The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a writ petition seeking transfer of a money laundering case on grounds of alleged bribery demand by the Presiding Officer of the Special Court, PMLA. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the allegations made by the petitioner, Brahma Prakash Singh, were false, vague, and intended to delay the trial.
Background
The petitioner, Brahma Prakash Singh, was earlier convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Lucknow in Case No. 4/2012 for offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was later granted bail by the High Court on May 21, 2015.
Subsequently, on January 23, 2018, the Directorate of Enforcement filed Complaint Case No. 30/2018 against him under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Petitioner’s Allegations
On December 23, 2024, Singh filed an application under Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking transfer of the PMLA case from the Special Judge, CBI (West) on the ground that the Presiding Officer allegedly demanded ₹1 crore for acquittal. It was claimed that the demand was made on September 17, 2024, after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
A formal complaint was made to the Chief Justice of the High Court on December 12, 2024, nearly three months after the alleged incident.
Singh also cited grievances regarding the rejection of his applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA. He accused the trial court of not considering supporting judgments and alleged judicial bias.
Sessions Judge’s Findings
The Sessions Judge, in the impugned order dated April 11, 2025, rejected the transfer application. The Presiding Officer categorically denied the bribery allegations and stated that such claims were false and an attempt to pressurize the court. The Sessions Judge noted that the allegations lacked supporting evidence and found no grounds for transfer.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi upheld the Sessions Judge’s findings and dismissed the writ petition. He noted:
“No reasonable person of ordinary prudence would believe that the Presiding Officer demanded Rs. 1 crore in an open courtroom with staff and the public prosecutor present.”
The Court held that the complaint was made only after several adverse orders were passed against the petitioner and no stay was granted in the challenge filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9166 of 2024.
On the petitioner’s allegations against another High Court judge in para 27 of the transfer application, the Court observed:
“The allegation… is apparently false, scandalous and contemptuous.”
Citing State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, the Court reiterated that judicial records are conclusive and cannot be contradicted by affidavits or other evidence.
The Court also endorsed the Presiding Officer’s comments that the petitioner and his counsel used loud voices in court to mount pressure. It held that the transfer application was filed “on false and imaginary allegations so as to avoid facing trial before the Presiding Officer.”
The writ petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Brahma Prakash Singh vs. State of U.P. & Others
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2025
