# Brahma Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1400
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-26
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brahma-prakash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53475
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article - 226, - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 311, 313 & 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections
120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- Section 448 - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Sections 3,
4 & 59(2)(c) - India Evidence Act, 1872-
Sections 16, 145 & 161 - Writ Petition -
challenging the impugned rejection order of
transfer application moved under Section 448 of
BNSS - Petitioner, formerly serving as Managing
Director of LACFEDD, convicted and sentenced
in corruption case - Appeal preferred - Bail
granted - Enforcement Directorate initiated
complaint proceedings under the PMLA -
Petitioner filed transfer application u/s 448
BNSS, alleging bias and misconduct by the
presiding officer of the trial court - Application
rejected - Multiple applications filed u/s 311
Cr.P.C. for summoning of witnesses - dismissed
as improper and dilatory - Applications under
Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Sections 16 & 145
of Evidence Act - rejected on merits, judicial
orders found valid and free from legal infirmity -
No prejudice shown - Alternative remedies
available and availed - Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. filed before High Court - pending
adjudication - Contempt proceedings initiated
by
petitioner
for
willful
disobedience
of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court -
pending - Present writ petition, filed challenging
rejection of transfer application u/s 448 BNSS -
Petitioner alleged demand of Rs. 1 crore bribe by
trial court's presiding officer - Court below noted -
(i)
complaint
lacked
substance,
no
action
warranted, (ii) repeated applications, aimed at
stalling proceedings, (iii) conduct of petitioner and
counsel found intended to mount pressure on the
court so that they can prolong the trial for they
used loud noises in the court room - Court upheld,
the integrity of trial process, affirmed validity of
impugned orders with a finding that learned
session court has not committed any illegality in
passing impugned order - Transfer application
held to be filed on false and imaginary allegations
- accordingly. (Para - 10, 11, 20, 21, 22)

Writ petition is dismissed. (E-11)

Writ Petition - Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Brahma Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1401
St. of Mah. Vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2
SCC 463.

## Text

1400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (i) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence during trial.

 (ii)
The
applicant
shall
not
pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

 (iii) The applicant shall appear
before the trial court on the date fixed.

41. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and
residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned
before the bonds are accepted.

42.
It
is
made
clear
that
observations made in granting bail to the
applicant shall not in any way affect the
learned
trial
Judge
in
forming
his
independent
opinion
based
on
the
testimony of the witnesses.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1400
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 4503 of 2025

Brahma Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Raj Vikram Singh, Sri Sanjay Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sri Rohit
Tripathi

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article - 226, - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 (Cr.P.C.) - Sections 311, 313 & 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) -Sections
120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 -
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)
- Section 448 - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Sections 3,
4 & 59(2)(c) - India Evidence Act, 1872-
Sections 16, 145 & 161 - Writ Petition -
challenging the impugned rejection order of
transfer application moved under Section 448 of
BNSS - Petitioner, formerly serving as Managing
Director of LACFEDD, convicted and sentenced
in corruption case - Appeal preferred - Bail
granted - Enforcement Directorate initiated
complaint proceedings under the PMLA -
Petitioner filed transfer application u/s 448
BNSS, alleging bias and misconduct by the
presiding officer of the trial court - Application
rejected - Multiple applications filed u/s 311
Cr.P.C. for summoning of witnesses - dismissed
as improper and dilatory - Applications under
Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Sections 16 & 145
of Evidence Act - rejected on merits, judicial
orders found valid and free from legal infirmity -
No prejudice shown - Alternative remedies
available and availed - Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. filed before High Court - pending
adjudication - Contempt proceedings initiated
by
petitioner
for
willful
disobedience
of
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme court -
pending - Present writ petition, filed challenging
rejection of transfer application u/s 448 BNSS -
Petitioner alleged demand of Rs. 1 crore bribe by
trial court's presiding officer - Court below noted -
(i)
complaint
lacked
substance,
no
action
warranted, (ii) repeated applications, aimed at
stalling proceedings, (iii) conduct of petitioner and
counsel found intended to mount pressure on the
court so that they can prolong the trial for they
used loud noises in the court room - Court upheld,
the integrity of trial process, affirmed validity of
impugned orders with a finding that learned
session court has not committed any illegality in
passing impugned order - Transfer application
held to be filed on false and imaginary allegations
- accordingly. (Para - 10, 11, 20, 21, 22)

Writ petition is dismissed. (E-11)

Writ Petition - Dismissed.

