# Krishna Mohan Tripathi v. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 263 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-16 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 10684 of 2024 - **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-mohan-tripathi-v-s-p-c-b-i-a-c-b-lucknow-53978 - **Pages:** 35 ## Text _Characters 0–39,919 of 106,282. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39919 for what follows._ 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 263 18. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. --------- (2026) 1 ILRA 263 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Application U/S 482 No. 10684 of 2024 Krishna Mohan Tripathi ...Applicant Versus S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow ...Opposite Party Issue for consideration Whether offence u/ Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) and Sec 13(1)(e) r/w S. 13(2) are same? Headnotes Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-S. 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) and S. 13(1)(e) r/w S. 13(2)- Quashing of proceedings - Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India- Second FIR - same transaction- separate F.I.R. was lodged- Second Case/Case-in-Issue under Section 13 (1)(e) of PC Act- relates to disproportionate assets accumulated by the applicant during his service period - 'First Case'- registered on the written complaint- under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act related to illegal gratification/illicit gain- both offence are different/distinct - not of the same transaction -could be separately charged and tried-Application dismissed. (E-9) Case Law Cited 1. T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 2. V.K. Puri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 6 SCC 91 3. Prem Shankar Singh vs. State of U.P. thru CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4743 4. State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 358 5. Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 621 6. Mohan Baitha Vs. State of Bihar [(2001) 4 SCC 350] 7. Anju Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P. [(2013) 6 SCC 384] 8. P. v. State of Uttarakhand [2022 KHC 6634] List of Acts 1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 2. The Indian Penal Code List of Keywords Doctrine of Double Jeopardy; separately charged and tried. Appearances of parties Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Asim Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anurag Kumar Singh (Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.) 264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 1. Heard Shri C.B. Pandey, Advocate along with Shri Asim Kumar Singh, Ms Tripti and Shri Mohit Ashok, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant Krishna Mohan Tripathi has impeached the proceedings related to Criminal Case No.12 of 2011, arising out of F.I.R. No.RC0062010A0010/2010 dated 24.02.2010 under Section 13 (1)(e) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "PC Act"), Police Station-CBI/ACB, Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge, CBI/Anti Corruption (West), Lucknow. 3. The main prayer sought in the petition reads as under : "to quash the impugned criminal proceeding in Criminal Case No. No.12/2011 arises out of FIR No.RC0062010A0010/2010, dated 24.02.2010, under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station-CBI/ACB, Lucknow, pending before the Learned Special Judge, CBI/Anti Corruption (West), Lucknow." 4. Upon due consideration of pleadings and documents on record as also the submissions advanced by Shri C.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, who appeared for C.B.I., this Court is of the view that prayer/relief, quoted above, has been sought based upon the following : (A) Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. These provision(s) are based upon the principle embodied in the Maxim(s) (i) "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause) and (ii) "Nemo debet bis puniri pro uno delicto" (no one ought to be punished twice for one offence). According to these provision(s), in nutshell, an accused/a person once punished or acquitted cannot be subsequently tried and /or punished for the same offence. In other words "After a person faces a judicial trial and receives a punishment or acquittal for an offence, he is legally protected from being subjected to another trial and punishment for that exact offence". (B) Section 