PC Act proceedings require Solid Evidence, not mere Allegations, rules HC

The Gauhati High Court partly quashed proceedings against an Assam Homeguard accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, underscoring that mere allegations without evidence cannot drag public servants into criminal trials. The order signals the Court’s insistence on strict proof standards before initiating corruption proceedings.

The controversy arose from a complaint filed in 2018 by two individuals claiming financial irregularities in the Home Guards Association at Kokrajhar, Assam. A First Information Report was lodged, eventually leading to a charge-sheet against three officials, including two Homeguards and a platoon commander, for alleged bribery and criminal misconduct under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that two of the accused were not public servants for the purposes of the Act, had no direct role in the alleged offenses, and were implicated only through hearsay. They contended that the charges were an abuse of the judicial process, citing prior resolutions showing routine collection of membership fees unrelated to official duties.

The Court examined the evidence, including witness statements and circumstantial material, against established precedents such as Neeraj Dutta v. State and Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State, which require proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to establish guilt. While the Court found prima facie evidence against petitioners, it noted that petitioner No.2 lacked any factual basis tying him to the offenses.

The Bench remarked, “there is no allegation against him, other than hearsay material, having nexus to his official duties,” and held that he could not be deemed a public servant under the Assam Home Guard Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against petitioner No.2 and vacated any interim orders.

Case Title:  Bolendra Nath Brahma And 2 Ors Vs. The State Of Assam Represented By The Learned Public Prosecutor, Assam and anr.
Case No.:  Crl.Pet./644/2025
Coram:  Hon'ble. Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner:  Adv. P. Jain
Advocate for the Respondent:  Addl. P.P. D.P. Goswami
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com