Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma has partly allowed a petition seeking to quash a corruption prosecution arising from allegations that Home Guard personnel collected money and, in one instance, sought bribes for favourable postings. The Court set aside proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against one accused Home Guard, holding that the material against him was only hearsay and did not show any link to the discharge of official functions. The Bench noted there was “no allegation… other than hearsay material” connecting him to official duties, and therefore he could not be treated as a public servant for the alleged acts. Proceedings against the other accused were left undisturbed.

The matter arose from a criminal petition seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging illegal collection of money from Home Guard volunteers. The complaint, submitted in March 2018 to senior Home Guard authorities, alleged that money was collected in the name of call-out and recruitment by persons claiming to represent an association styled as a Home Guard body. The complaint was forwarded to the police, leading to registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation.

Also Read: State Police Can Investigate Corruption Cases Of Central Govt Employees Without CBI Consent; Supreme Court

Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, supported by seizure lists, sanction orders, and a CFSL report. Cognizance was taken by the Special Judge, and summons were issued.

The petitioners contended that two of them were Home Guards whose activities were unrelated to official duties and involved collection of membership fees for an association, while the remaining petitioner was alleged to have demanded and accepted bribes for postings. The prosecution relied on witness statements and electronic material to support allegations of bribery. The dispute centered on whether the materials disclosed offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against each petitioner.

The Court first recorded the statutory position that “a Homeguard acting in discharge of his functions under the said Act shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the IPC.” It then examined whether the alleged acts had any nexus with official duties.

With respect to two petitioners, the Court noted that “the names of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 do not at all feature in the F.I.R. and it is only at the time of filing of the Charge-Sheet that they have been made accused.” The Court further observed that “a perusal of the Charge-sheet does not reveal any specific role” attributable to them. The documents relied upon by the prosecution were described as receipts showing “collection of Rs.100/- as membership fees” of an association, which, according to the submissions recorded, was governed by its own resolutions.

The Court recorded that “the aforesaid activity has nothing to do with the discharge of the official duties of Homeguards” and examined whether such acts could attract the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In relation to the petitioner who was a serving officer, the Court observed that “admittedly, he is a public servant” at the relevant time. The allegation against him was recorded as acceptance of bribe “in lieu of giving suitable postings to the Home Guards.” The Court noted the prosecution’s submission that “there is statement of one witness who alleged that the petitioner No.1 used to accept bribe from him for posting.”

While referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court recorded that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential and that such fact “can be proved by oral as well as circumstantial evidence.” On the materials placed before it, the Court observed that “there is available the statements of two witnesses” and that “there also exists video footage showing acceptance of bribe.” It therefore recorded that “the present cannot be regarded as a case of no evidence” in respect of certain petitioners.

However, with regard to one petitioner, the Court recorded that “there is no allegation against him, other than hearsay material, having nexus to his official duties,” and consequently examined his status under the relevant statutory provisions.

Also Read: Compassionate Appointment Not Barred Due To Deceased Having Under Three Years’ Service Left; Gauhati High Court

The Court recorded that “the petition stands partly allowed. The proceedings in Special Case No.22/2025 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the petitioner No.2 are hereby quashed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. P. Jain, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. D. P. Goswami, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam

Case Title: Bolendra Nath Brahma And Others v. State of Assam
Neutral Citation: GAHC010118512025
Case Number: Crl.Pet./644/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma