Page 1 of 15

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
BENCH, LUCKNOW
Fixed For: DD.MM.201_

Anil Kumar Pandey

--------Applicant/Accused

The State through C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow

Versus
Anil Kumar Pandey

Application under Section 239 Cr. P. C.

May it please your Honor,

The above noted Applicant/Accused begs to submit most

respectfully as under:-
1. That Informant had filed a complaint against the
Applicant/Accused at the P. S. Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun
U/s 13(1)(E) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on
11.03.2014 at 12:45 P.M. and the Case Crime No. 0819/2014.
Photocopy of the FIR dated 11.03.2014 is annexed herewith as
Annexure No. 1 and is a part of this application.
2. That the brief facts of the case are as follows:
 Page 2 of 15

A. That the present application of the petitioner is directed

against the illegal and without jurisdiction summoning of the
applicant in the criminal matter ]llk][
B. The applicant was appointed as a village development officer
in the District- Mirzapur. That applicant had worked on
several village Panchayats in the District- Mirzapur till 2002.
C. That the applicant was transferred District- Sonbhadra and
joined in the Block Ghorawal, worked till march, 2005. That
the applicant again was transferred Block Nagawa, and
worked till July, 2006. That the applicant was transferred to
Block Chopan and worked till July, 2008.
D. The applicant was transferred to Block Robertsganj as a
“Village development officer”. And took charge of eight
village Panchayats.
E. That the project of Khushi Daur ( Kushipul ) hotey hue
Naugarh border tak WBM star tak Marg Niraman.
That the said project was started in the year 2006 and before
16.12.2009 joining of the applicant, Mr. Shiv Narayan Singh
had a complete charge as a work In-charge, of the project
worked till 15.12.2009. The more than 90% work has been
done by Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh. Not a single person made
complaint against applicant.
F. That the applicant is a class III employee. He had no official
authority to visit at the site of construction. The Junior
Engineer is officially authorized to cross check and supervise
quantity and quality of the work at the construction site. It’s
the official duty of the concern site Junior Engineer to
maintain the MB book which contains the quality of the
material supplied by the authorized suppliers.
G. That the work assigned to the applicant is to execute and
forward the bills to concern authority i.e. accountant. It’s
pertinent to mention here that the authorized suppliers
appointed by the BLOCK PRAMUKH OF BLOCK
 Page 3 of 15

Robertsganj and according to MB book prepared by the Junior

Engineer in which the entire details of the supply of material
mentioned along with the date, quantity and quality etc. The
bill raised by supplier to put before the applicant. The
applicant’s job is to cross-check that the bill raised as per the
MB book or not. After cross check send the said bill for
approval of Accountant.
H. That the bills are sent by accountant for the approval of the
BDO and block Pramukh. If BDO and Block Pramukh not
discrepancy of the Bills raised by the supplier in relations to
quantity and quality, in such case both BDO (Block
Development Officer) and Block Pramukh have an authority
to STOP the payment, because after getting their approval
shall be able to release the payment.
I. It’s to mention here that it is crystal clear that the applicant
has NO ROLE in relation to:
a. Material supplied on which date at the site.
b. How much quantity has been supplied by the
Contractor at site.
i. What is the quality of the material contractor
supplied at the site.
ii. How much material had been utilized at the site.
These all parameters are the subject matter of
concerned Junior Engineer who cross check the
material quality – quantity and complete the MB
book accordingly.
iii. It’s pertinent to mention here that the applicant is
innocent person and all the allegations alleged by
the prosecution are false, fabricated and have no
base.
J. That the allegation against the applicant in the charge-sheet
in para no. 16.12.20 that “Investigation further revealed that there
three quotations in the file dated 17.12.2009 of M/s Ganesh
 Page 4 of 15

Construction Company and M/s Ashok Tripathi for supply

of Morum and 45-90 Stone Ballast. The said quotation has
been collected by Shri Shiv Narayan Singh, Gram Panchayat
Vikas Adhikari and the quotation of M/s Ganesh
Construction Company Being the lowest has been passed by
Shri Raghvendra Tiwari, BDO. The Comparative chart has
been prepared and signed by Shri Shiv Narayan Singh. The
Proprietors of the said firms have denied submission of said
quotations and started that they gave their blank letter heads
only. The acquaintance whereas have identified that the said
quotations have been prepared and signed by Shri Shiv
Narayan Singh, work in-charge in his handwriting, which has
been confirmed by handwriting expert also, the quotations
are bogus”.
It’s essential to mention here that the applicant has worked as
per instructions of the seniors to whom he was reporting. The
hand writing is of the applicant but the entire quotations
entries had been prepared as per rough paper entries
provided by Suppliers. The applicant does not have any typist
with him, hence written himself with ulterior motive.
K. That it’s pertinent to mention here that the work of JE to
maintain the MB book and confirmed materials used in the
projects. The procedure for the clearance of the bills are that
firstly after cross – checked and then sent for final approval to
the concerned BDO and Block Pramukh. They are final
authority for clearance and approval.
L. That the allegations against the applicant are contrary to facts
on record as submitted herein and as much has to be dealt
with accordingly.
M. That the allegation in the FIR and Police Report (Charge –
sheet) as contemplated under section 173 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 are absurd and inherently
improbable on the face of record.
 Page 5 of 15

