Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner, a Head Clerk at a government hospital, was allegedly caught in a vigilance trap while accepting a ₹5,000 bribe from a retired professor for processing retirement benefits. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, observing that the materials on record disclosed a prima facie case and that the issues raised by the petitioner involved disputed facts to be adjudicated at trial. The framing of charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity and warranted no interference.
Facts
The petitioner was working as the Head Clerk at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur. A retired professor filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner demanded ₹5,000 to process his final withdrawal of GPF and other retirement benefits. Based on this, a trap was set up by vigilance authorities, and the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The incident was registered under Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 12 of 2019. The trial court, upon filing of the charge sheet, framed a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was challenged through the present revision.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in framing the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act despite the petitioner’s claim that no work of the complainant was pending and he had no official role in processing the benefits.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the order framing the charge was passed without application of mind and was purely mechanical. It was contended that the complainant had applied for retirement benefits only after the alleged bribe incident, rendering the allegation false. The petitioner further claimed that he was a supervisory Head Clerk, not the dealing assistant, and had no role in processing the file. Documents obtained under the Right to Information Act were relied upon to support these claims. The defence submitted that no prima facie material existed to warrant framing of a charge.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Vigilance contended that a prima facie case was clearly made out. It was pointed out that the complainant specifically alleged demand and acceptance of ₹5,000 by the petitioner, and the trap resulted in recovery of the tainted currency from the petitioner’s possession. Official witnesses corroborated the sequence of events. The respondent argued that the petitioner’s claim of having no role in the file processing or that no application was pending were disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated at the stage of framing of charge. The court was not required to delve into the sufficiency of evidence but only to see whether grave suspicion existed.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reaffirmed the well-settled legal position that at the stage of framing of charge, the court must assume the prosecution’s case to be true and evaluate whether, taken at face value, the material discloses ingredients of the offence. The Court referred to Section 228 CrPC and relied on the principle that a “mini trial” at this stage is impermissible. It emphasized that disputed facts, such as the petitioner’s role and timing of the complainant’s application, must be examined during trial and not at the preliminary stage of charge framing.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (AIROnline 2021 SC 210), reiterating the principles laid down in P. Vijayan and M.R. Hiremath. These decisions affirm that the court at the stage of framing charge is not to weigh evidence but to proceed if grave suspicion arises from the materials. The court must not enter into a detailed assessment of probabilities or merit of defence documents.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the petitioner was caught in a vigilance trap with ₹5,000 recovered from him, chemically confirmed as tainted money. The complainant’s statement and corroborative evidence from the trap team constituted sufficient material to frame a charge. The petitioner’s reliance on RTI documents and claim of lack of pending work were considered factual defences. The Court stated, “such assertions raise factual disputes that fall squarely within the domain of trial.” It was not appropriate to quash the charge based on defence arguments at this stage.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial court’s order framing charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that the framing of charge was justified based on the prima facie material available and that no interference was warranted. It clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case and that the defence contentions could be examined during trial.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that disputed factual assertions, particularly in corruption cases involving vigilance traps, cannot be a ground to quash charges at the preliminary stage. It signals judicial reluctance to intervene in framing of charges unless there is a glaring legal error or total lack of material. Public servants facing vigilance prosecution must face trial if the foundational allegations disclose grave suspicion based on corroborative material.
Referred Cases and Their Role
- State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap: Reiterated that at the stage of framing charge, sufficiency of evidence is not tested; suspicion based on material is enough.
- P. Vijayan: Clarified the limited scope of inquiry under Section 227 CrPC during charge framing – not a mini-trial.
- M.R. Hiremath: Emphasized that courts must presume prosecution evidence as true and not evaluate probative value at the discharge or charge stage.
FAQs
1. Can the High Court quash a charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at the stage of framing charges?
Only in cases where no prima facie material exists. If grave suspicion arises based on evidence, the High Court will not interfere.
2. What is the evidentiary value of a vigilance trap in corruption cases?
A successful trap with recovery of tainted money and corroboration by official witnesses creates a strong prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Are disputed facts like pending work or RTI disclosures relevant at the charge stage?
No. Disputed facts are to be assessed during trial. At the charge stage, the court assumes prosecution’s version is true.