At the charge framing stage, prima facie evidence must substantiate serious suspicion; the trial court is not to weigh evidence but must proceed based on materials presented by the prosecution.

1. The challenge in this revision petition is two fold. One is to the order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.794/2015 whereby the applications filed u/S. 227 of the Cr. P. C., to discharge the petitioners is dismissed. Another challenge is to the order dated 30.06.2021 passed in the aforesaid Criminal Case, whereby the learned Special Judge has framed charges against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the FIR lodged on 12.02.2015, the charge sheet was initially filed against 16 accused wherein these applicants were not arrayed. Though the initial sanction order was given by the State Government to prosecute the applicants but awaiting the sanction, they being in service of Indian Administrative Services on 04.7.2016 sanction was granted by the Central Government of India to prosecute the applicants. Thus supplementary charge sheet was filed against the present applicants pursuant to such sanction given by the Government of India. In between the intervening period of time from the initial filing of charge sheet against 16 accused and filing of the supplementary charge - sheet as against the present applicants, as many as 153 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, when the applicants entered their appearance, charges were framed against applicant Anil Tuteja u / S.120 - B, 420, 409 read with S.34 of IPC and S.11, S.13(1), S.13(1)(a) and S.13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and as against applicant No.2 Alok Shukla, charges u/S. 120 - B of IPC and S.13(1)(a), S.13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the P.C. Act were framed. While the initial charge sheet based on FIR was filed, it was stated against the applicants that supplementary final report / charge sheet would be submitted in the trial Court after getting sanction for the prosecution from the Competent Authority. The applicants after putting their appearance, filed an application before trial Court to discharge them.
The said application for discharge was dismissed and consequently the charges were framed. As a chronological sequence, on 24.06.2021 application to discharge the applicants was dismissed and by subsequent order dated 30.06.2021 charges have been framed against the applicants. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the initial FIR was registered in the month of June 2015 wherein both the applicants were not named. It is contended that no search or seizure was ever made from the applicants. It is further contended that in order to get the necessary sanction, the documents collected by the prosecution in its entirety were not placed before the authorities. It is further submitted that no explanation has been given why the supplementary charge - sheet has been filed after a long lapse of time. Counsel would submit that initially when the final charge sheet was filed in the month of June 2015 against 16 accused, these applicants were not arrayed for want of sanction to prosecute by Central Government. Subsequently, with the lapse of time, as the trial against other persons continued, 153 witnesses were examined and nothing substantial has been stated by the prosecution witnesses which could have been used against the present applicants as the allegation of conspiracy has been made, which would otherwise inculpate these applicants but no proof or statement supporting