71 of I.P.C. This provision provides that 'where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offence, unless it be so expressly provided. (C) Section 220 of Cr.P.C. This provision relates to the joinder of charges of offences committed by the same person. It applies to a case in which different offences or acts are parts of a single transaction. If the offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, they may be tried together. This section is an enabling provision. It permits the Court to try more than one offence in one trial. The Court may or may not try all the offences together in one trial. If the Court tries the offences separately, it does not commit any illegality. The accused in a case has no vested right to seek joinder of charges and trial of more offences in one trial. The expression "same transaction" in Section 220 of Cr.P.C. is relevant for deciding the question of whether the series of acts are so connected together to be tried at one trial. There cannot be a universal formula for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. The commonality of purpose or design and continuity of action manifest that the same or different offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. The proximity of time, unity of place, unity or 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 265 community of purpose or design and continuity of action make the series of acts alleged against the person to constitute the same transaction. (D) Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "PC Act"), as applicable in this case. This provision deals with 'Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant'. Based upon this Section, in nutshell, it has been alleged that 'Criminal Misconduct' by a Public Servant, as mentioned under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, the applicant has already been convicted and therefore he cannot be tried for the offence as mentioned under Section 13 (1)(e) of PC Act. (E) Judgment passed in the case of T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181. In this judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C." 5. For considering the main prayer sought in the instant application, to the view of this Court, the following facts of the case are relevant, which are related to two cases indicated herein under :- (i) Criminal Case No.17/2010 arising out of FIR lodged on 30.10.2009 at Police Station - CBI/ACB, Lucknow, registered as Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033 (in short "First Case"). (ii) Criminal Case No.12 of 2011 arising out of FIR lodged on 24.02.2010 at Police Station - CBI/ACB, Lucknow registered as RC No.0062010A0010 i.e. Case-in-Issue (in short 'Second Case/Case-in-Issue'). 6. The relevant facts of First Case, arising out of Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, are as under : 6.1. Written report dated 30.10.2009 was submitted by Sunil Kumar Singh son of Maheshwar Prasad Singh (in short "Complainant") before Superintendent of Police, CBI, Lucknow. Annexed at page 52A of the paper book. 6.2. According to the aforesaid Written Report dated 30.10.2009, the applicant demanded total Rs.70,000/- from the Complainant for the purposes of renewal of licence of 'Three Trollies' and 'One Stall' related to Basti and Khalilabad Railway Station(s). 6.3. It is to be noted that the applicant, an employee of Railways, was discharging the duties of the post of C.R.M., I.R.C.T.C., Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 6.4. Based upon the aforesaid Written Report dated 30.10.2009 an F.I.R. was lodged on 30.10.2009, at Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow, registered as Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033, under Section 7, 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act. In nutshell, this F.I.R. relates to demand of illegal gratification. 266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 6.5. Thereafter on 31.10.2009 the CBI team caught the present applicant red handed at his residence, where the bribe money i.e. Rs.70,000/- was recovered from the Briefcase of the applicant and the applicant was arrested. 6.6. The Trap Memo was also prepared on 31.10.2009. 6.7. The CBI thereafter filed the charge sheet against the applicant under Section(s) 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act. 6.8. Trial Court thereafter proceeded in the matter which includes framing of charges and recording the statement(s) of independent witnesses of prosecution namely Santosh Kumar Saravgi and Saurav Paul as also the recording of statement of the applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6.9. Trial Court namely Special Judge, CBI/Anti Corruption (West), Lucknow (in short "Trial Court"), after conclusion of evidence, passed the judgment on 11.08.2024 in Criminal Case No.17 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, under Section 7, 13 (1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the PC Act. 6.10. Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.08.2024 convicted the applicant for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act and also for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act. 6.11. It is to be noted that the judgment of conviction dated 11.08.2024 relates to F.I.R./Case Crime No.RCNo.0062009A0033 of 2009, CBI/ACB Lucknow. 7. The relevant facts of 'Second Case/Case-in-Issue' arising out of Case Crime No.RC00622010A0010, are as under : 7.1. After apprehending the applicant red handed, the house of the applicant was also searched on 31.10.2009 and during search the prosecution/CBI found various assets. Relevant portion of Memo prepared in this regard is extracted herein under : ASSETS The assets possessed by Sri K.M. Tripathi as on 31.10.2009. Immovable Assets 1. House at B-1/12, L Road, Type-B Mahanagar Extension, Lucknow : Rs. 60,00,000/- 2. House at 70, Mall Avenue, Lucknow : Rs.50,00,000/- (approx) 3. House at Village- Kotha, Distt- Gorakhpur : Rs.20,00,000/- (approx) 4. 1/5th of 1.7 Hectare agricultural land at Village - Kotha, Distt - Gorakhpur : Ancestral Total : Rs.1,30,00,000/- Movable Assets 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 267 a) Sri K.M. Tripathi possesses following movable assets in the name of him and his family members, details of which are given as under - 1. One Maruti Esteem Car : Rs.4,49,405/- 2. Gold Jewellery items : Rs.51,91,810/- 3. Silver Jewellery items : Rs.5,87,619/- 4. Cash : Rs.24,91,000/- 5. Household Inventory items (including cost of 2 LCD Home Theatres, 6 Air Conditioners, Firearms, 44 Bottles of Liquor, Furniture etc.) : Rs.41,03,594/- Total : Rs.1,28,23,428/- b) Bank Deposits Besides the above movable assets, Sri K.M. Tripathi has following bank accounts in different banks in his name and in the names of his family members along with the balance amounts as on 31.10.2009 - S. No. A/c No.name of the Bank and Branch Name Name of the A/C holder Amount in Rs. 1. 07810053493, HDFC Bank, M.G. Road, Lucknow. Smt. Poonam Tripathi (wife) 54,477/- 2. 05500100000096, Bank of Baroda, Hazratganj Branch, Lucknow. -do- 21,181/- 3. 628101073549, ICICI Bank, M.G. Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow. Sri K.M. Tripathi 2876/- 4. 6281062580, ICICI Bank, M.G. Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow Smt. Poonam Tripathi 3210/- 5. 1189667 ABN AMRO Bank, M.G. Road, Lucknow Sri K.M. Tripathi 1236/- 6. 1189667 ABN AMRO Bank, M.G. Road, Lucknow Smt. Poonam Tripathi 35,438/- 7. 26700400004051, Bank of Baroda, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow Sri K.M. Tripathi 1,87,754/- 8. 2186101006843, Canara Bank, Sapru Marg, Lucknow Sri K.M. Tripathi 2,07,430/- Total 5,13,602/- 268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Total Movable Assets = (a)+(b) = Rs.1,28,23,428/- + 5,13,602/- = Rs.1,33,37,020/- Total Assets = Immovable assets + Movable assets = Rs.1,30,00,000/- + Rs.1,33,37,030/- = Rs.2,63,37,030/-" 7.2. Considering the aforesaid assets found in the search, the officer of CBI namely A.K. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Lucknow wrote a letter dated 09.12.2009 to Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Lucknow, indicating aforesaid therein and in this letter concluded as under : INCOME 1. Income from property settlement : Rs.4,00,000/- 2. Housing loan from Bank of Baroda : Rs.32,00,000/- 3. Loan from LIC : Rs.8,00,000/- 4. Income from maturity of LIC Policy : Rs.46,880/- 5. Sale proceeds of jewellery : Rs.5,98,000/- Total : Rs.50,44,880/- Thus the total income of Sri K.M Tripathi = Net Salary Income + Income other than salary Total Income = 37,50,293/- + 50,44,880/- = Rs.87,95,173/- Expenditure (a). Non verifiable expenditure : Rs.16,22,117/- [1/3 of (Gross salary - Income Tax deductions) (Income Tax Deductions are not yet known) (b). Verifiable expenditure i). Expenses on education of children : Rs.8,80,000/- ii). Stamp duty paid on Mahanagar house property :Rs.7,24,000/- iii). Registration Fee paid on