Lack of Demand Evidence and Petitioner's Post-Transfer Lead to Quashing of Corruption Charges: Rajasthan High Court - 2025-03-25

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against IAS Officer Citing Lack of Evidence

Jaipur , Rajasthan – In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur , has quashed a corruption case against senior IAS officer Nannu Mal Pahadia . Justice Ganesh RamMeena presided over the case, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 835/2025, filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), formerly Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court's decision, pronounced on March 19, 2025, overturns the FIR and charge-sheet filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) against Pahadia under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Case Background: Bribery Allegations and Trap

The case originated from a complaint lodged on April 22, 2022, by Iqbal Singh , a Power of Attorney holder for KCC Buildcon Private Limited, a company involved in the Delhi- Badodra Expressway construction. Singh alleged that Pahadia , then District Collector of Alwar, along with Land Settlement Officer Ashok Sankhla , demanded monthly bribes for the smooth progress of road construction work. The complaint stated that Pahadia sought ₹4 lakh per month, and Sankhla demanded ₹50,000 per month. Singh claimed he wanted to get them "caught red-handed."

Following the complaint, the ACB initiated trap proceedings. While some money was recovered from the Scooty of Nitin Sharma , allegedly an associate of Sankhla , no recovery was made from Pahadia . Subsequently, FIR No. 0140/2022 was registered, and a charge-sheet was filed against Pahadia for offenses under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act of 2018 and Section 120B IPC.

Petitioner's Arguments: No Demand, No Jurisdiction

Represented by Mr. Gariman Singh Rathore and Mr. S.G. Rajput, the petitioner argued that on the date of the complaint, Pahadia was no longer the District Collector of Alwar, having been transferred and relieved of his duties prior to the complaint. It was further contended that the road construction work was not under Pahadia 's supervision, and no bribe money was recovered from him directly. The defense emphasized the lack of credible evidence of demand and the absence of any recorded conversation directly implicating Pahadia in demanding a bribe.

State's Counter-Arguments: Transcripts and Trap Success

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Mr. Amit Punia, argued that transcripts of conversations between Pahadia and the complainant indicated a demand for a bribe. They also pointed to the trap proceedings and recovery of money, suggesting Sankhla received the bribe on Pahadia 's behalf.

Court's Observations: Lack of Concrete Evidence

Justice Meena , after reviewing the material, including transcripts and charge-sheet, found "nothing specific as regards the demand of bribe by the accused petitioner" in the transcripts of conversations. The court highlighted that no trap proceedings were conducted against Pahadia , and no money was recovered from his possession.

Referencing several Supreme Court judgments, including Madan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan , A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala , and Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , the High Court reiterated the necessity for the prosecution to prove the "demand and acceptance of bribe" beyond reasonable doubt. The court underscored that mere recovery of money, without proof of demand and acceptance by the accused, is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The judgment quoted extensively from N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , emphasizing that "mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7."

Petitioner's Transfer and Timing of Complaint

A crucial point considered by the court was Pahadia 's transfer. He was transferred on April 13, 2022, and relieved on April 18, 2022, while the complaint was filed on April 22, 2022. The court noted that "on the date i.e. on 22.04.2022 when the complainant has made the complaint as regards the alleged demand of bribe, the accused petitioner was not even remained posted as District Collector, Alwar." This raised questions about the opportunity and purpose of the alleged demand, as Pahadia held no relevant post at the time of complaint.

Decision and Implications

The High Court concluded that there was no "specific demand of bribe made by the accused petitioner," "no evidence of acceptance of bribe," and "no any kind of work was pending before the accused petitioner." Justice Meena asserted that continuing criminal proceedings would be a "futile exercise" and an "abuse of the process of the Court."

Relying on State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. , the court emphasized the High Court's inherent power to quash proceedings to prevent harassment and ensure justice. The petition was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against Nannu Mal Pahadia were quashed, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence of demand and acceptance in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.