Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea of Former GST Official Facing Corruption Charges in Lucknow

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, recently dismissed a criminal revision plea filed by Dhanendra Kumar Pandey, a former Deputy Commissioner in the Commercial Tax and GST Department. The Court upheld the trial court's order to frame charges against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in connection with an alleged bribery case involving a demand of ₹2 lakh.

The Allegations and Trap Procedure

The case centers on an allegation filed by Diship Kumar, an accountant at Ardem Data Services Pvt. Ltd., who claimed that the revisionist demanded a bribe to clear Goods and Services Tax (GST) refund claims totaling approximately ₹19.47 lakh for the 2021-22 and 2022-23 financial years.

Following the complaint, the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment conducted a preliminary inquiry and subsequently orchestrated a trap on March 19, 2024. During the operation, the revisionist was caught red-handed while allegedly placing tainted currency notes in his office desk drawer. Chemical tests conducted by the forensic team further corroborated the recovery of the phenolphthalein-treated notes.

Arguments from Both Sides

Counsel for the revisionist argued that the charges were groundless, asserting that the refund claims had already been rejected due to documentation deficiencies before the alleged bribe demand, thus leaving no "work pending" to justify a bribe. Furthermore, the defense pointed to a 12-day delay between the constitution of the trap team and the actual operation, as well as the absence of independent witnesses who could verify the alleged verbal negotiation.

The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the legal process was followed meticulously. They maintained that the accused was caught in the act, and the evidence regarding the demand and subsequent acceptance of the bribe was robust enough to proceed to trial.

Legal Principles on Framing of Charges

In his decision, Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra emphasized that the court’s role at the stage of framing charges is not to determine guilt, but to assess if there is a "grave suspicion" that an offence has been committed.

Relying on established precedents such as Neeraj Dutta v. State and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander , the Court reiterated that a "roving inquiry" into the evidence is not permitted at this threshold stage.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted several critical points regarding the nature of the proceedings:

  • "At the stage of consideration of question of discharge of the accused ... a roving inquiry into material collected during investigation is not called for by the court."
  • "The prosecution case is prima facie established on the basis of the trap, recovery of money, chemical test and the Forensic Science Laboratory report."
  • "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 ."

The Court’s Verdict

Finding no merit in the revisionist's plea, the Court affirmed that the trial should proceed to its logical conclusion. By rejecting the discharge application, the High Court underscored that the evidence collected during the investigation—including the recovery of the bribe money and the subsequent forensic analysis—provides a sufficient basis for the trial court to proceed against the former official. This ruling reinforces the judiciary's strict stance on maintaining the integrity of public office by allowing the trial of corruption charges to move forward when prima facie evidence is presented.