Mahanagar House property : Rs.5040/- iv). Stamp Duty paid on house at Mall Avenue :Rs.70,100/- v). Expenses on Rental Car : Rs.1,50,000/- vi). Miscellaneous expenditure : Rs.11,715/- vii). Taxi fare paid as per records :Rs.28,386/- viii). Hotel bills of stay at Pune : Rs.31,552/- Total : Rs.19,00,793/- Total Expenditure : (a) + (b) = Rs.16,22,117/- + Rs.19,00,793/- = Rs.35,22,910/- Disproportionate Assets possessed by Sri K.M. Tripathi = Assets as on 31.10.2009 - Assets possessed on 6.3.1989 + expenditure between 6.3.1989 to 31.10.2009 - Income between 6.3.1989 to 31.10.2009 = 26337030-0+3522910 -8795173 = Rs.2,10,64,767 Percentage Disproportionate Asset=21064767X100=239.5(approx)% 8795173 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 269 While calculating the Disproportionate Assets of Sri K.M. Tripathi, the immovable / movable assets existing in his name and in the name of his dependent family members have been taken into account. During investigation, the general reputation of Sri K.M. Tripathi has not been found above board. He is known as a corrupt officer particularly during his posting as Sr. DCM, Lucknow and CRM, IRCTC, Lucknow. Investigation has also revealed that a number of immovable properties were acquired by him which are highly undervalued and registered below the market rates. It has also been revealed that Sri K.M. Tripathi has not declared any major source of income other than his salary. There is strong possibility that during open investigation, disproportionate assets will further increase as there are more immovable properties. the details of which could not be gathered due to paucity of time. During open investigation, the expenditure on house hold articles, demat accounts details credit cards details, pleasure trip, expenses and some more bank accounts details in the name of Sri K.M. Tripathi and his family members are likely to be revealed. In view of the above facts, a regular case U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of PC. Act, 1988 may be registered against Sri K.M. Tripathi, the then Chief Regional Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Regional Office, Lucknow for the possession of disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 2,10,64,767/-. Sd. 09.12.2009 (A. K. SHARMA), Dy. Supdt. of Police, CBI, ACB, Lucknow After obtaining necessary permission of the Govt. vide letter No. 2009/ V-2/ IRCTC/14 dt. 08.02.2010 as required U/s 6 A of DSPE Act 1946, a regular case u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(e) of P. C. Act, 1988 against Sri K.M. Tripathi, the then Chief Regional Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, Regional Office, Lucknow is registered and entrusted to Sri Surender Rai, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Lucknow for investigation. 7.3. From a bare perusal of above quoted portion of the letter dated 09.12.2009 indicates that after obtaining necessary permission of the Government of India vide letter No.2009/V2/IRCTC/14 dated 08.10.2010 as required under Section 6A of DSPE Act, 1946, a regular case under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act was registered against the applicant and one Sri Surender Rai, Inspector, CBI, ACB, Lucknow was directed to investigate the matter on 24.02.2010 itself, the date of second FIR i.e. FIR/Case Crime No. RC0062010A0010 dated 24.02.2010, in relation to which the present application for the relief(s) sought, quoted above, has been filed. 270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 8. While pressing the instant application for the relief sought, quoted above, Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pending Criminal Case arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.RC0062010A0010/2010 is not in consonance with the spirit of relevant statutory provision and also Article 20(2) of Constitution of India. 9. Elaborating the aforesaid, Shri Pandey submitted as under : (i) In Section 13(1) of the Act of 1988, expression/word 'or' has been mentioned in relation to all the sub-sections and as such the trial for the offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 cannot proceed for the reason that the applicant has already been convicted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988. (ii) Subsequent/second FIR lodged on 24.10.2010 registered as FIR/Case Crime No.RC0062010A0010, the basis of Criminal Case No.12 of 2011 i.e. 'Second Case/Case-in-Issue', is also not in consonance with the principles settled in this regard. