'False Allegations': 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 observed that the transfer plea was clearly a tactic to avoid trial before the court, which had passed multiple judicial orders against the petitioner.

The single judge found that the allegations of a ₹1 crore bribe demand by the judge, raised nearly three months after the alleged incident, were not only unsupported by any evidence but appeared to be a calculated attempt to delay proceedings.

The case in brief

The petitioner (Brahma Prakash Singh), a former Managing Director of LACFEDD, was earlier convicted under various provisions under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act and is now facing a money laundering case before the Special PMLA Court in Lucknow.

In December last year, the petitioner moved a transfer application under Section 448 BNSS, alleging that the Presiding Officer [Special Judge, CBI (West)/Special Judge, E.D] had demanded from him (in September 2024) an illegal gratification of ₹1 crore in exchange for acquittal and release of confiscated property.

It was his claim that after recording the statement under Section 313 CrPC, when the Presiding Officer of the Court was alone on the dais, he demanded bribery.

The Session Judge, however, rejected the transfer application while recording the comments of the Presiding Officer, who categorically refuted the allegation of bribery demand in open Court.

In his explanation, the presiding judge stated that when the Court is in session, the staff of the Court, as well as the public prosecutor, remain present there, where it is unlikely that he would have demanded the bribery. He also stated that the petitioner and his Counsel want to put pressure on the Court so that they can prolong the trial.

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

High Court's order

In its order, the Court noted that the delay in filing the application, the absence of supporting evidence, and the petitioner's own conduct made the allegation appear "apparently false and imaginary".

The bench was also of the opinion that the transfer application had 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 to date.

The Court also took exception to the petitioner's assertion in his plea that even a coordinate Bench of the High Court had deliberately avoided passing orders in his favour, terming it a scandalous and contemptuous averment.

"The transfer application has been filed on false and imaginary allegations so as to avoid facing trial", the Court concluded while affirming the Sessions Judge's decision rejecting the transfer plea.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.

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)