List of Cases cited:
5 All. Brahma Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1401
St. of Mah. Vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak (1982) 2
SCC 463.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Anurag Verma, the learned AGA-I for the
State, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2 -
Directorate of Enforcement, Sri Shishir
Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent
no. 3 - Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad through the Registrar General,
and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant Writ
Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged validity of an order dated
11.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
PMLA/Sessions
Judge,
Lucknow
in
Criminal Misc. Case No. 4665 of 2024,
whereby an application filed by the
petitioner under Section 448 of BNSS for
transfer of Complaint Case No. 30/2018
titled Enforcement Directorate v. Brahma
Prakash Singh, under Section 3/4 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
from the Court of Special Judge, CBI
(West)/Special Court PMLA to another
Court, has been rejected.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case
are that while the petitioner was working as
Managing Director in LACFEDD, he was
convicted and sentenced to undergo 10
years'
imprisonment
for
committing
offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Prevention
of Corruption Act by means of a judgment
and order dated 12.02.2015 passed by the
Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption
Act, Lucknow in Case No. 4/2012. The
applicant has filed Criminal Appeal No.
203 of 2015 before this Court and he has
been granted bail by means of an order
dated 21.05.2015.

4. On 23.01.2018, the Directorate
of Enforcement filed Complaint Case No.
30/2018,
under
Section
3/4
of
the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
against the petitioner. On 23.12.2024, the
petitioner filed an application under Section
448 of BNSS for transfer of the complaint
from the Court of Special Judge, CBI
(West)/Special Judge, E.D. inter alia stating
that the Presiding Officer of the Court has
demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore
from the counsel for the petitioner. In para 14
of the application he stated that on 17.09.2024,
after recording the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., when the Presiding Officer of the
Court was alone on the dais, he demanded
illegal gratification of Rs. 1 crore for acquittal
of the accused and release of the confiscated
property but the counsel for the petitioner
declined to pay illegal gratification and he
stated that he would argue the case on its
merit. On 12.12.2024 the petitioner moved a
complaint in this regard to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of this Court.

5. Apparently, no action has been
taken till date on the aforesaid complaint
sent by the petitioner to Hon'ble Chief
Justice presumably because the Hon'ble
Chief Justice did not find any substance in
the allegations levelled in the complaint.

6. The petitioner further stated in
the transfer application that his application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling the
Investigating
Officer/
complainant/
Prosecution Witness No. 5 filed on
17.09.2024, was rejected by means of an
order
dated
17.09.2024,
without
considering judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
1402 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. On 23.09.2024, the petitioner
filed second application under Section 311
Cr.P.C., which too was rejected by means
of an order dated 30.09.2024 and as many
as 13 judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner were not referred
to by the trial Court. The petitioner
thereafter filed Contempt Application No.
4043 of 2024 before this Court for willful
disobedience of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and of this Court by the
trial Court. However, the learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
himself
sought
adjournment of the contempt application on
04.10.2025.

8. The petitioner had challenged
the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the
trial Court by filing an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 9166 of 2024
before this Court but no interim order was
passed in that application.

9. On 11.11.2024, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 59(2)(c)
of PMLA and Section 161 read with
Sections 16 & 145 of the Evidence Act and
the
petitioner
relied
upon
numerous
precedents in support of the application.
This application was rejected by the trial
Court by means of an order dated
09.12.2024 stating that the petitioner was
adopting dilatory tactics and the trial Court
closed the petitioner's opportunity to lead
defence evidence and the matter was fixed
for 13.12.2024 for hearing submissions. It
was thereafter, that the petitioner sent a
complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on
12.12.2024.

10. The learned Session Judge has
rejected the transfer application by means
of the impugned order dated 11.04.2025. It
is recorded in the impugned order dated
11.04.2025 that the learned Session Judge
had called for comments of the Presiding
Officer, who stated that the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was not pressed
when his predecessor was presiding the
Court. The presiding officer of the Court
has categorically refuted the allegation of
demand of bribe in open Court and he
further stated that when the Court is in
session, the staff of the Court as well as the
public prosecutor remain present there. The
presiding officer has stated that the
petitioner and his Counsel want to mount
pressure on the Court so that they can
prolong the trial for they use loud noises in
the Court room.

11. The learned Session Judge has
observed that the petitioner has leveled
allegations before this High Court also in
para 27 of the application. The learned
Session Judge further observed that there is
nothing on record to substantiate the
allegations leveled against the presiding
officer. So far as the contention of the
petitioner that the application under Section
311 Cr.P.C. and Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA
have been wrongly rejected, the petitioner
can avail remedy against the judicial orders
passed by the trial Court. The petitioner has
already
challenged
the
order
dated
23.09.2024 rejecting his application under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by filing an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.
9166 of 2024 before this Court. The
allegations made in the transfer application
are vague and baseless and the same do not
make out any ground for transfer of the
case. Accordingly, the Session Judge
rejected the transfer application.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted before this Court
that the Presiding Officer of the Court had
demanded bribe for him in open Court on
17.09.2024. He has submitted that he
5 All. Brahma Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1403
himself is representing the petitioner before
the trial Court and the bribe money was
demanded from him. When the Court put a
question as to when did the learned counsel
for the petitioner make a complaint in this
regard for the first time, he stated that the
complaint was made for the first time after
about a month on 12.12.2024 because the
learned counsel for the petitioner had taken
the demand of bribe money lightly as he
has to appear before the Courts day in and
day out and he wanted to avoid any conflict
with any judicial officer. It was only when
several judicial orders were passed against
the petitioner, that the learned counsel for
the petitioner thought it fit to submit a
complaint against the Presiding Officer and
file an application seeking transfer of case
from that Court. The period between
17.09.2024 and 12.12.2024, which the
learned counsel for the petitioner states to
be about a month, is in fact about three
months.

13. The Presiding Officer has
rightly stated in the comments sent to the
Session Judge in response to the transfer
application that whenever a judge is in
session, at least the reader of the Court,
other Court staff and the public prosecutor
are present inside the Court room. No
reasonable person of ordinary prudence
would believe that at the time of hearing of
the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.,
only the Presiding Officer and the counsel
for the petitioner were present in the Court
and no other person was present in the
Court room and that the Presiding Officer
demanded Rs. 1 crore from the learned
counsel for the petitioner towards bribe.

14. The petitioner did not move
any application for transfer of the case or
any complaint regarding demand of bribe
money till several judicial orders were
passed against him. It was only after he
could not get a stay order in proceedings
instituted before this Court challenging the
order of the trial Court, that he chose to
prefer an application seeking transfer of the
case from the Court which had passed
orders against the petitioner.

15.
Apparently,
the
transfer
application has been devised to avoid
facing trial before the Court, which has
passed two judicial orders against the
petitioner and the challenge to one of the
orders has remained unsuccessful before
this Court as no interim order has been
passed by this Court till date.

16. The averments made in para 27
of the transfer application referred to in the
order under challenge are relevant to be
looked at, which are being reproduced
below: -

 "27. That on 12.11.2024 the case
under section 482 was again listed before
the Court no. 11 presided by the Hon'ble
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan who heard
the matter more than one hour in open
room (which may be found in CC T.V.
camera of the Hon'ble High Court) and
while he did not find any ground to dismiss
the application/petition as the petitioner is
strong on merit he declined to dispose the
petition and in spite of the final order or
interim
order,
making
the
petition
infructuous
deliberately
Hon'ble
Mr.
Rajesh Singh Chauhan (J) passed the order
to proceed the trial as there is no interim
order. He passed the order that "Heard Sri
Raj Vikram Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Kuldeep Srivastava,
learned counsel for the E.D. As prayed, list
in the week commencing 02.12.2024 to
prepare the case. It is made clear that no
interim order has been granted, therefore,
1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the learned trial Court may proceed
further.". The true copy of the order dated
12.11.2024 is annexed as ANNEXURE-7 to
the aforesaid annexed complaint."

