Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ANJAN MONI KALITA
Laliteswar Sharma Son Of Late Rajendra Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation Represented By The Retainer Counsel, Cbi – Respondent
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 cas
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
