DR. NARAYAN PRASAD PANDEY vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Page 1 of 14

CGHC010015132020 2026:CGHC:45320
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 71 of 2020
Reserved on : 13.08.2026
Delivered on : 27.10.2026
Dr. Narayan Prasad Pandey S/o Late Shri R. K. Pandey, Aged About 55
Years Working As Assistant Veternary Surgeon At Jagdalpur, R/o 34,
Vrindavan Colony, Behind Kali Badi School, Jagdalpur (C.G.).
... Applicant (s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Investigating Officer, State Economic
Offences and Anti - Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
...Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.
Harsh Dave, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
CAV Judgment
1. This matter was listed on 13.08.2026 for vacation of stay order passed
by this Court on 02.03.2020 but with the consent of learned counsel for
both the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, assailing the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Bastar at
Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 01/2018, whereby charges have
Digitally
signed by
ARUN
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
Date:
2026.10.27
17:19:33
+0530
been framed against the applicant for offences punishable under
ARUN
KUMAR
DEWANGAN

Page 2 of 14
Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”).
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant was working as an
Assistant Veterinary Surgeon at Jagdalpur. The Anti-Corruption Bureau
(ACB) received information that during his service tenure, the applicant
had acquired movable and immovable properties disproportionate to
his known sources of income.
4. On verification of the information, the ACB found prima facie material
indicating that the accused had acquired, inter alia, about 5 acres of
agricultural land at Hanumana, District Rewa, a two-storied house
bearing HIG-2/16 at Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Sector-3, Raipur, a
two-storied house at Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, stated to be in the
name of his adopted son, various vehicles; agricultural land and a dairy
farm admeasuring 0.46 hectare at village Karkapal, Jagdalpur, besides
cash, gold and silver ornaments, valuable household articles and other
investments. It has been further alleged that the said properties had
been acquired by the accused by misusing his official position and
through corrupt practices, and the same were disproportionate to his
known sources of income, thereby constituting an offence punishable
under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”).
5. On the aforesaid information, the Superintendent of Police, ACB,
Raipur, conducted preliminary enquiry on 02.05.2005 before
registration of FIR for commission of offence under Sections 13(1)(e)
and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and thereafter, a search warrant dated
03.05.2005 was obtained from the Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Bastar at Jagdalpur, for conducting searches at the

Page 3 of 14
accused's residential premises situated at Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur
and Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur. The search was conducted
on 04.05.2005 at both residential premises in presence of the accused
and his family members and independent witnesses. During the search
of the accused's residence at Plot No. 2/7, Vrindavan Colony,
Jagdalpur, cash amounting to Rs. 8,97,090/-, gold ornaments weighing
approximately 688.6 grams valued at Rs. 4,86,355/-, and silver
ornaments weighing approximately 1,125 grams valued at Rs. 10,828/-
were found. An inventory of the articles and documents found during
the search was prepared and the articles liable to be seized were
seized in accordance with the seizure memo. The value of the movable
and immovable properties found at the Jagdalpur residence as per the
inventory and seizure proceedings, was assessed at approximately Rs.
56,44,401/-.
6. Similarly, a search was also conducted at the accused's house bearing
HIG-2/16, Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur and during the said
search, cash amounting to Rs. 1,850/- was found and the articles and
documents found therein were duly inventoried and seized. The value
of the property found at the Raipur residence was assessed at
approximately Rs. 1,40,500/-. Thus, the total value of the movable and
immovable properties found during the searches at Jagdalpur and
Raipur was assessed at approximately Rs. 57,84,901/-.
7. The value of the assets found was prima facie much higher than the
income of the accused from his known sources, therefore, appeared to
be disproportionate to his known sources of income. Thereafter, Crime
No. 16/2005 was registered at Police Station, ACB, Raipur on
08.05.2005 against the applicant for commission of offence punishable

Page 4 of 14
under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and after usual
investigation submitted the charge-sheet on 29.11.2018 before the
learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bastar at
Jagdalpur and the learned trial Court framed the charges against the
applicant on 30.11.2019 for commission of offence under Section 13(1)
(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. Thus, the applicant has
preferred this criminal revision against the framing of charges and
prayed for discharging the applicant from the charged levelled against
him as aforestated.
8. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned
trial Court was failed to consider the entire material in the charge-sheet
which does not make any case against the applicant. He would further
submit that the charges have been framed without there being any
evidence inculpating the applicant in the alleged offence. He would
further submit that the valuation of the properties has been erroneously
determined by taking inflated figures into consideration, rather than
their actual value at the time of acquisition. He would further submit
that although the prosecution alleges that the properties were
disproportionate to the applicant's known sources of income, the
material collected during investigation does not establish a prima facie
case warranting the framing of charges. He would further submit that
the burden of prove to discharge the obligation that the property
belongs to government servant is acquired from known source but the
burden simultaneous lies on the prosecution to prove the fact prima
facie against such justification and such proof cannot be considered as
a proof on mere preponderance of probabilities. He would further
submit that several properties belonged to the applicant's relatives and

