Bombay HC Rejects Discharge Plea of CGST Officers in Rs. 1000 Bribery Case [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court held that the trial court was correct in rejecting the application for discharge, as there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed with the trial.

The court has addressed a Criminal Revision Application filed by Vijaykumar Raut, challenging the rejection of his discharge plea in a bribery case. The core issue was whether the material on record was sufficient to constitute a prima facie case for offenses punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, thereby justifying the trial of the accused, who is a Superintendent of CGST, for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs. 1,000/-.

The Applicant, represented by Senior Counsel Rajendrraa Deshmukh, contended that he was falsely implicated and had never made any demand. He argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, including the transcript of an alleged conversation, and that the sanction itself was invalid.

He further emphasized that there was no material to show a meeting of minds between him and his subordinate to charge them with criminal conspiracy, and that the prosecution had not annexed an electronic evidence certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

The Respondent, the State of Maharashtra through the CBI, countered that there was sufficient and strong material suggesting a demand for bribe. They pointed out the prompt lodging of the FIR and that even CBI authorities had carried out a verification of the demand. According to them, there was sufficient material for the accused to face trial and it was not a fit case for discharge.

Justice Abhay S. Waghase ruled in favour of the Respondent, relying on the settled legal position that at the discharge stage under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C., the court is merely expected to determine the existence of prima facie material for proceeding to frame charge, not to conduct an in-depth analysis of evidence. The court cited numerous precedents to establish that the only duty is to ascertain whether there is prima facie material suggesting the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses.

The court found that the written complaint and its verification report, which were on record, specifically named the applicant and his subordinate and alleged a demand for Rs. 1,000/-. This was sufficient to make out a prima facie case for offenses under Section 7 of the PC Act and Section 120-B IPC.

The court held that issues like the absence of an electronic evidence certificate or the question of the validity of the sanction were not required to be gone into at this stage and could be dealt with at the time of trial itself.

The bench held that the trial court had correctly found sufficient material to proceed against the applicant and that the revision application was without merit. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates