Charge-stage scrutiny permits interference only for illegality; materials here supported conspiracy and corruption allegations against a private person.

At the discharge and charge-framing stage, the court must only see whether the prosecution record discloses sufficient ground to proceed, without conducting a roving enquiry or weighing defence material. Interference in revision lies only where the order shows illegality, perversity, or material irregularity, and no such jurisdictional error was found. On the materials collected, the petitioner's role as director, the transfer of PAN matters to the public servant co-accused, and the surrounding circumstances were treated as capable of supporting an inference of criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. A private person may be proceeded against with a public servant where the material discloses a coordinated corrupt design.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order refusing discharge and framing charge disclosed any jurisdictional error warranting interference at the stage of Section 227 and Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the materials collected in investigation made out a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner, a private person, along with the public servant co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the order refusing discharge and framing charge disclosed any jurisdictional error warranting interference at the stage of Section 227 and Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge and framing of charge, the court is required to consider the record and documents supplied by the prosecution, sift the material only to the limited extent necessary, and determine whether sufficient ground exists for proceeding. The court is not to conduct a roving enquiry, weigh the defence case, or assess the probative value of the material as if conducting a trial. Interference in revision is justified only where the order suffers from illegality, perversity, or material irregularity.

Conclusion: No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the impugned orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials collected in investigation made out a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner, a private person, along with the public servant co-accused.

Analysis: The materials indicated that the petitioner was director of the assessee companies, that PAN transfers and revision petitions under the Income-tax Act, 1961 were used to move the matters to the jurisdiction of the co-accused public servant, and that there were circumstances suggesting a coordinated design to obtain favourable orders in return for illegal gratification. The court found that the allegations were not a matter of bare suspicion, and that at the charge stage the existence of material capable of supporting an inference of conspiracy was sufficient. The court also held that the role of a private person in a conspiracy with a public servant to secure benefits by corrupt means could not be excluded at this stage merely because the petitioner was not himself a public servant.

Conclusion: A prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and allied offences was made out against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the discharge refusal and framing of charge were sustained, leaving the prosecution to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the court may only assess whether the prosecution material gives rise to grave suspicion or a prima facie case, and where such material indicates a coordinated conspiracy involving a private person and a public servant for obtaining a corrupt official favour, the accused is not entitled to discharge merely because the defence version is plausible.

---