1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2008 S.R.Reddy Applicant versus State through CBI ACB Mumbai Respondent Ms.Vasanti Joshi i/by Kedar C. Prabhu for applicant. Ms.A.T.Javeri, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 07th May 2009 PC :- 1. The revision applicant has taken an exception to the judegement and order dated 8th January 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The revision applicant is charged with an offence punishable under section 7, section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the said Act of 1988 and section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order an application for discharge filed by the revision applicant has been rejected. 2. One Ashok Arjundas Ramnani lodged a complaint against the applicant on 2 31st August 2005. According to the said complainant when he alongwith one Mukesh C. Trilokani got down from a train at Pimpri Railway Station, the applicant (a person who introduced himself as Mr.Reddi, Senior Inspector of RPF) demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- on the ground that the complainant was not carrying luggage receipt. After such receipt was shown by the complainant, the applicant threatened to book the complainant for railway crossing, chain pulling etc.. The complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/-. The allegation is that there was a further demand of Rs.2,000/- through other accused. On the complaint made by the complainant a trap was laid. According to the prosecution case the trap was laid between 2.00 p.m. on 31st August 2005 and 4.00 a.m. on 1st September 2009 at the Pimpri Railway Station. According to the prosecution, the applicant was present at the Pimpri Railway Station at that time and the complainant talked to him on the cell phone. Thereafter a co-accused V.M.Singh accepted a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was absolutely no material to proceed against the applicant under the said Act of 1988. He submitted that false accusations have been made against the applicant by the complainant to prevent the applicant from taking any action against him. He submitted that the allegation regarding telephonic conversation is very vague and it is not clear from the material forming part of the charge sheet as to the applicant talked to whom. She, therefore, submitted that a clear case was made out for passing an order of discharge. 3 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. The prosecution is relying upon the conversation made by the applicant on a cell phone. The contention was sought to be raised that the said cell phone stands in the matter of a third person. The allegation is that the applicant made incriminating conversation on the cell phone. Whether the applicant made such a conversation or now is a matter of evidence. Merely because the cell phone by which the conversation is allegedly made stands in the name of a third person, it cannot be said that there is no material against the applicant to proceed. The case of the prosecution is that the telephonic conversation which is recorded shows complicity of the applicant in the offence. 5. Considering all these aspects, the learned Special Judge was right in holding that this is a case where it cannot be said that there is no material to proceed against the applicant. Hence, no fault can be found in revisional jurisdiction with the impugned order by which an application for discharge made by the applicant was rejected. 6. Hence, the revision application is rejected. It is, however, made clear that all contentions raised by the applicant on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.) 4