Beena Parihar vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation/Anti Corruption, Lucknow

Held

The Court held that at the stage of discharge, the judge is not to determine if the trial will end in conviction, nor is a mini-trial permissible. The broad test is whether the material on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. The Court found that interference was not required as the involvement of the revisionist, Smt. Beena Parihar, who can be convicted with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, cannot be ruled out at this stage. This conclusion was based on the fact that the revisionist received Rs. 37,11,709/- from the Railways after becoming the proprietor of the firm on 09.04.2021, and immediately transferred Rs. 30,00,000/- to a firm jointly owned by her and co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh. The Court also noted that conversations on mobile phones of co-accused indicated an illegal demand in connection with the payment to the firm, and it could be inferred that Manjit Kumar Singh acted on the revisionist's instructions. The Court dismissed the criminal revision.

Facts

The revisionist, Beena Parihar, is challenging an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, CBI, Lucknow, which rejected her application for discharge in Sessions Case No. 2463/2023. The FIR was lodged on 03.06.2022, alleging offences under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7A, and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The revisionist's first husband, Ajit Kumar Singh, was the proprietor of M/s Chauhan Constructions, which had a contract with the Railways. Ajit Kumar Singh died on 30.01.2021. The revisionist took over the firm, got it registered under her name with GST on 09.04.2021, and the work was completed on 25.03.2021. A payment of Rs. 37,11,709/- was credited to the firm's account on 14.01.2022, out of which Rs. 30,00,000/- was transferred to a firm jointly owned by the revisionist and co-accused Manjit Kumar Singh. The revisionist's name was entered in railway records on 27.12.2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the material on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible against the revisionist, Smt. Beena Parihar, for the offences alleged in Charge Sheet No. 21 dated 27.08.2024, thereby justifying the rejection of her discharge application? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 7, 7A, 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 420, 471 IPC). Petitioner's Arguments: The revisionist argued that she had no role in the alleged offence as the work was completed on 25.03.2021, measurement on 22.06.2021, her name was entered in railway records on 27.12.2021, and payment was made on 14.01.2022. She contended that her co-accused husband, Manjit Kumar Singh, carried out the work after her husband's death, and she was not connected to the FIR or the charge sheet. Revenue's Arguments: The CBI argued that at the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the material cannot be gone into, and the prosecution's material must be accepted. They contended that a prima facie case is sufficient, and the accused's guilt is for the trial court to decide. The CBI asserted that the revisionist's complicity is prima facie made out from documentary evidence, including her signature on the measurement book, phone conversations, and the transfer of funds.