N. That the aforesaid acts clearly show that CBI without any
basis has prosecuted the applicant whereas Shri Ashok
Kumar Tiwari has maintained the MB Book and received
construction materials supplied by M/s Ganesh
Construction. That the criminal proceedings against the
applicant is manifestly attended with mala fide and have been
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive against the
applicant, who has not committed any offence.
O. That the uncontroverted allegation in the police report
(Charge- Sheet) as contemplated under sec 173 of the Cr PC,
1973 do not constitute the commission of any offence against
the applicant.
P. That there is absolutely no material on records, which may
even suggest a commission of any cognizable offence by the
applicant and the applicant has a prima facie case and in the
event the relief sought for is not granted, the applicant shall
suffer irreparable loss and injury.
Q. It’s pertinent to mention here that the investigating officer has
misused the power provided to him for the investigation and
has adopted pick and choose method to prosecute the
applicant by taking shelter of the order passed by this hon’ble
court on 31.01.2014 in writ petition no. 12802 of 2011 (PIL) and
it is humbly submitted that this act of CBI clearly establishes
same investigations done by the CBI and it is humbly
submitted that the same is also bad in law.
R. That it is humbly submitted that the CBI has not pursued
work and functioning provided under the statute i.e.
MNREGA with the sole intention to illegally the applicant
herein.
S. That there is no allegation of misappropriation or cheating or
cheating by impersonating or forgery or forgery for the
purpose of cheating or knowing using of forged document
against the applicant.
 Page 6 of 15

T. That the main accused Kamla Kant Pandey, the then Block
Pramukh, and co-accused Brijesh Kumar Singh, Ashok
Kumar Tiwari, J.E., Babban Singh, J.E. and Ghanshyam
Prasad, the then Gram Panchyat Adhikari are on bail. Ashok
Kumar Tiwari, J.E., Babban Singh, J.E. and Ghanshyam
Prasad, Gram Vikas Adhikari approached this hon’ble by
filing petition under sec 482 CrPC petition no. 7459/016,
1449/2017, 1675 of 2017 and 623/2017 respectively. This
hon’ble court has passed directions in their favor that court
“(1) the applicant shall surrender and seek bail from the court below
within three weeks from the date of this order and the courts below
shall consider the same. Expeditiously keeping in view of the law
laid down by the hon’ble apex court in this regard. (2) in case the
applicant does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid
period, it will be open for the court to proceed against the applicant
in accordance with the law, to ensure their appearance in the court;
(3) for a period of three weeks from today, no coercive shall be taken
against the applicant.” The copies of orders passed by this
hon’ble court are annexed as annexure no. 3 and part of this
petition.
U. That the applicant has a prima facie case and in the event the
relief trade herein is not granted, if the applicant shall suffer
irreparable loss and injury and the also mens rea is absent in
the present case on the part of the applicant.
V. That it is absolutely clear from the aforesaid facts and
circumstances that the applicant is absolutely innocent and
has not done anything against the law.
1. That the Enquiry report submitted by the Investigating Officer
has many ambiguities and is against the documents:-
That the facts mentioned in the enquiry report of the
Investigating Officer are not absolutely correct hence requires
correction. The Applicant/Accused raises following issues on
the facts mentioned in the enquiry report:-
 Page 7 of 15

i. That the investigating Officer has mentioned the fact that

the wife of the Applicant/Accused is not just a house wife
and is also earning by giving tuitions and sewing ladies
clothes. That the wife of the Applicant/Accused earns a
reasonable amount and she also contributes in the
expenses of the house but the Investigating Officer has
not considered this point and has mentioned that Rs.
3,69,801/- were been paid by the Applicant/Accused only
and has not deducted the money which the wife of
Applicant/Accused has furnished for contributing in the
household expenses since 2003 after she got married to the
Applicant/Accused.
Total household expenses Wife of the applicant earns
as per the Enquiry report. a reasonable amount.
3,69,801 Deductions made in
accordance with the
income of the wife= Rs.
0.0/-

