Charges cannot be framed based solely on suspicions; there must be prima facie evidence, not mere presumption, to substantiate allegations against an accused.

1. Against the dismissal of the discharge petition filed under S.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short, "the Code"), the petitioner is before this court with this revision petition.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: -
(a) There are totally seven accused in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A7. They have been charged for offences under S.120(B) of IPC r/w 7, 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( in short, "the PC Act"). A1 in the case, one Durga Prasad was working as Regional Commissioner in Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chennai (in short "EPFO"); A2 is a Deemed University by name "Savitha University" which runs various Educational Institutions, like Medical College, Dental College, etc.; A3 - G.Ezhumalai and A4 - J.Manigandan were working as Enforcement Officers in EPFO at Ambattur in Chennai; A5 - Sengottaiyan was the Administrative Officer of Saveetha Dental College, A6 - Saravanan was working as Finance Officer in Saveetha Medical College and Saveetha Dental College and A7 / the petitioner is the Chancellor of Saveetha University, A2 herein.
(b) In the year 2014, A1 entered into a conspiracy with two of his Subordinate Officers namely, A3 and A4 to obtain a medical seat for his daughter in A2 University by abusing his official position. Pursuant to the same, he instructed one of his Subordinates to conduct an inspection at A2 institution. Accordingly, A3 and A4 along with one Sri.Nilendu Mishra, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Ambattur, conducted inspection at Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha Medical and Educational Trust, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Services. Thereafter, an enquiry under S.7 - A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was initiated by the Sub Regional Officer of EPFO at Ambattur on 27.02.2015. Then, A1 approached A7 and requested a medical seat for his daughter, however, he could not get medical seat in A2 University. Thereafter, A1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,00,000/- from A7 / the petitioner, A5 and A6 through A3 to close the above proceedings. However, after negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs.25,00,000/-.
(c) In furtherance of the above said conspiracy, on 11.01.2016, A1 called one Sudalaimuthu, who, later on, turned to be an approver, over phone and gave instructions to collect cash from a college representatives and keep it with him. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, on the instructions of the petitioner (A7), on 12.01.20216, A6 took cash of Rs.15,00,000/- from the locker maintained by them with Karur Vysa Bank Limited and on the request of A5, one Dasarathan, a contractor for Saveetha Group of Institution and took A5 and A6 to Ambattur and handed over the cash of Rs.15,00,000/- to one Suriyanarayanan, who also, later on, turned to be an approver, the Manager of Sudalaimuthu. Thereafter, Suryanarayanan handed over the cash to Sudalaimuthu and after handing over the cash, both A5 and A6 informed the same to A4.
(d) In the mean time, based on the source information, the respondent CBI formed a team to nab A1 while accepting the bribe amount from Sudalaimuthu. On 17.01.2016, A1 came in a car along with his Auditor one Raja to the house of Sudalaimu