The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that at the initial stage of framing of charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that an accused had committed an offence.
“The final test of proof of guilt is not to be applied at that stage,” the court observed while refusing to interfere with the framing of a charge against a commercial tax officer accused of demanding and accepting a Rs. 2 lakh bribe.
The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra on criminal revision filed by Dhanendra Kumar Pandey against the orders of the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, PC-1, Lucknow, in Sessions Case No. 1769 of 2025.
According to the prosecution case, the revisionist, who then posted as Deputy Commissioner in the Commercial Tax/GST Department, Lucknow Sector 20, had challenged the rejection of his discharge application and the subsequent framing of charges against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Read also: Mere Presence, Relationship Cannot Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad HC
The case arose from an FIR, which was registered at Police Station Lucknow-Sector (Vigilance Establishment), District UP Vigilance Establishment, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The complaint was lodged by Diship Kumar, an accountant with Ardem Data Services Pvt. Ltd, before SSP (Vigilance), UP Vigilance Establishment, Lucknow, alleging that the revisionist had demanded Rs. 2 lakh (financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23) for clearing refund claims totalling about Rs. 19.47 lakh.
The complainant prayed for arranging a trap so that he might be caught red-handed while taking a bribe. He had also filed a refund ARN receipt cum amount of refund claim in INR for Rs. 1,93,530/- and Rs. 17,54,288/-.
The court observed that the Vigilance authorities first verified the complaint through a discreet inquiry and thereafter constituted a trap team, which conducted the trap on March 19, 2024.
The complainant handed over Rs. 2 lakh in treated currency to revisionist, who was subsequently caught red-handed while keeping the money in the drawer of his table.
The currency notes recovered from him matched the serial numbers recorded during the pre-trap proceedings, and the chemical examination also supported the prosecution version.
Rejecting the revisionist’s contention that there was no independent evidence of the alleged demand of a bribe, the court referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 and observed that although proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for establishing corruption charges, “In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence), it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.”
The court also noted that the independent witnesses, Jitendra Kumar Gaur and Rajesh Kumar, had participated in the pre-trap proceedings and stated that the revisionist was caught red-handed in their presence while keeping the bribe money in the drawer.
Therefore, the court noted that,
“it cannot be said that they had not witnessed the alleged incident.”
The court further held that at the stage of considering discharge, a roving inquiry into the material collected during investigation is not called for and that a charge can validly be framed on the basis of grave suspicion arising from the prosecution material.
It found no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the trial court’s order dismissing the discharge application and framing the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended in 2018.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the criminal revision, holding that the revisionist had failed to make out any ground for interference with the impugned orders.
Case: Dhanendra Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another
Case No: Criminal Revision No. – 427 of 2026
Date of Order: 05.08.2026
Status: Dismissed
