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
| 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
Sanjiv Kapoor-vs-Chandana Kapoor
Jasvinder Saini and others -Vs- State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy –Vs-State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
P. Kartikalakshmi Vs. Sri Ganesh
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs. Karimullah Osan Khan
State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa
Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors., vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Homi Rajvansh vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
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.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists, focusing on the allegations rather than the proof of guilt.
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The power of the judge to sift and weigh the evidence for finding a prima facie case against the accused and the presumption of the alleged offence against the accused are crucial legal principles es....
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
The court emphasized the necessity of proving knowledge of bribery for conviction under the PC Act and the importance of procedural fairness in charge alterations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.