At the stage of considering a discharge application and framing charges under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the trial court is not required to carry out a mathematical calculation of alleged disproportionate assets or conduct a mini-trial, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench has held. Dismissing a criminal revision petition filed in a corruption case, a single-judge bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra ruled that the existence of a prima facie case and grave suspicion based on material collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed with trial.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Government Order No. 108/1/84/2010 dated November 15, 2010, issued by the State Government following a communication from the Anti-Corruption Department, directing an open inquiry against Anup Kumar Shrivastava, who was posted as P.A., Revenue and Special Intelligence, Lucknow. The preliminary inquiry pointed to an alleged discrepancy of Rs. 3,16,341 between his known sources of income (Rs. 10,89,199) and found assets (Rs. 13,24,450).
On January 20, 2012, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against him at Police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2012 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following an investigation covering the check period from April 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004, the Anti-Corruption Department prepared a report dated March 28, 2017, revising the alleged discrepancy to Rs. 1,69,815, with known income assessed at Rs. 10,89,199 and total income/expenditure assessed at Rs. 12,59,014. Prosecution sanction was granted on August 9, 2018, under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The accused filed a discharge application under Section 239 CrPC before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Court No. 1, Lucknow, which was dismissed on March 19, 2026. Aggrieved by this, the revisionist approached the High Court under Section 401 CrPC / Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash the order and discharge him from the charges.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the revisionist, advocates Shri Shreshth Srivastava, Ms. Sarika Mittal, Avdhesh Kumar Varma, Trisha Pandey, and Radhika Singh contended that there was an unexplained delay of nearly eight years between the end of the check period in December 2004 and the registration of the FIR in 2012, violating the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They submitted that the prosecution failed to properly establish the “known sources of income” and that the sanctioning authority passed a non-speaking order without due application of mind, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2005).
Counsel for the revisionist asserted that loans taken from friends and relatives totaling Rs. 45,00,000, a bank loan from IDBI Bank taken in 2025, and assets belonging to his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) were incorrectly treated as exclusive individual income. They further submitted that the reduction of the discrepant amount from Rs. 3,16,341 in the FIR to Rs. 1,69,815 in the charge sheet highlighted fundamental loopholes in the prosecution’s case.
Conversely, the learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) representing the State submitted that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not expected to perform mathematical calculations or engage in a roving inquiry into evidence. The State argued that the reduction of the discrepant amount or the fact that it constitutes a small percentage of overall income does not entitle the accused to a discharge when sufficient material exists to proceed against him.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Findings
The High Court reviewed the statutory provisions of Section 13(1)(e) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (prior to the 2018 amendment) and evaluated established precedents on the scope of Section 239 CrPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu (2023), the court underscored that Section 13(1)(e) places a burden on the accused to satisfactorily account for assets once the prosecution demonstrates possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The court quoted from R. Soundirarasu:
“Section 13(1)(e) of the Act 1988 makes a departure from the principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden will always lie on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences charged and never shifts on the Accused to disprove the charge framed against him. The legal effect of Section 13(1)(e) is that it is for the prosecution to establish that the Accused was in possession of properties disproportionate to his known sources of income but the term “known sources of income” would mean the sources known to the prosecution and not the sources known to the Accused and within the knowledge of the Accused. It is for the Accused to account satisfactorily for the money/assets in his hands. The onus in this regard is on the Accused to give satisfactory explanation. The Accused cannot make an attempt to discharge this onus upon him at the stage of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the stage of Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court has to only look into the prima facie case and decide whether the case put up by the prosecution is groundless”
The court also cited Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1972), noting that while the court must apply its judicial mind to determine if grounds exist for presuming the commission of an offense:
“It cannot be said that the Court at the stage of framing the charge has not to apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is a ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the Accused. The order framing the charges does substantially affect the person’s liberty and it cannot be said that the Court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities by relying on the documents referred to in Section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the Court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution.”
Additionally, referencing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012), the court emphasized that charges can be framed even when there is strong suspicion. The High Court observed:
“At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that an accused had committed an offense, which, if put to trial could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied at that stage.”
Addressing the specific contentions, the court held that the reduction in the discrepant amount during investigation and the fact that the amount involved is relatively small cannot form the sole basis to discharge the revisionist. The court affirmed that the sanction order was validly passed by a competent authority after examining the material collected during investigation. It clarified that questions regarding loan permissions, intimations under service rules, and HUF assets are matters of defense to be established through evidence during trial, rather than at the stage of framing charges.
Decision
Finding no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the order dated March 19, 2026 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Lucknow, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anup Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 437 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
Date: April 20, 2026
