Allahabad HC Rejects PMLA Accused Plea To Transfer Case Over Alleged ₹1 Crore Bribe Demand By Judge

Terming the allegations of bribery as false and imaginary, a bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noticed that the switch plea was clearly a tactic to keep away from trial earlier than the courtroom, which had handed a number of judicial orders in opposition to the petitioner.

The only decide discovered that the allegations of a ₹1 crore bribe demand by the decide, raised almost three months after the alleged incident, weren’t solely unsupported by any proof however gave the impression to be a calculated try and delay proceedings.

The case in temporary

The petitioner (Brahma Prakash Singh), a former Managing Director of LACFEDD, was earlier convicted below numerous provisions below the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and is now going through a cash laundering case earlier than the Particular PMLA Courtroom in Lucknow.

In December final yr, the petitioner moved a switch software below Part 448 BNSS, alleging that the Presiding Officer [Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Judge, E.D] had demanded from him (in September 2024) an unlawful gratification of ₹1 crore in trade for acquittal and launch of confiscated property.

It was his declare that after recording the assertion below Part 313 CrPC, when the Presiding Officer of the Courtroom was alone on the dais, he demanded bribery.

The Session Decide, nevertheless, rejected the switch software whereas recording the feedback of the Presiding Officer, who categorically refuted the allegation of bribery demand in open Courtroom.

In his rationalization, the presiding decide acknowledged that when the Courtroom is in session, the workers of the Courtroom, in addition to the general public prosecutor, stay current there, the place it’s unlikely that he would have demanded the bribery. He additionally acknowledged that the petitioner and his Counsel wish to put strain on the Courtroom in order that they will delay the trial.

Difficult the rejection of his plea, the petitioner moved the HC.

Excessive Courtroom’s order

In its order, the Courtroom famous that the delay in submitting the applying, the absence of supporting proof, and the petitioner’s personal conduct made the allegation seem “apparently false and imaginary“.

The bench was additionally of the opinion that the switch software had been devised to keep away from going through trial earlier than the Courtroom, which has handed two judicial orders in opposition to the petitioner, and the problem to one of many orders has remained unsuccessful earlier than this Courtroom as no interim order has been handed by this Courtroom to this point.

The Courtroom additionally took exception to the petitioner’s assertion in his plea that even a coordinate Bench of the Excessive Courtroom had intentionally prevented passing orders in his favour, terming it a scandalous and contemptuous averment.

“The switch software has been filed on false and imaginary allegations in order to keep away from going through trial”, the Courtroom concluded whereas affirming the Classes Decide’s choice rejecting the switch plea.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of advantage.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Raj Vikram Singh, Sanjay Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent: AGA-I Anurag Verma, Advocate Kuldeep Srivastava (for ED) and Advocate Shishir Jain (for HC)