1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 34 of 2026 Brajbhan Singh S/o Shyamlal Singh, Aged About 61 Years, Caste Kurmi, R/o Block Colony Pratappur, P.S. Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village Padri Tahsil Tala - District Maihar (M.P.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station E.O.W And A.C.B Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shivcharan S/o Ramprasad R/o Village Podi Tehsil Pratappur District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 27/01/2026 1. This Criminal Revision under section 438 read with Section 442 of of BNSS, 2023 has been filed against the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) in Special Case (SPL Prevention of Corruption Act) No. 4/2025 whereby charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed against the applicant. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.01.29 11:00:28 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the applicant while working as an Assistant Grade-II at the office of Tahsildar, Pratappur, District Surajpur (CG), demanded bribe from the complainant, Shivcharan, for processing his claim for compensation of Rs.5.75 lakhs under government schemes for the death of his cousin Sheshman, in an elephant attack and ultimately on 28.03.2025, accepted a bribe of Rs.10,000/-, constituting an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 3. The defence of applicant is that there is no evidence against him of taking bribe. The currency notes were recovered from a table, not from his hands and he neither demanded nor accepted the bribe. 4. The issue of whether the file from which the notes were seized belonged to the applicant, and whether there was a demand and acceptance of bribe by the applicant, can only be determined after evidence is presented. The bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the applicant. There is sufficient ground to frame charge against the applicant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 5. It is well settled position of law that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused could not be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to meticulously examine the evidence on record and nor conduct a mini-trial. The court would only consider whether prima facie material is there or not to proceed with the trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in AIR 2017 SC 796, while dealing with the issue, held that at the stage of framing of a charge, the Court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form 3 an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. 6. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been again reiterated by their Lordship in the case of State of M.P. vs. Deepak, 2019 (13) SCC 62 and it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to consider the material only to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence and the court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded is likely to be convicted or not. In para-16 of the said judgment it has been held as under: “16. It was also noted that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence : ( Chitresh Kumar Chopra case [ Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] , SCC p. 613, para 25) “ 25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has 6 committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving 4 at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.” 7. In the matter of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Others, 2020 (2) SCC 290, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same and has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial. 8. Applying the aforesaid principles in this case after going through the charge sheet and the documents annexed thereto, at this stage, the defence adduced by the applicant cannot be accepted as gospel truth. The same has to be decided on the floor of the Court during evidence while they are tested by virtue of examination and cross examination. 9. Thus, in view of the forgoing discussion, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of framing of charge at this stage. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai