Prima facie charge standard in corruption cases: statutory presumption may support charges, but extortion needs fear of injury.

At the charge-framing stage in a complaint case, the Court applied the prima facie test and held that, where foundational facts are shown, the statutory presumption under the corruption law may be relied on. On the materials, the evidence disclosed a corrupt nexus between official favour and payments or donations, justifying charges for conspiracy, cheating, corruption offences, and allied provisions under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, extortion was not made out because the record did not show fear of injury or dishonest inducement to deliver property; mere pressure or expectation of favourable official action was insufficient. Charges were sustained only on the corruption-related counts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, at the stage of framing charges in a complaint case, the evidence disclosed a prima facie case for offences under conspiracy, bribery and corruption provisions, cheating, and the Prevention of Corruption Act. (ii) Whether the materials disclosed the offence of extortion.

Issue (i): Whether, at the stage of framing charges in a complaint case, the evidence disclosed a prima facie case for offences under conspiracy, bribery and corruption provisions, cheating, and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Analysis: For framing charge under the Code, the Court had to examine whether the prosecution evidence, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. The statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act was held applicable even at the charge stage where the foundational facts were proved. Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code was treated as wider than Section 161 and capable of covering corrupt acceptance of a valuable thing without consideration or for inadequate consideration in circumstances connected with official business. On the evidence relating to the disputed transactions, the Court found prima facie links between governmental favours and payments or donations to trusts, and held that the evidence justified a charge for conspiracy, offences under Sections 161 and 165, cheating, and the allied corruption provisions.

Conclusion: The prosecution had disclosed a prima facie case for framing charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 161, 165 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials disclosed the offence of extortion.

Analysis: Extortion requires intentional putting of a person in fear of injury and dishonest inducement to deliver property. The Court held that the evidence did not show that the contributors were put in fear of injury or that the payments were made in response to threats. Mere pressure, influence, or expectation of favourable official action was held insufficient to constitute extortion.

Conclusion: No prima facie case for extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing charges was sustained only in respect of extortion, but the remaining refusals were set aside and the prosecution was permitted to proceed on the additional charges.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing charges in a complaint case, the Court must apply the prima facie test and may rely on the statutory presumption under the corruption statute where the foundational facts are shown; where the evidence reasonably indicates a corrupt nexus between official action and payment, charges must be framed, but extortion is not made out absent proof of fear of injury and dishonest inducement.

---