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181. Referred paragraphs of which are as under : "19. The scheme of CrPC is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 CrPC on the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 CrPC, as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) CrPC. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one or more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC. 20. From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC. xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx 27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 271 empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution." (iii) The trial pertaining to subsequent/second FIR cannot proceed in terms of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, Section(s) 220, 221 and 300 Cr.P.C. and Section 71 of IPC. 10. Opposing the instant application, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, Advocate, who appeared for the opposite party/CBI, submitted that the applicant is not entitled for the main relief sought in this application, quoted above. In continuation Sri Singh submitted as under : (i) Based upon Written Report dated 30.10.2009 an FIR was lodged on 30.10.2009 registered as Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033. (ii) The applicant was caught red handed on 31.10.2009 and the 'Trap Memo' was also prepared, based upon the same the first case was registered as Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033. (iii) In the Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, the charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. (iv) Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet, the trial court proceeded in the matter and ultimately found that the applicant is guilty for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and therefore passed the judgment dated 11.08.2014 whereby convicted the applicant. (v) The Case Crime No.RC0062010A0010, in relation to which the instant application has been filed, was registered based upon the assets found during search after seeking necessary permission from the Government of India as required under Section 6A of DSPE Act, 1946, under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act, which relates to disproportionate assets. (vi) For the offence indicated under Section(s) 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act the applicant has already been convicted vide order dated 11.08.2014. (vii) Section 13(1)(d) relates to demand of illegal gratification and Section 13(1)(e) relates to disproportionate assets. Thus, Section 13(1)(e) is the separate offences. As such, the applicant can be tried for both the offences separately. (viii) In the 'First Case' i.e. Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033 related to Section 13(1)(d), the applicant has already been convicted and the present case would be dealt with on the basis of assets found during search and the income of the applicant of which the applicant is legally entitled. 272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (ix) The 'First Case' i.e. Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033 under Section 13 (1)(d) of the PC Act was based upon the different evidence and the Case-in-Issue, arising out of Case Crime No. RC0062010A0010, under Section 13 (1)(e) of PC Act is based upon different evidence. (a) On the aforesaid, reference has been made to page 128 of the paper book, which is the copy of 'List of Articles' filed in Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, CBI/ACB, Lucknow. The same reads as under : "LIST OF ARTICLES IN RC 0062009 A0033, CBI, ACB, Lucknow. 1. Sealed envelope containing tainted money amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. 2. 5 sealed bottles containing pink colour solution of Sodium Carbonate, water and Phenolphthalein powder. 3. One sealed envelope containing remaining Phenolphthalein powder used during pretrap proceedings. 4. One sealed envelope containing plece of paper used during pre-trap proceedings. 5. Specimen seal used by CBI during laying of trap. 6. Two sealed CDs containing the recorded conversation between the accused Shri K.M. Tripathi and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, the complainant and accused Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava and Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, the complainant. 