ii. That the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the

mother of the Applicant/Accused resides with him and his
brother in the same house and she receives pensions after
the death of her husband in 1994. That the Investigating
Officer has considered only Rs. 2,00,00/- which were given
by the Mother of the Applicant/Accused to the
Applicant/Accused and has not taken into account the
amount of approximately Rs. 2,50,000/- which she paid to
the Applicant/Accused by cash and through account on
several installments.
Amount considered by the Actual money given by the
I.O. as money given by the mother
mother
Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 2,00,000 + Rs. 2,50,000 =
Rs. 4,50,000/-

iii. That the Investigating Officer has mentioned at several

occasions about the house of the Applicant/Accused that
 Page 8 of 15

the land on which the house was been constructed was

purchased by the Applicant/Accused and his brother
together and his brother too paid for the construction of
the house. It is also pertinent to mention here that the
house tax etc. are been furnished in the name of the
applicant’s brother and not in the name of the
Applicant/Accused but still the Investigating Officer in
his representation of expenses has mentioned the
valuation of the house as Rs. 13.18 lacs which is partially
owned by the Applicant and his brother and the applicant
is not the sole owner which means that the amount should
have been mentioned by dividing the amount into two
parts i.e, 13.18 ÷ 2 = 6.59 lacs. It is also pertinent to mention
here that the Plot was purchased in 2002 by both
Applicant/Accused and his brother. The Applicant paid
Rs. 36,300/- only for purchasing the land. And the total
amount invested in construction of the house was Rs.
5,25,000/- only out of which Rs. 1,62,500/- was paid by the
Applicant/Accused’s brother that means the amount paid
by the Applicant/Accused for construction of the house
was Rs. 5,25,000 – Rs. 1,62,500 = Rs. 3,62,500/- total
amount invested by the Applicant/Accused in the
construction of the house(including the purchasing of the
plot for the house) is Rs. 36,300 + Rs. 3,62,500 = Rs.
3,98,800. While the total amount calculated in the expense
table by the Investigating Officer is Rs. 13,18,000(valuation
of the house) + Rs. 36,300(Purchase of the plot) = Rs.
13,54,300/- which is Rs. 9,91,800/- more than the actual
amount.
Valuation of the house Actual expense made by the
in the enquiry report as applicant
per 2012.
Rs. 13,18,000.00 Total construction investment= Rs. 5,25,000
Amount paid by the brother = Rs. 1,62,500
Amount paid by the applicant= Rs. 3,62,500
 Page 9 of 15

iv. That the Investigating Officer has himself mentioned in the

Enquiry Report that the applicant/Accused has inherited
0.730 hectares of ancestral agricultural land form his
ancestors and the report submitted by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate Orai at Jalaun to the DSP, PCO regarding
income from agricultural land to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-
per annum has also not been considered hence the entire
Enquiry report is against the documents and the
Applicant/Accused ‘s income has not been properly
calculated by the Investigating Officer.
Agricultural income of the Applicant which was
ignored by the I.O. while submitting the Enquiry
Report.
Yearly Income from the agricultural land= Rs. 2,50,000/-
per annum

The report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Orai at Jalaun to the DSP, PCO regarding income from
agricultural land is annexed herewith as Annexure No. 4
and is part of this application.

v. That the Investigating Officer has represented the income

and expenditure of the applicant/accused in following
manner:

TABLE OF INCOME OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED(as per the Enquiry Report

submitted by the Investigating Officer)

Sr. Amount(in

No. Details of income Rs.)

1. Salary (December 2002 to October 2012) 11,10,515.00

2. Bonus received (December 2002 to October 2012) 14,803.00

 Page 10 of 15

3. Arrears received (December 2002 to October 2012) 13,989.00

4. Income through Loan from Bank of Baroda (year 2003) 1,50,000.00

5. Amount received from mother (years 2011) 2,00,000.000

Total Amount( Income) = 14,89,307.00

TABLE OF EXPENSES OF THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED(as per the Enquiry

Report submitted by the Investigating Officer)

Sr. Details of Expenses Amount(

No. Rs.)

