2026:CGHC:4282 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET NAFR INDRAJEET SAHU SAHU Date:

2026.02.04 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

16:48:45 +0530 CRR No. 134 of 2026

1 - Nanda Ram Painkra S/o. Late Ramdas, Aged About 57 Years R/o. Transit Hostel, C.H.C. Udaipur, District Surguja C.G. Present R/o. Ward No.8, Mahuapara, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh EOW/ACB, Raipur, Branch ACB, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.

For State : Shri Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J

Order on Board

23.01 . 202 6

1. The present criminal revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02-12-2025, passed by learned Special Judge (prevention of Corruption Act), Surguja, Ambikapur, in Special Criminal Case No.03/2025, whereby the charge under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Amended on 2018, has been framed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, complainant Ashu Rohit Khalkho, made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ambikapur (in short ‘A.C.B.’) with the allegation that he submitted the T.A. bill for its payment from the month of December 2023 to July 2024, total amounting to Rs. 20,370/- to the Community Health Centre, Udaypur. On 26-03-2025, the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was disbursed to him, but the concerned accountant, Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey, demanded 50% of the amount of the T.A. bill by saying that if he did not give him Rs.10,000/-, he would not pass the bills in future. The conversation between the complainant and Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey and Ashu Rohit Khalkho (complainant) was recorded on 21-04-2025, and after its verification by the A.C.B., Dehati Nalisi was registered and a trap team was constituted. On 01-05-2025, the trap party, after preparing various panchnamas and other formalities, went to the office of the Community Health Centre, Udaypur. After completion of the transaction, when the complainant made a gesture, the trap party conducted a raid in the office of the Accountant, Community Health Centre, Udaypur. The complainant disclosed that on the instance of Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey, he gave the tainted currency notes to the present petitioner, Nanda Ram Paikra, who is also the accountant at Community Health Centre, Udaypur. He kept it in his front pocket of pant. When the hands of Kaushlendra Prasad Pandey were washed, the solution turned pink. Thereafter, the hand wash solution of the present petitioner also turned pink in colour. The tainted currency notes were seized by the trap party, and after completion of the usual investigation charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons, including the present petitioner, for the offence under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018 (in short ‘the P.C. Act’). The learned trial Court has framed a charge for the offence under Section 7 and 12 of the P.C. Act, vide order dated 02-12-2025 and proceeded with the trial. The petitioner, who is the Accountant/AG-III, has filed the present petition challenging the order framing charge dated 02-12-2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has never demanded any amount from the complainant. The amount was not given by the complainant to the petitioner. It is the co-accused Kaushlendra to whom he has given the amount to the petitioner. In the entire charge sheet, there is no allegation that at any point in time, the petitioner has demanded the amount from the complainant in lieu of illegal gratification to pass his T.A. bills. Merely recovery of the amount would not be sufficient to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under the P.C. Act. The petitioner was not competent to pass T.A. bills of the complainant, and therefore, there was no reason for any demand or acceptance of the bribe amount. Therefore, there i