- (1.) The criminal revision has been filed by accused-revisionist against order dated 7.10.2015 passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Court No.4, Varanasi in Special Trial No.4 of 2004, rejecting applications 57B & 60B of Public Prosecutor under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for permission to withdraw from prosecution as well as for discharging the accused-revisionist.
(2.) The brief facts relating to prosecution case as well as relevant for the purpose of revision brought before me during arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist are as under:- (i) Prosecution Case:- "that on 17.1.2002 the complainant Ashok Kumar's Truck No.USM-9361 was going from Mijipur to Shakti Nagar for getting the coal loaded of which papers were allegedly valid up-to-date, but the revisionist, who was posted as A.R.T.O., Sonbhadra falsely Challaned his vehicle and imposed a fine of Rs.3050/- which were deposited by him on 2.2.2002 vide receipt no.433062; that despite deposit of fine accused-revisionist made a demand of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification (Suvidha shulk) and a further sum of Rs.500/- per month, per vehicle towards his entry fee (Suvidha shulk) without which the release order will not be handed over by him; that the complainant Ashok Kumar is alleged to have given written complaint to Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Varanasi on 4.2.2002 and in due course trap was conducted on 8.2.2002 in which the revisionist was caught red handed at the time of accepting Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification." (ii) Brief Facts:- "that in Case Crime No.93 of 2002, charge-sheet was submitted on 10.4.2004, but the charges have not yet been framed against the revisionist; that an application for discharge was moved by the revisionist on the ground that (i) the original memo of recovery of currency notes received by accused-revisionist as illegal gratification and his arrest; (ii) original F.I.R. and (iii) original prosecution sanction are not on record, which was rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 25.11.2009 and his 2nd application for discharge was also rejected vide order dated 1.5.2010; that on 12.8.2010 an application for adjournment was moved by accused-revisionist on the ground of pendency of proceedings for grant of permission to withdraw under consideration before State Govt. which was later on granted by State Govt. on 23.8.2010; that on 5.10.2010 an application 57-B was moved by ADGC (Crl.) for permission to withdraw from prosecution and to discharge the revisionist supported by another application 60-B dated 5.1.2011 which were rejected by the Special Judge vide order dated 12.10.2012 as ADGC (Crl.) did not agree to press the application; that this Court was pleased to set-aside the above order dated 12.10.2012 on technical ground vide its order dated 5.4.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.50 of 2013 "Shyam Narain Vs. State of U.P. And directed for its afresh disposal after hearing ADGC (Crl.), copy filed at Annexure-7; that the accused-revisionist also filed an application on 8.10.2010 supporting application 57B of ADGC for withdrawal from prosecution."
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the accused-revisionist has been falsely implicated in trap case of corruption and since he had prepared the release memo on 2.2.2002 there was no question of making the alleged demand of Rs.1,500/- or Rs.500/- towards illegal gratification; that since the original papers viz. F.I.R., recovery and arrest memo as well as prosecution sanction are missing from the record and in the case relating to the occurrence of the year 2002, charges have not been framed in last more than 13 years, there is no hope of success to prosecution, and in the interest of justice as well as also in order to save the valuable time of Court and money of State, the Court was ought to have given consent for withdrawal from prosecution, discharging the accused-revisionist, against whom charges have not been framed as yet; that the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. since was moved by ADGC (Crl.) upon application of his mind to all the facts and circumstances, the Court is not required to consider the correctness of facts and possibility of its resulting in conviction or not; that the application was moved in the interests of justice, the Court ought to have granted its consent; that under Section 321 Cr.P.C. the legislature has used word "Consent" and not "Permission" and so the Court was not required to examine the merits of the case had to exercise only supervisory powers; that the learned lower court has acted wrongly in rejecting the application for permission to withdraw from prosecution and for discharging accused-revisionist.;