Coercive financial transactions alone do not establish criminal liability; clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes is necessary to uphold charges under corruption laws.

ORAL ORDER

These two petitions are filed under Section 397 (1)Cr.P.C., challenging the separate orders of even dated 28.10.2024, passed by the trial Court, rejecting two sets of applications filed by accused Nos.6, 7 and 15 on one hand and accused No.12 on the other hand, in Spl.C.C.107/2023, on the file of XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions, Judge and Special Judge for CBI and ED cases at Bengaluru (CCH-34).

2. Since these two petitions are arising out of the same case and it involves common discussion, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.

3. While Cr.R.P.No.1576/2024 is filed by accused No.6, Cr.R.P.No.1591/2024 is filed by accused No.12.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

5. In support of their petitions, accused Nos.6 and 12 have contended that the trial Court has rejected their applications for discharge, only on the ground that several payments have been made from their bank account to accused No.1 and his family members and it leads to grave suspicion. There is no application of mind on the part of the trial Court, in respect of the legitimate plea for discharge made by the accused Nos.6 and 12.

6. There is nothing to indicate in the charge sheet to level the accusation for the offences punishable under Section 12 0-B IPC and Sections 8 , 10 and 12 of PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (for short "PC Act"). Accused No.12 was only doing piecemeal work entrusted by accused No.2. There is no direct or indirect material to establish criminal conspiracy or abetment of the alleged crime.

7. In the absence of material for accusation in the entire charge sheet attracting provisions of Section 7 and 7A of PC Act, there is no justification to arraign petitioners as accused. They ought to have been made as witnesses. Simply on the basis of bank transactions, petitioners are arraigned as accused. Without examining these aspects, the trial Court has rejected the applications filed by the petitioners and pray to allow the petitions and discharge them.

8. The learned counsel for CBI has justified the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the petitions.

9. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record.

10. At the relevant point of time, accused No.1-Ghanshyam Pradhan was working as XEN/CN/JRU from 15.11.2013 to 13.03.2016 and as XEN/CN/HVR from 14.3.2016 to 05.03.2019. During this period he handled/supervised projects in (1) Hosadurga–Chickjajur projects, (2) Hubli–Chickjajur doubling project. Based on the source report, case in RC No.12/2021 came to be registered. After detailed investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 18 to the following effect:

"CHARGE:

1. The investigation revealed that, Shri Ghanashyam Pradhan (A-1) was posted as XEN/CN/JRU from 15.11.2013 to 13.3.2016 and XEN/CN/HVR from 14.3.2016 to 05.3.2019 where he handled /supervised projects in (1) Hosadurga - Chickjajur projects, (2)Hubli-Chickjajur doubling project.

2. As per records with the Railway Department, Smt.Sudha Prava Pradhan (A-9) is the wife of Shri.Ghanashyam Pradhan (A-1). However, the documents collected during investigation showed Shri.Ghanashyam Pradhan (A-1) had a registered marriage with Smt.Sermista Pradhan (A-10), but the same was not intimated to the Railway Department.

2.1 The investigation revealed that, Smt. Sudha Prava Pradhan (A-9) was maintaining a Bank account No.54010696923 at SBI/Mysore. A joint account was also existing in the name of Smt. Sudha Prava Pradhan's (A-9) sister Ms.Sneha Prava Pattanayak & and her daughter Miss. Sangeetha Pattanayak bearing Bank Account No.54010695136 at SBI, Mysore. Smt.Serm