17. In State of Maharashtra v.
Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC
463, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
-

 "4. ...We are afraid that we
cannot launch into an enquiry as to what
transpired in the High Court. It is simply
not done. Public policy bars us. Judicial
decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial
record are unquestionable. They are not
open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged
into the arena. "Judgments cannot be
treated as mere counters in the game of
litigation."
[Per
Lord
Atkinson
in Somasundaram
Chetty v. Subramanian
Chetty, AIR 1926 PC 136 : 99 IC 742] We
are bound to accept the statement of the
Judges recorded in their judgment, as to
what transpired in court. We cannot allow
the statement of the Judges to be
contradicted by statements at the Bar or by
affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges
say in their judgment that something was
done, said or admitted before them, that
has to be the last word on the subject. The
principle is well-settled that statements of
fact as to what transpired at the hearing,
recorded in the judgment of the court, are
conclusive of the facts so stated and no one
can contradict such statements by affidavit
or other evidence. If a party thinks that the
happenings in court have been wrongly
recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent
upon the party, while the matter is still
fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the
attention of the very Judges who have made
the record to the fact that the statement
made with regard to his conduct was a
statement that had been made in error.
[Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhu Sudan
Chowdhri v. Chandrabati
Chowdhrain,
AIR 1917 PC 30] That is the only way to
have the record corrected. If no such step is
taken, the matter must necessarily end
there. Of course a party may resile and an
appellate court may permit him in rare and
appropriate
cases
to
resile
from
a
concession
on
the
ground
that
the
concession
was
made
on
a
wrong
appreciation of the law and had led to
gross injustice; but, he may not call in
question the very fact of making the
concession as recorded in the judgment."

18. The petitioner has leveled
allegations against an Hon'ble Judge of this
Court that when he did not find any ground
to dismiss the application under Section
482 No. 9166 of 2024 as the petition is
strong on merit, he declined to pass the
final order or interim order for making the
petition infructuous deliberately. However,
the order dated 12.11.2024 passed in the
aforesaid petition reads as follows: -

 "Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Kuldeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the
E.D.

 As prayed, list in the week
commencing 02.12.2024 to prepare the
case.

 It is made clear that no interim
order has been granted, therefore, the
learned trial court may proceed further."

19. The narration made by the
Court in the order dated 12.11.2024 that the
learned Counsel for the petitioner had
himself prayed for adjournment to enable
him to prepare the matter, has to be
presumed to be correct in view of the well
5 All. Sandeep Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1405
settled principle of law reiterated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak (Supra).

20. The allegation leveled in para
27 of the transfer application that when a
coordinate Bench of this Court did not find
any ground to dismiss the application under
Section 482 No. 9166 of 2024 as the
petition is strong on merit, he declined to
pass the final order or interim order for
making
the
petition
infructuous
deliberately, is apparently false, scandalous
and contemptuous.

21. The averment made in the
comments submitted by the Presiding
Officer of the trial Court to the Session
Judge, that the petitioner and his Counsel
want to mount pressure on the Court so that
they can prolong the trial for they use loud
noises in the Court room, is also correct, as
the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
persisted with this conduct and he has used
loud voice in this Court also and he insisted
that this Court should deal with all the
judgments that had been referred by him
before the trial Court in support of his
applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and
Section 59(2)(c) of PMLA and Section 161
read with Sections 16 & 145 of the
Evidence Act, whereas those judgments are
not relevant for examining the legality of
the order rejecting the transfer application.

22. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, I am of the considered view
that the transfer application has been filed
on false and imaginary allegations so as to
avoid facing trial before the presiding
officer who has passed two orders against
the petitioner. The learned Session Judge
has not committed any illegality in passing
the impugned order dated 11.04.2025
rejecting the transfer application filed by
the petitioner and I find myself in complete
agreement with the view taken by the
learned Sessions Judge while rejecting
passed on 11.04.2025.

23. The writ petition lacks merit
and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1405
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

First Appeal No. 612 of 2023

Sandeep Bhatnagar & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.V. Goswami, Sri Manish Kr. Nigam, Sri
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sri Shesh Kumar, Sri
V.P. Rai, Sri Vishnu Swaroop Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 -
Section
21
-
Issue
of
pecuniary
jurisdiction was neither raised before High
Court nor before Supreme Court - Right of
review is not akin to right of appeal -
Scope of review under O.47 R. 1 CPC is
limited and does not permit rehearing of
case on ground of erroneous decision - At
time of filing First Appeal, pecuniary
jurisdiction of District Judge was Rs.
5,00,000, hence, Court had jurisdiction to
entertain appeal - When arguments heard,
pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge
stood unchanged - Although pecuniary
jurisdiction
later
enhanced
to
Rs.
25,00,000
on
date
of
judgment,
jurisdiction determined by date of filing,
not date of decision - Thus, Court had
inherent and pecuniary jurisdiction to