Prima facie case and grave suspicion can justify framing charges, with Section 15 invoked despite no separate principal charge.

At the discharge stage, the court examines whether the record, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion; certainty of conviction is not required. Here, the shipping and exchange control forms showed inflated quantities and values, supporting the prosecution version and justifying refusal of discharge and framing of charges. On Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the absence of a separate charge under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) does not bar invocation where the material alleges an attempt to commit the relevant corruption offence. The discharge order was set aside and trial was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed grave suspicion justifying framing of charges and refusing discharge; (ii) whether an under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained without a separate charge under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) of that Act.

Issue (i): whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed grave suspicion justifying framing of charges and refusing discharge.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court is required to examine whether the material on record, taken at face value, discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused. The test is not whether conviction is certain, but whether the evidence and documents, if accepted, would justify proceeding to trial. The documents placed on record, including the two sets of shipping and exchange control forms, showed inflated quantities and values, which supported the prosecution version and raised grave suspicion.

Conclusion: The refusal to discharge was justified and the charges were rightly framed.

Issue (ii): whether an under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained without a separate charge under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d) of that Act.

Analysis: Section 15 punishes attempt in relation to the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d). The absence of a separate charge under those clauses does not, by itself, prevent invocation of Section 15 where the prosecution case alleges an attempt to commit the relevant corruption offence and the factual foundation exists in the charge-sheet material.

Conclusion: The High Court was wrong in holding that Section 15 could not be invoked.

Final Conclusion: The order of discharge was set aside, the order framing charges was restored, and the respondents were directed to face trial on the existing material.

Ratio Decidendi: At the charge stage, a court may proceed where the record discloses grave suspicion, and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be invoked on an attempted-corruption case even without a separate charge under Section 13(1)(c) or Section 13(1)(d).

---