Interim Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT11-001289-2025
CC No. : 42/2025
FIR No. : 10/2021
PS : ACB
U/s : 7 PC Act
State v. Manoj Kumar Solanki
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the question of framing of
charge against the accused.
2. Arguments on the point of charge have been heard on
behalf of both the sides. I have duly considered the
submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light
of material available on record.
Brief Facts
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as appearing in the
charge-sheet, is as under:-
3.1 Complainant namely Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal
s/o Late Sh. Jeet Ram had approached Anti
Corruption Branch [ACB] with handwritten
complaint dated 31.08.2021 regarding demand of
bribe of ₹18,000/- by one Manoj Kumar Solanki,
Food and Supply Officer (FSO), Circle No.46 of
Food and Supply Department, Govt. of NCT, Delhi.
In the said complaint, he alleged that he was running
a government ration shop at Village Mehrauli,
New Delhi and since June 2021, said Manoj Kumar
Solanki had been demanding a bribe of ₹6,000/-
-- 1 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 2 of 8
per month from each fair price shop in his Circle and
when the complainant refused to pay the same, said
Manoj Kumar Solanki allegedly threatened him with
dire consequences and of being implicated in false
cases. On 31.08.2021, the complainant was allegedly
again asked to pay a sum of ₹18,000/- [₹6000/- x 3
months] towards bribe for June-August, 2021.
3.2 On the basis of aforesaid complaint, a trap was laid
down by ACB officials and said Manoj Kumar
Solanki was caught red handed on 31.08.2021 from
Food and Supply Office, Circle No.46, Qutub
Institutional Area, while demanding and accepting
₹18,000/- from the complainant. The bribe money of
₹18,000/- coated with Phenolphthalein Powder was
recovered from right hand of accused Manoj Kumar
Solanki. Accordingly, wash of right hand of accused
was taken in colourless solution of Sodium
Carbonate, which turned pink. Thus, present FIR u/s
7 Prevention of Corruption Act [hereinafter referred
to as ‘PC Act’ in short] came to be registered.
Accused Manoj Kumar Solanki was arrested on
31.08.2021.
3.3 During course of the investigation, statement under
S. 164 Cr.P.C. of complainant was got recorded; the
relevant exhibits of handwash of accused were got
deposited in FSL, Rohini, Delhi for examination and
after their examination, FSL report dated 13.01.2022
was received, wherein it was opined that
-- 2 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 3 of 8
“
on Chemical and TCL examination, exhibits
‘RHW-I’ was found to contain phenolphthalein and
sodium carbonate”. Sanction u/s 19 of PC Act was
accorded by Sanctioning Authority against accused
Manoj Kumar Solanki. During the course of
investigation statements of witnesses were recorded
and after completion of the investigation,
charge-sheet in respect of offences punishable under
S.7 PC Act came to be filed against accused.
Arguments
4. While referring to the case of the prosecution as appearing
in the charge-sheet and the material filed therewith,
Ld. Chief PP for the State has argued that there is
sufficient evidence available on record, which makes out
prima facie case for framing of charge for the offence in
respect of which chargesheet has been filed against the
accused. Ld. Chief PP for State has further argued that
accused, being public servant, had demanded bribe of
18	₹ ,000/- from the complainant. He also contended that
the entire incident took place in the presence and hearing
of one Sh. Ashutosh, who is an independent public
witness. Ld. Chief PP has also submitted that requisite
sanction under S. 19 of PC Act for prosecution of accused,
has also been granted by the Competent Authority and has
been annexed alongwith the charge-sheet. He, therefore,
urged that it is a fit case where charge in respect of offence
punishable under S.7 of PC Act should be framed against
the accused.
-- 3 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 4 of 8
5.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused, while repelling the
aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of State,
vehemently argued that no case is made out against
accused in respect of any offence whatsoever. He
contended that ‘
demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification’ are
sine qua non for attracting the offences
punishable under S.7 PC Act, which are not fulfilled in this
case. He, therefore, urged that no charge is made out
against accused for any of the offences under PC Act.
Analysis & Conclusion
6. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf
of both the sides, let’s have a look on the legal proposition
at the stage of charge.
7. In case of ‘
Settu v Satate of NCT of Delhi’, bearing CRL.
REV. P. 13/2022 dated 10.03.2022, Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has observed that:
“xxxx
8.It is well settled law that at the stage of framing
of charge, the court has power to shift and weigh
the evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case against
accused has been made out. When the material
placed before the court discloses great suspicion
against the accused, which has not been properly
explained, the court will be justified in framing
charge. No roving inquiry into the pros and cons
of the matter and evidence is not to be weighed
as if a trial was being conducted. If on the basis
of materials on record a court could come to the
conclusion that commission of the offence is a
probable consequence, a case of framing of
charge exists.
9.To put it differently, if the courts were to think
that the accused might have committed the
offence it can frame a charge, though for
conviction the conclusion is required to be that
-- 4 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 5 of 8
accused has committed the offence. At the stage
of framing of a charge, probative value of the
materials on records cannot be gone into, the
material brought on record by the prosecution
has to be accepted as true at that stage. The truth,
veracity and effect of the evidence, which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce, are not to be
meticulously judged, nor any weight is to be
attached to the probable defence of the accused.
It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of
the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a
sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved,
would be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or not.
10.The standard of test and judgment which is to
be finally applied before recording a finding
regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is
not exactly to be applied at this stage of deciding
the matter under Section 227 or under Section
228 of the Code. But at the initial stage, if there
is a strong suspicion, which leads the court to
think that there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence, then it is not
open to the court to say that there is no sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
While deciding the question of framing of charge
in a criminal case, the court is not to apply
exactly the standard and test which it finally
applies for determining the guilt or otherwise.
11. What is required to be seen is whether there
is strong suspicion, which may lead to the court
to think that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence. The
above proposition is supported with law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble
High Court reported as “Union of India vs.
Prafulla Kumar”, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 366,
“State of Maharashtra and others vs. Som Nath
Thapa and other” JT 1996 (4) SC 615, “State of
Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh”, AIR 1997 SC 2018:
(1997 CRI LJ 1606), “Umar Amdula Sakoor
Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control
Bureau” JT 1999 (5) SC 394, “Kalu Mal Gupta
vs. State” 2000 I AD Delhi 107.
xxxx”
8. It is well settled legal position that the prosecution is
required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
-- 5 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 6 of 8
However, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has
only to see whether
prima facie case is made out against
the accused. In this regard, it has been held in the case of
‘
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander’, reported as 2012 (9)
SCC, 460 as under:-
“19. At the initial stage of framing of a charge,
the court is concerned not with proof but with a
strong suspicion that the accused has committed
an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him
guilty. All that the court has to see is that the
material on record and the facts would be
compatible with the innocence of the accused or
not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at
that stage.”
9. In another case of
‘Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B.’
reported as (2000) 1 SCC 722, while taking note of the
burden of pending cases on the Courts, Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that there is no legal requirement that the
trial court should write an order showing the reasons for
framing a charge. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is extracted here as under:-
“xxxx
11. Even in cases instituted otherwise than on a police
report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing
the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. This is
clear from Section 245. As per the first sub-section of
Section 245, if a Magistrate, after taking all the evidence
considers that no case against the accused has been made
out which if un-rebutted would warrant his conviction, he
shall discharge the accused. As per sub-section (2) the
Magistrate is empowered to discharge the accused at any
previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be
groundless. Under both sub-sections he is obliged to
record his reasons for doing so. In this context it is
pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a Court of
Session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he
decides to discharge the accused (vide Section 227 of the
Code). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so
without recording his reasons for showing why he framed
the charge.
-- 6 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 7 of 8
12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court
should write an order showing the reasons for framing a
charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be
further burdened with such an extra work.The time has
reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the
court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all
roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to
write detailed orders at different stages merely because the
counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail-
paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further
be slowed down. We are coming across interlocutory
orders of Magistrates and Sessions Judges running into
several pages. We can appreciate if such a detailed order
has been passed for culminating the proceedings before
them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at
this stage, such as issuing process, remanding the accused
to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages
in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders
rejecting or granting bail are passed, the court should
avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious
issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section
37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
xxxx"
10. Thus, at the stage of charge, neither the probative value of
the evidence nor the sufficiency of material is to be gone
into. Whether the trial would eventually result into
conviction of the accused or not is also not material.
11. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. The
rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides need to
be examined on the touchstone of the guiding principles
laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the above- referred decisions.
12. In this case, the prosecution has relied upon statements
under S.161 Cr.PC of various witnesses, including that of
complainant namely Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, Sh.
Ashutosh (panch witness), Sh. Satyapal Tanwar, etc. Apart
from this, the prosecution has also relied upon statement
-- 7 of 8 --
CC: 42/2025, FIR:10/2021, PS: ACB
Page 8 of 8
under S.164 Cr.PC of complainant namely Sh. Naresh
Aggarwal, wherein, he is
prima facie shown to have
corroborated allegations appearing in the FIR. Further, the
prosecution has also filed sanction under S. 19 of PC Act
accorded by Sanctioning Authority for prosecution of
accused in this case. Not only this, the prosecution has also
relied upon FSL Result dated 13.01.2022, wherein it has
been opined that “
on Chemical and TCL examination,
exhibits ‘RHW-I’ was found to contain phenolphthalein
and sodium carbonate”.
13. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
view that there is sufficient evidence/ material available on
record, on the basis of which
prima facie case is made out
for framing of charge in respect of offence punishable
under S. 7 PC Act against accused.
Announced in the open Court
on 10th Day of March, 2026
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-01
RACC/NEW DELHI
-- 8 of 8 --