuesd from all the charges.
(2.)Prior to discussing the present controversy, it is necessary to discuss the detail background of "discharge" enshrined under Criminal Procedure Code which would be also relevant to decide the present controversy.
(3.)Introductory Part:-
The provison of discharge is available to the accused to demonstrate before the court that after perusing the material and evidence, he has been maliciously charged. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Discharge Application is envisaged to provide remedy to the person who has been maliciously charged. If the allegations which have been made against him are false, this Code provides the provisions for filing a discharge application. If the evidence given before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the absence of any prima facie case against him, he is entitled to be discharged.