Discharge at the pre-trial stage depends on prima facie material; corruption allegations and conspiracy were allowed to proceed to trial.

At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the Court examines only whether the prosecution material raises a ground for presuming the commission of an offence, not whether the defence explanation is ultimately true. On the record, the alleged official order was not duly reflected in proceedings, the transaction was linked to the accused's chamber, and the complaint, recovery mahazar, voice material and witness statements supported a prima facie case of demand, receipt and conspiracy involving illegal gratification. The accused's claim that the notes were merely pushed away raised factual disputes fit for trial. The revisional challenge to refusal of discharge therefore failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the materials did not disclose a prima facie case. (ii) Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and a prima facie conspiracy attracting the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the materials did not disclose a prima facie case.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the Court is concerned only with whether the material collected by the prosecution raises a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. The Court found that the record contained materials showing that the alleged order had not been duly reflected in the official proceedings and that the petitioner's chamber was the locus of the transaction. The explanation offered by the petitioner raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved at the discharge stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge-sheet material disclosed demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and a prima facie conspiracy attracting the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court held that a public servant need not have a pending work in a narrow sense for Section 7 to be attracted if the material shows acceptance or agreement to accept gratification as a motive or reward for an official act. It also held that Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies to a private person who accepts or attempts to obtain gratification for another person. The prosecution materials, including the complaint version, recovery mahazar, voice material, witness statements, and the explanation of the accused, were sufficient at this stage to support a prima facie inference of demand, receipt, and conspiracy. The allegation that the notes were merely pushed away was treated as a matter for trial.

Conclusion: A prima facie case was disclosed for the offences alleged, including conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge to the refusal to discharge failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed to trial on the existing materials.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage, the Court must see only whether the material creates a ground for presuming the commission of the offence, and where the record discloses prima facie demand, receipt, or agreement to obtain illegal gratification, disputed factual defences must be left to trial; a private person may also be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---