PC Act | Strong Suspicion, Not Proof Of Guilt, Is Required At Stage Of Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Refuses Relief To Ex-GST Officer
Refusing relief to a former GST Official in a Corruption case, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only concerned with a "strong suspicion" that the accused has committed an offence and the final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied.
"…at the stage of consideration of question of discharge of the accused/ revisionist a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for by the court. Charge can be validly framed against the accused on the basis of grave suspicion raised against him on the basis of material available on record as produced by prosecution", a bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed.
With this, the Court rejected a plea filed by Dhanendra Kumar Pandey challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting his discharge plea under Section 227 CrPC and framing charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018).
Case in brief
According to the prosecution's case, the revisionist, while posted as Deputy Commissioner in the Commercial Tax/GST Department, Lucknow, allegedly demanded ₹2 lakh from an accountant of a private company for clearing the company's GST refund claims amounting to about ₹19.47 lakh.
Following a complaint lodged before the Vigilance Establishment, a pre-trap inquiry was conducted, after which a trap was organised.
The prosecution alleged that during the trap proceedings on March 19, 2024, the accused was caught red-handed while keeping the tainted currency notes in the drawer of his table.
The tainted money allegedly matched the pre-recorded serial numbers and the phenolphthalein test was conducted as part of the trap procedure.
A charge-sheet was subsequently filed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Arguments put forth
The revisionist contended that no offence under Section 7 of the 1988 Act was made out because the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredient of demand of illegal gratification.
It was argued that the refund claims had already been rejected due to deficiencies before the alleged demand, leaving no pending work with the accused, and therefore there was no occasion to demand a bribe.
The revisionist also questioned the delay between the constitution of the trap team and the actual trap. It was contended that independent witnesses had not heard the alleged conversation regarding the demand. It was also his stance that the prosecution sanction had been granted without application of mind.
Opposing the plea, the State, on the other hand, argued that the accused had been caught red-handed while accepting ₹2 lakh from the complainant and that there was ample material showing both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
It was submitted that the trap had been preceded by a detailed inquiry and legal process and that the ingredients of Section 7 of the 1988 Act were satisfied.
High Court's order and observations
The High Court found no infirmity in the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the accused.
It noted that the independent witnesses had participated in the pre-trap proceedings, accompanied the trap team and stated during the investigation that the accused was caught red-handed in their presence while keeping the bribed money in the drawer.
In these circumstances, the Court held that it could not be said that they had not witnessed the incident merely because they had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused.
"…as the conversation of monetary transaction of bribe took place in the room of the revisionist between him and the complainant. It was not possible for the members of the trap team to overhear their conversation who were standing outside the room at different places who were hiding themselves outside room at different points on the floor where the room of the revisionist situated", the bench observed.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in V. Kannan vs. State 2009, the Court reiterated that the prosecution must prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in corruption cases.
It further referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2022, wherein it was held that proof of demand and acceptance is a sine qua non under Sections 7 and 13 of the 1988 Act, while clarifying that in the absence of direct evidence of the complainant, guilt may, in an appropriate case, be inferred from other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
Applying the ratio of these judgments, the Court observed that, prima facie, the prosecution case was established on the basis of the trap, recovery of money, chemical test and the Forensic Science Laboratory report relating to the material exhibits, supporting the prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of the alleged bribe.
The Court further noted that at the stage of consideration of the question of discharge, a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for.
It added that a charge can validly be framed on the basis of grave suspicion arising from the prosecution material.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander 2012, the Court also reiterated that the High Court should not undertake a meticulous examination of evidence while considering whether charges should be quashed or whether an accused should be discharged.
Against this backdrop, finding no merit in the revision, the Court dismissed the plea and upheld the trial court's orders rejecting discharge and framing charges against the former GST officer.
Case Title - Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. & Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539
Case Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 539