PC Act Proceedings Can't Continue On Hearsay Evidence With No Nexus To Official Duty: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be sustained against an accused Home Guard where the materials on record are only hearsay and do not disclose any nexus with the discharge of official duties. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, held, “As regards the petitioner No.2, I find sufficient force in the...
The Gauhati High Court has held that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be sustained against an accused Home Guard where the materials on record are only hearsay and do not disclose any nexus with the discharge of official duties.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, held, “As regards the petitioner No.2, I find sufficient force in the submissions of the learned counsel that there is no allegation against him, other than hearsay material, having nexus to his official duties and therefore, he cannot be deemed to have acted as a public servant as defined in Section 15 of the Assam Home Guard Act and Rules, 1947.”
The ruling was delivered in a plea challenging proceedings before Special Court in connection with a 2018 complaint under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, alleging that certain persons had collected money from Home Guard volunteers in the name of “callout and recruitment” by projecting themselves as office bearers of a Home Guard association.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Home Guards governed by the Assam Home Guard Act and Rules, 1947, and are deemed to be public servants only while acting in discharge of duties under the Act. It was contended that petitioner No.2 was not named in the FIR and that the materials collected during investigation do not disclose any allegation against him having nexus with his official duties.
Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the investigation had revealed sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons and that the matter ought to be tested at trial.
After examining the record, the High Court found, “there is available the statements of two witnesses that the petitioner No.1 demanded and accepted bribe from them for a suitable posting and there also exists video footage showing acceptance of bribe by the said petitioner. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra), the fact in issue can be proved by oral as wel as circumstantial evidence. Therefore, in the presence of the aforesaid material, the present cannot be regarded as a case of no evidence, as regards the petitioner No.1. The same is the case with regard to the petitioner No.3, Jiten Ch. Barman.”
As such, the Court partly allowed the petition by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner No.2 while not interfering with action against Petitioners 1 and 3.
Case Title: Bolendra Nath Brahma and 2 Ors. v. State of Assam
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 644 of 2025