7. One briefcase belonging to accused Shri K.M. Tripathi from which the tainted GC Notes were recovered." (b) Reference has also been made to copy of 'List of Documents' filed in Case Crime No.RC0062010A0010 (Second Case/Case-in-Issue). Relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder : List of Documents in RC-0062010A0010 Sl. No. Description of documents 1. FIR of RC0062010(A)0010 2. Sale deed of House No.70 Duplex Awaas Vikas Parishad, Mall Avenue, Lko 3 Letter No.5914/RC-10(A)/2010/CBI,ACB/Lucknow, date 29-07-2010 4. Letter No.5617/RC-10(A)/2010/CBI, ACB/Lucknow, dated 13.07.2010 5. Valuation report of House No. 70 Duplex Awaas Vikas Parishad, Mall Avenue, LKO. 6. Seizure Memo dt.10.5.2010 7. Sale deed of H. No.B-1/12 L. Road Type B, Mahanagar, Extension, LKO. 8. Search-List on 31.10.2009 along with Valuation report of Gold ornaments, 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 273 Silver Ornaments, Coins and Utensils. 9. Inventory memo on 31.10.2009. 10. Document related (Invoice) to purchased maruti Car from T.S. Motar Ltd. LKO. 11. Certified copy of license of Revolver. 12. Certified copy of license of Rifle 13. Fax No.05912416680 dt.13.04.2011 related to Kamal Armoury, Moradabad, Bill dt. 09.09.2005 14. FIR of Case Crime No.1201, 1202/09 P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. 15. Seizure Memo dt. 20.04.2010 16. Documents related to Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) A/C No.1189656 17. Seizure Memo dt. 4.5.2010 18. Documents related to bank of Baroda, Gomti nagar, Vipul Plaza, Vipul Khand, Lko's A/C No.26700400004051 of overdraft loan 19. Seizure Memo dt. 20.5.2010 20. Documents related from Canara bank Sapru Marg LKO A/C No.2186101006843 21. Seizure Memo dt.20.5.2010 22. Documents related from ICICI Bank, Br-Hazratganj LKO A/C No.628101073549 23. Seizure Memo dt. 06.9.2010 24. Documents related to Share Certificate No.423412 of IDBI Bank Br-Hazratganj, LKO. 25. Seizure Memo dt. 31.12.2010 26. Documents related to Bank of Baroda, Gomti nagar, Vipul Plaza, Vipul Khand, Lko's A/C No.26700600007135 of Housing Loan 274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 27. Documents related to Car Loan pertaining to ICICI Bank Hazratganj LKO Agreement No.LALUC00005490563. 28. Seizure Memo dt 14.01.2011 29. Documents relating to LIC Lucknow Policy No. 211162383, 211279715, 211528424, 215896557 30. Seizure Memo dt. 9.07.2010 31. Certified Photo Copy of A/C No.CLSB/01/020198 of Corporation Bank of India Br-Indranagar Lko, Certified Photo copy of A/C No.SB/01/004298 of Corporation Bank of India Br-Gomtinagar Lko. 32. Seizure Memo dt 17-1-2011. 33. Certified Photo copy of A/C No.SB/1/004298 of Corporation Bank of India BrGomtinagar Lko, 34. Seizure memo dt 22-10-2010 35. Certified Photo copy of A/C statement of SBI Gorakhpur related to A/C/11049774987 on 24-05-09 to 30-05-09 36. Seizure memo dt 08.09.2010 37. Documents related to Agricultural Income 38. Seizure Memo dt 09-04-2010 39. Certified Photo copy of letter dt 26-11-09 from Shri Anil Tekariwa, to SP, CBI, ACB Lko along with statement A/C 1854000101009317 holder of Shri Anil Tekariwal. 40. Seizure memo dt 20-01-2011 41. Certified Photo copy of A/C statement, A/C 1854000101009317 holder of Shri Anil Tekariwal 42. Seizure Memo dt 13-05-2010 43. Certified Photo copy of A/C Statement, A/C 00500100000096 holder of Smt. Poonam Tripathi 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 275 44. Seizure Memo dt 8-07-2010 45. Certified Photo copy of purchase Voucher, Bank statement of Bank of India, BrMahanagar, Lko, Ledger A/C of Smt. Poonam Tripathi. 46. Seizure Memo dt 28-05-2010 47. Documents related to Aviva Life Insurance Ltd. LKO Policy No.RSG/1307840 48. Gift deed of Late Umrawati Devi 49. Seizure Memo dt 14-05-2010 50. Attested copy of Fees amount paid by Shri K.M. Tripathi to school for his daughters education. 51. Seizure memo dt 10-06-2010 52. Letter dated 09-06-2010 expenditure on education son of Shri K.M. Tripathi 53. Documents related to education expenditure on education daughter of Shri K.M. Tripathi 54. Documents related to education expenditure on education son of Shri K.M. Tripathi 55. Documents related to expenditure on Hotel Taj Blue Diamond, Pune's by Shri K.M. Tripathi, Bill No.82512 dt.12.07.06, amount Rs.31,582/- 56. Seizure Memo dt 10-11-2010 57. Documents related to Certified Photo copy of pay particulars of Shri Mrishna Mohan Tripathi, 1989 to Aug-2008 58. Seizure Memo dt 02-12-2010 59. Certified copy of statement of Immovable property, Annual property return, Transaction of Immovable property, salary statement, year 2008-9, 2009-10 60. Letter No.IRCTC/RO/Lko/GEN CORRES dt 14-03-11 61. Letter No -E/PC/KM Tripathi/YDPM dt 4-4-11 276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 62. Seizure Memo dt 19-11-2010 63. Certified copy of personal File of Shri Krishna Mohan Tripathi, with the note sheet. 64. Prosecution Sanction Order letter no.RCNO. 0062010A0010, 2011/V2/IRCTC/12-CBI New Delhi, Date 29-11-2011 (c) Reference has also been made to the copy of the 'List of Witnesses' filed in Case Crime No.RC0062010A0010. The names and particulars of Witnesses, as indicated in this document, are as under : List of Witnesses in RC0062010A0010 Sl. No. Description of the witnesses 1. Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, the then Dy. Supdt of Police, CBI, ACB, Lucknow 2. Shri Md. Yahiya Qureshee S/o Shri Balagat Husain, Ad. Khajanchi Bazar, P.O.- Basharatpur, Gorakhpur, Present Address- Janpath, Chandralok, Aliganj, Lucknow 3 Shri Amresh Chandra Tripathi, Asstt. IG Registration (First) Lucknow 4. Shri Pradeep Kumar S/o Gul Rajiram, Valuation Officer, Income Tax Office, Lucknow 5. Shri Pradeep Kumar Aren S/o Shri Brajendra Singh Gupta, 2/301, East end Apart., Mayur Vihar, Phase-I 6. Shri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Daily Wages Clerk, O/o Sub-Registrar (III), Lucknow 7. Shri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, Sub-Registrar-III, Registrar Office, Lucknow (Statement not recorded) 8. Shri Santosh Kumar Saravgi Sr. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, LKO 9. Shri Pushkar Nath Kesharwani, R/O B-711, Sector-C, Mahanagar, Lucknow 10. Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, Bunglow Khalasi, R/O Patti Dilippur, P.S.- Patti, Distt-Pratapgarh (UP) 11. Shri Harish Chandra Saxena, Prop. Kamal Armoury, Arms Dealer, Moradabad 12. Shri Anoop Kumar Shukla, Joint General Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur (Statement not recorded) 13. Shri Ashish Kumar, Price Counter / Computer Operator, Cheers Model Shop, ShahNazaf Road, LKO 14. Shri Punit Arora, Operational Manager, Royal Scotland Bank-13, MG Marg, LKO 15. Shri Gaurav Seth, Lobby Manager, Royal Scotland Bank-13, MG Marg, LKO 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 277 16. Shri Naresh Chandra Tripathi S/o Late Jeevan Lal, Operation Manager, Bank of Baroda, Br-Charbagh, LKO 17. Shri Harish Kumar Purwar, Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda, Br-Gomti Nagar, LKO 18. Shri Sharat Kumar S/o Raj Narain Srivastava, Sr. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Br-Sapru Marg, LKO 19. Shri Ashwini Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Sadanand Vyas, Asstt. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Br.- Hazratganj, Lucknow. 20. Shri Sumit Sinha S/o Shri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, R/o D-1/420 H.L. Colony, LKO, Asstt. Manager, IDBI Bank, Br- Hazratganj, Lucknow. 21. Shri Upendra Singh, S/o Late Lallu Singh, Universal Tailor, Bank of Baroda, Br.- Gomti Nagar, LKO. 22. Shri Rohit Sahni, Cluster Manager, ICICI Bank, Br.- Hazratganj, Lucknow. 23. Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, Chief Manager, LIC, Hazratganj, Lucknow. 24. Shri Vinay Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Kedar Nath Tripathi, R/o Betiya Hata, Gorakhpur, 3/89 25. Shri Gaurav Mishra, Clerk, Corporation Bank Br.- Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 26. Shri Ramesh Mishra S/o Ramvraksh Mishra R/o 577 Mamford Ganj, Allahabad, AGM, S.B.I., R.A.,S., M.E.C.C., Gorakhpur. 27. Shri Dayaram Prajapati S/o Shri Thakurdeen Prajapati, I/C Nayab Tahsildar, Tahsil-Khajni, Gorakhpur. 28. Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Sachiddanand, Lekhpal Village-Kotha, TahsilKajni, Gorakhpur. 29. Shri Anil Tekriwal S/o RadheyShyam Tekriwal, 1-Sapru Marg, Lucknow, owner of Cox and Kings Travels Agency, Lucknow. 30. Shri Rajesh, Personnel of Punjab National Bank Br-Aliganj, Lucknow. 31. Shri Madan Lal Bhagat, Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda Br-Hazratganj, Lucknow. 32. Shri Nishank Rastogi, Partner of the Firm Lallu Lal Jugal Kishore, Jeweller, M12 Gole Market, Mahanagar, Lucknow. 33. Shri Shailesh Kumar Mishra, Branch Manager, AVIVA Life Insurance Co., Lucknow. 34. Shri Ganesh, Peon, Loreto Convent Intermediate College, 99 M.G. Marg, Lucknow. 35. Smt. L. Georg, Principal, Loreto Convent Intermediate College, Lucknow. (Statement not recorded) 36. Shri Carloze Miz S/o Shri Julias Miz, Office Asstt., St. Francis College, Lucknow. 37. Father Vin Saint Pintu, Principal, St. Francis College, Lucknow. (Statement not recorded) 38. Smt. M. Abrahim, Principal, La-Marteniar Girls College, Lucknow. (Statement not recorded) 278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 39. Shri E. Disuza, Principal, La-Marteniar College, Lucknow (Statement not recorded) 40. Shri Sandeep Mukherjee, General Manager, Hotel Taj Blue Diamond, Pune, (Statement not recorded) 41. Shri Kunwar Singh Rawat S/o Late Preetu Singh Rawat, Chief Vigilance Inspector, Head Office, North Railway Vigilance Department, Baroda House, New Delhi. 42. Shri ChandraKant Jha, S/o Shrikant Jha, Executive, IRCTC, North Zone, New Delhi. 43. Shri VayuNandan Shukla, Sr. Executive Finance, IRCTC, Regional Office, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 44. Shri Jagdish Kunwar Srivastava, Sr. Clerk, Personnel Section (Gazetted), N.E.R., LKO. 45. Shri Ramesh Pandey S/o Shri Brindavan Pandey, Chief Vigilance Inspector, Vigilance Office, N.E.R., Gorakhpur. 46. Shri Md. Istiyaq Khan S/o Md Ilhaq Khan, Account Officer, O/o Sr. Finance Manager, North Railway, Lucknow. 47. Shri Sunil Kumar, Deputy Secretary (D&A), Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi. (Statement not recorded) 48. Surendra Rai, Inspector, Investigating Officer. (x) To establish/prove the Second Case/Case-in-Issue before the trial court arising out of Case Crime No. RC0062010A0010, the prosecution, as per charge sheet, would produce 48 witnesses including the complainant namely Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB, Lucknow, who was not the complainant of Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033. (xi) The complainant of the Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033 was Sunil Kumar Singh, who was examined before the Trial Court, and on the basis of whose complaint the applicant was caught red handed on 31.10.2009 and from the possession of the applicant an amount to the tune of Rs.70,000/- was recovered and thereafter phenolphthalein test of the applicant was also carried out and 'Trap Memo' was prepared. (xii) Other witnesses in Criminal Case No. 17 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. RC No.RC0062009A0033, were Santosh Kumar Saraogi, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow and Saurav Paul, Agriculture Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Lucknow (witnesses of recovered amount of Rs.70,000/- from the possession of the applicant on 31.10.2009). (xiii) As both the aforesaid FIRs relate to different offences, the case of T.T. Anthony (Supra) would not be applicable in the instant case. Other provisions, as pointed out by Sri C.B. Pandey, Advocate, would also not be applicable in the instant case. 1 All. Krishna Mohan Tripathi Vs. S.P., C.B.I./A.C.B. Lucknow 279 (xiv) The time period and set of accused as also witnesses in both the cases are different. (xv) In 'First Case' arising out of Case Crime No.RC0062009A0033, Ajay Kumar Sharma was also an accused and he has been acquitted by the trial court. The Second Case/Case-in-Issue is only against the applicant. (xvi) First Case arising out of Case Crime No. RC0062009A0033 was related to recovery of amount i.e. Rs.70,000/- on 31.10.2009 from the possession of the applicant and therefore the applicant was charged related for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. (xvii) The Second Case/Case-in-Issue relates to acquired assets, which were found not proportionate to the known sources of income of the applicant, during his service period w.e.f. 06.03.1989 (the date of joining the service) and 31.10.2009 (the date of search) and therefore the separate F.I.R. was lodged, registered as Case Crime No. RC0062010A0010, under Section 13 (1)(e) of PC Act and in this section subsequently the charge-sheet was filed. (xviii) In support of submissions advanced, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh has placed reliance on the following judgments : (a) V.K. Puri vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2007) 6 SCC 91. Relevant paragraphs referred are extracted herein under : "11. The 1988 Act is a special Act. It overrides the provisions of the general law viz. the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, then when a matter is not covered by the 1988 Act, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the 1988 Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall clearly be applicable. 12.