Corruption charge framing requires specific demand and pending official work; absence of both makes Section 7 unsustainable.

At the charge-framing stage, a prosecution under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires material disclosing a prima facie case and at least grave suspicion, including a specific demand of illegal gratification linked to pending official work. On the facts noted, the transcript did not show any specific demand for money in relation to issuance of the residence certificate, the complainant's version indicated that the form had earlier been returned, and the record showed no official work pending on the relevant date. In these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 7 were not made out and the charge was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge framed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was liable to be quashed for want of material showing a specific demand of illegal gratification and an existing official work pending with the accused.

Analysis: At the stage of framing of charge, the material must disclose a prima facie case and at least grave suspicion against the accused. On a bare reading of the transcript, the Court found no specific demand of money linked to issuance of the bona fide residence certificate. The complainant's own version showed that the form had been returned earlier, the accused had explained the position regarding residence, and no trap proceedings had been conducted. The record also indicated that no official work was pending on the relevant date. In these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 7 were not made out.

Conclusion: The charge under Section 7 was not sustainable and the order framing charge was liable to be quashed.

---