1. Purchase of Plot (03.02.2002) 36,300.00

2. Valuation of the construction of the house 13,18,000.00

3. Expenses made for studies of the son (Utkarsh) 41,250.00

4. Bank Deposit till October 2012(Savings Bank a/c no. 5,62,559.00

20289052427, Allahabad Bank, Orai)

5. Bank Deposit till October 2012(Savings Bank a/c no. 11,194.00

10460100002392, Bank of Baroda, Orai)

6. Repayment of Loan 1,50,000.00

7. Purchase of Hero Honda Motorcycle 35,000.00

8. Registration of Vehicle 1,500.00

9. Maintenance of Motorcycle 23,800.00

10. Purchase of NSC (year 2011) 30,000.00

11. Cash-in-Hand (Form - 6) 1,00,000.00

12. Purchase of refrigerator, T.V., Cooler, Washing machine etc. 30,000.00

13. Expenses made for household purpose (33.3 % of the total 3,69,801.00

salary)

Total Amount(Expenses) 27,71,404.00

 Page 11 of 15

3. INVESTIGATING OFFICER DID AN IMPROPER

INVESTIGATION:

i. The Investigating Officer (IO) has failed to reveal the facts

even though he has taken the statements and required
documents from the Applicant/Accused.

ii. The Investigating Officer has not considered many facts

and the calculations regarding the income and expenses
of the Applicant/Accused has not been done properly
and is against the documents.

iii. The investigating Officer has contradicted his own

statement as he has accepted few facts but has not
considered them while calculating the income and
expenditure amounts of the Applicant.

4. That the entire said Enquiry Report submitted by the

Investigating Officer is subject to several ambiguities. The FIR
was lodged making this enquiry report a basis for the FIR
therefore the FIR against the Applicant/Accused too can not be
regarded as appropriate.
5. That the Minor Irrigation Department, Shahjahanpur, thereafter
prepared an enquiry report dated 08.01.2015, wherein it has been
categorically stated that the applicant’s income is not more than
his expenditure.
A true Copy of the enquiry report dated 08.01.2015 is annexed
herewith as Annexure no.5 and is part of this application.
6. That the investigating officer on receiving permission from the
Executive Engineer, Department of action, Shahjahanpur filed
the impugned charge sheet dated 02.03.2017 which was filed
before the Ld. Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act,
 Page 12 of 15

Lucknow in Case No. 201/17, Case Crime No. 819/2014, under

section 13(1)(e)& 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Investigating Officer has
not taken into consideration the Enquiry report dated 08.01.2015
prepared by the Minor Irrigation Department, Shahjahanpur
wherein it has been categorically stated that the applicant’s
income is not more than his expenditure.
A true copy of the charge sheet dated 02.03.2017 is annexed
herewith as Annexure No. 6 and is a part of this application.

7. That the Applicant/Accused is an innocent law binding person

and having no previous Criminal history, neither any criminal
case is pending before any court of India. It is also pertinent to
mention herein that the Investigating Officer recorded the
statements of his colleagues and none of them gave any
statement which may indicate that the Applicant/Accused is
involved in any kind of illegal act.

8. That the Applicant/Accused is a government employee who

holds a good reputation in his social circle but due to this case he
has already faced a lot of criticism and he was been arrested on
26.05.2017, due to the above stated matter, which has already
caused an irreplaceable damage to his goodwill, reputation and
respect in the society. A wrong message has been sent to the
society due to the proceeding under this case and the family of
the Applicant/Accused has faced a lot of humiliation too.

9. That if the Applicant/Accused is innocent and if the trial will

proceed, he shall face mental agony and physical and financial
torture and these factors can’t be compensated in future which
may cause irreplaceable loss and injury.
 Page 13 of 15

PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court
that it may kindly:-
1. Discharge the Applicant/Accused in Case No. 201/17, Case Crime No.
819/2014, under section 13(1)(e)& 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption
Act, 1988by considering all the facts and circumstances of the case in
the interest of Natural Justice.
2. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest
of Justice.

Lucknow
Dated :- 23.09.2017 Counsel for the Applicant/Accused

Neeraj Kumar

Before the Ld. Special Judge, P.C. Act/ Additional

Session Judge, Lucknow
CC no.-0819/2014
Between:

Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

--------Applicant/Accused
 Page 14 of 15

Inre:

State of U.P. Versus Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

AFFIDAVIT

(IN SUPPORT OF DISCHARGE APPLICATION)

I, Sandeep Kumar Srivastava aged about years s/o Late Ram Bahadur
Srivastava r/o House No. 3535 Mohalla Patel Nagar, P.S. Kotwali Orai,
District- Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh, India do hereby solemnly affirm & state on
oath as under:
1. That the deponent is an applicant himself and he is fully conversant
with the facts & circumstances of the case.
2. That the contents of Para no. 1 to _________________ of this discharge
application are true to my personal knowledge and contents of Para
no. ____ to _____ of discharge application are true on the basis of
record and contents of Para no. ____ to ____ of discharge application
are based on legal advice.
Lucknow Deponent

Dated:

Verification

I deponent above named deponent do hereby verify that the

contents of Para no. 1 to 2 of this affidavit are true to my personal

knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been

concealed.

Signed and verified this ________ day of ____ 2017 in the Court of District

Judge and session court compound, Lucknow.

 Page 15 of 15

Lucknow Deponent

Dated: