Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, requiring direct or circumstantial evidence to support allegations.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.

By way of this application under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, the petitioners are seeking quashment of the Kokrajhar P.S. Charge Sheet No.218/2024 dated 30.11.2024 originating from the F.I.R. No.0120/2018 dated 22.03.2018 registered at Kokrajhar Police Station and the entire proceedings in Special Case No.22/2025 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The factual background leading to the present Criminal Petition as projected may be set out as hereunder. On 20.03.2018, two individuals, namely, Rehu Narzary and Shahadat Hussain submitted a complaint to the Director General of Civil Defence & Commandant General of Homeguards, Assam at Guwahati representing themselves as the President and the Secretary of a non-existent and fake association in the name and style “B.T.C. Home Guard Association” alleging that the petitioners had collected money in the name of Callout and recruitment from the Home Guard Volunteers. On 22.03.2018, the complaint was forwarded by the District Commandant, Home Guards, Dhubri to the Officer-in-Charge of Kokrajhar P.S. and on the basis of the said complaint an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge- Sheet No.218/2024 dated 30.11.2024 against all the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Charge-Sheet was accompanied by enclosures including three (3) Seizure Lists, two (2) Prosecution Sanction Orders and one CFSL Report.

3. On 01.02.2025 the learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati took cognizance of the offence based on the Charge-sheet and the Special Case bearing No.22/2025 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act against the petitioners and the learned Special Judge issued summons to the petitioners. Situated thus, the present Criminal Petition has been moved before this Court seeking quashment of the entire proceedings against the petitioners.

4. I have heard Mr. P. Jain, learned counsel for the accused/petitioners and Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Homeguards and are governed by the provisions of the Assam Home Guard Act and Rules, 1947 (hereinafter “the Act and Rules”). As per Section 15 thereof, a Homeguard acting in discharge of his functions under the said Act shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC.

6. Referring to the F.I.R., it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the names of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 viz., Barhan Kazi and Jiten Ch. Barman, do not at all feature in the F.I.R. and it is only at the time of filing of the Charge-Sheet that they have been made accused in the instant case. Furthermore, a perusal of the Charge-sheet does not reveal any specific role of the petitioner Nos.2and 3. However, two documents in the form of receipts issued by the All Assam Home Guards Association of which the petitioners are the President and the Secretary, respectively, have been submitted along with the Charge-sheet. It is submitted that a perusal of the said documents would show the collection of Rs.100/- as membership fees of the said Association. As per rules and regulations of the Association which shows that in order to be eligible for financial assistance the Homeguard Jawan must be a registered member by paying Rs