SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 188

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.
Laliteswar Sharma Son Of Late Rajendra Sharma – Petitioner 
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Retainer Counsel, Cbi – Respondent 
Crl.Pet./924 of 2025
Decided On : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D Nandi, Ms. A Kumari, B U Laskar, Mr. M Kalita
For the Respondent: Sc, Cbi

Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 120-B, 7, 7A, and 12 - Criminal petition for quashing FIR filed under the above sections relating to accusations of demand and acceptance of bribes by Custom officials - The petitioner contended non-involvement in abetting corruption, arguing inadequate evidence for framing charges. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 15)

(B) Framing of Charges - Legal principle that charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive charge to be present to be maintainable - The court reiterated that a trial court's power allows alterations or additions to charges before judgment, in accordance with Sections 216 of CrPC. (Paras 28, 30)

(C) Maintainability of Petition - The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument about the absence of sanction for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act affecting the framing of charges, as evidence indicated a correct prima facie case against the accused. (Paras 36, 38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as Head Havildar at the Custom Station, was accused of abetting bribe acceptance by a co-accused from a truck driver. The FIR and charge-sheet alleged his involvement based on testimony and evidence from the CBI.

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating there was sufficient prima facie evidence for the charges under the respective sections of law.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of charges framed against the petitioner, the necessity of establishment of a substantive offence, and the competence of the trial court's actions regarding altered charges.

Ratio Decidendi: It was concluded that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to maintain charges against the petitioner, and the principles of law allow courts to alter or add charges appropriately if warranted.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case and allegations (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. accused-petitioner's defense claims and circumstances (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
3. arguments against the charges and legal interpretations (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's evaluation of previous rulings and jurisdiction (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. standards for altering or adding charges (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. summary of the power of courts to alter charges (Para 26 , 27 , 28)
7. importance of prima facie case in framing charges (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. assessment of prima facie evidence against the petitioner (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
9. final ruling and dismissal of the petition (Para 39 , 40)

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

Heard Mr. D. Nandi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2. The instant criminal petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.RC-0172023A0010 dated 02.08.2023, pertaining to CBI, ACB, Guwahati, filed under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7/7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the Charge-sheet No.08/2023 dated 13.11.2023 in RC0172023A0010, under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 02/2024, taking cognizance of the offences under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7A/12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and the impugned order dated 04.06.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Chandmari, Guwahati in Special Case No.02/2024, framing charges against the accused-petitioner under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. It is the case of the accused-petitioner that while he was posted as Head Havildar at the Land Custom Station, Hatisar, District Chirang, Assam, a written complaint dated 01.08.2023 was filed by one Shri Suresh Kumar Nain before the CBI, ACB, Assam, Guwahati, alleging that his truck bearing Registration No.AS-01-PC-4691 was stopped at the Hatisar Integrated Check Post and that unknown custom officials demanded Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant’s driver, Roman Ali, for allowing the truck to enter Bhutan. After certain verification by the CBI, the CBI registered an FIR on 02.08.2023, being FIR No. RC0172023A0010, under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that one Pawan Chaudhary had demanded illegal gratification on behalf of unknown Custom officials for clearing the complainant’s truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-PC-4691. A trap was laid in connection with the said allegation, during which the accused-petitioner was arrested on suspicion along with the said Pawan Chaudhary.

4. The CBI, after completion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet on 13.11.2023 in RC0172023A0010 under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the aforesaid Pawan Chaudhary and the accused-petitioner on the allegation of acceptance of unlawful and illegal gratification for clearing the complainant’s truck. The CBI alleged in the charge-sheet that the aforesaid Pawan Chaudhary was a clearing agent who used to scrutinize shipping bills received from drivers or representatives of exporters and importers on behalf of the accused-petitioner, and that he demanded Rs.1,500/- from the driver of the complainant for clearing the complainant’s truck. It was further alleged by the CBI that after the trap was laid, the aforesaid Pawan Chaudhary was arrested, and during the course of investigation, the accused-petitioner was summoned to the spot, which is alleged to be the table of the accused-petitioner. It was also alleged that, on being questioned, the accused-petitioner stated that Pawa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top