Page 5 of 14
had been acquired from their independent sources of income, but the
investigating agency has erroneously included their assets and income
in the applicant's accounts. He would further submit that the
investigating agency failed to properly consider the documents
furnished by the applicant, including his income-tax returns and
documents obtained from statutory authorities.
9. He would further submit that there is delay of more than thirteen years
in completion of the investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau without
any plausible reason though the raid was conducted on 04.05.2005 in
applicant’s residences which is sufficient ground for quashing of FIR
and the charges framed against the applicant. He would further submit
that various High Courts as well the Supreme Court have quashed the
criminal proceedings on the count of delay in investigation under the
Act, 1988, thus he would pray for quashing of the entire criminal
proceedings against the applicant on the count of delay in
investigation. He would further submit that the properties were
acquired by his relatives from their sources of income which has
wrongly been added in the petitioner’s income, therefore, the offence
under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988 is not made out. He would
further submit that the investigating officer under the PC Act does not
enjoy unbridled power to the extent of abuse of process of law and the
present case is an out of exercise of such a power.
10. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant
as the prosecution has not produced any clinching or unimpeachable
material to substantiate the allegations and would submit that despite
the applicant having furnished an explanation regarding his income

Page 6 of 14
and assets, the investigating agency failed to give due consideration to
the same and proceeded mechanically to submit the final report. He
would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to consider
that the Investigating Officer had even not relied upon the documents
procured by the applicant from the statutory bodies including the
Income Tax Returns and have mechanically prepared the final report
including the entire income and expenditure of the family members on
to the domain of the applicant. He would further submit that the learned
trial Court has erred in considering the investigation report filed by the
ACB mechanically and has without application of mind went on to
framing the charge against the applicant, as such framing of charge
suffers from material irregularity and illegality and without any basis
thus, the charges framed against the applicant deserves to be
quashed. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the
judgments in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.
Bhuvaneswari & another [(2024) 1 High Court Cases (Bom) 32],
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Nishant Sareen [(2010) 14 SCC
527], State of Punjab & another Vs. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti
[(2009) 17 SCC 92], Sayyed Zarina Ali Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh through Secretary [Writ Petition No. 24499/2019 (decided
on 04.03.2024)], S.K. Mittal Vs. CBI [Crl. M.C. No. 2215/2004
(decided on 13.09.2007)], Karambir Singh Vs. C.B.I. [2011 SCC
OnLine Del 4586], Santosh De Vs. Archna Guha & others [1994
Supp (3) SCC 735] & Mihir Kumar Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal
& others [1988 SCC OnLine Cal 268].
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the

Page 7 of 14
material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case that
the applicant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known
sources of income. He would further submit that the allegations are
supported by the material collected during the search and investigation
and that the grounds raised by the applicants involve disputed
questions of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the stage
of framing of charge. He would further submit that so far as delay is
concerned, it is well settled position of law that the delay is not always
good ground to quash the criminal proceedings, it is dependable upon
the facts the circumstances of the case. The record of the case
available with the case diary would show that various cases were filed
by the applicant regarding investigation, sanction before this Court and
also interim protections were granted to the applicant which has
caused delay in investigation, therefore, it cannot be said that the delay
in submission of charge-sheet is fatal for the case of the prosecution
and would pray for dismissal of the revision petition.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.
13. From the material collected by the prosecution, it appears that the
source of income of the applicant and the circumstances in which he
allegedly acquired the assets in question are matters requiring
consideration on the basis of the evidence collected during the trial.
The submission of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the
income or assets in question were derived from legitimate sources may
constitute a defence during trial. However, at the stage of framing of
charge, this Court cannot conclusively accept the defence version and
discard the prosecution material. Whether the assets in question were

Page 8 of 14
acquired from known or legitimate sources of income, or whether they
were disproportionate to the applicant’s known sources of income, is a
matter to be examined by the trial Court in accordance with law on the
basis of the material available on record. The submission made by
learned Senior counsel that the property purchased by the relatives of
the applicant is from their known source, is again a defence of the
applicant and this Court cannot conduct a fishing enquiry or conduct
enquiry to ascertain reliability and genuineness of the allegations
levelled in the FIR or the material collected by the prosecution. It is
pertinent to mention here that Hon’ble the Supreme Court while
quashing of the FIR/investigation in case of Prevention of Corruption
Act has cautioned the Court to adopt the principle of non-interference
except in cases with very special feature which is not available in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Aman Kumar Singh
[(2023) 6 SCC 559] has held in paragraph 80 to 83 as under:-
“80. Having regard to what we have observed above in paragraph 49
(supra) and to maintain probity in the system of governance as well as
to ensure that societal pollutants are weeded out at the earliest, it
would be eminently desirable if the high courts maintain a hands-off
approach and not quash a first information report pertaining to
“corruption” cases, specially at the stage of investigation, even though
certain elements of strong-arm tactics of the ruling dispensation might
be discernible. The considerations that could apply to quashing of first
information reports pertaining to offences punishable under general
penal statutes ex proprio vigore may not be applicable to a P.C. Act
offence. Majorly, the proper course for the high courts to follow, in
cases under the P.C. Act, would be to permit the investigation to be
taken to its logical conclusion and leave the aggrieved party to pursue
the remedy made available by law at an appropriate stage. If at all
interference in any case is considered necessary, the same should
rest on the very special features of the case.
81. Although what would constitute the special features has
necessarily to depend on the peculiar facts of each case, interference
could be made in exceptional cases where the records reveal
absolutely no material to support even a reasonable suspicion of a

Page 9 of 14
public servant having intentionally enriched himself illicitly during the
period of his service and nothing other than mala fide is the basis for
subjecting such servant to an investigation.
82. We quite appreciate that there could be cases of innocent public
servants being entangled in investigations arising out of motivated
complaints and the consequent mental agony, emotional pain and
social stigma that they would have to encounter in the process, but
this small price has to be paid if there is to be a society governed by
the rule of law. While we do not intend to fetter the high courts from
intervening in appropriate cases, it is only just and proper to remind
the courts to be careful, circumspect and cautious in quashing first
information reports resting on mala fide of the nature alleged herein.
83. For the foregoing reasons, we have no option but to hold that
there are no cogent grounds for quashing the FIR in the present case
even on the ground of mala fide. ”
14. So far as the contention for quashing of the FIR on the count of delay in
completion of investigation after thirteen years of registration of FIR, is
concerned, the same deserves to be rejected as the record of the case
would show that the applicant has preferred WPCR No. 582/2018
before this Court challenging FIR No. 16/2025 and for issuance of
direction to sanctioning authority to consider the explanation submitted
by the applicant with regard to the alleged disproportionate income.
This Court vide order dated 02.01.2019 has directed that no coercive
step shall be taken against the applicant but directed the authorities to
proceed with the investigation in pursuance of the FIR lodged on
08.05.2005. The record of the case further demonstrates that WPCR
No. 582/2018 was disposed of by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court
on 11.05.2023 granting liberty to the applicant to take recourse of law
for quashing of the charge-sheet before the competent court. The
record of the case further demonstrates that the applicant was
sentenced on 28.06.2019 by the learned Special Judge, Anti-
Corruption, South Bastar, Dantewada in Special Case No. 01/2015
under Section 7A of the Act, 1988 for three years with fine amount of

Page 10 of 14
Rs. 25,000/- and under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act,
1988 for five years with fine amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The conviction
was challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing CRA No.
1043/2019 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated
15.05.2026 by acquitting the applicant from the charges levelled
against him by granting benefit of doubt. Since the applicant is already
facing trial under the Act, 1988, as such the delay as alleged by the
applicant is of no significance, therefore, the submission made by
learned Senior counsel for the applicant that due to delay submission
of charge-sheet after thirteen years the framing of charges by the
learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be quashed, are
misconceived and accordingly, it is rejected. So far as judgment
referred to by learned Senior counsel for the applicant in case of S.K.
Mittal (supra) wherein Delhi High Court relying upon the various
judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, has quashed the FIR under
the Prevention of Corruption Act on the count of delay in submission of
charge-sheet, is distinguishable on the facts as in the present case, the
applicant has already convicted in Special Case No. 01/2015 by the
learned Special Judge, (Anti Corruption) South Bastar, Dantewada
under the Prevention of Corruption Act and this Court vide judgment
dated 15.05.2026 has acquitted the accused, therefore, the delay in
completion of investigation is not so fatal looking to the facts and
circumstances of this case, as such the submission made by learned
Senior counsel for the applicant for quashing of the charges on the
count of delay, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected.
15. Further submission of learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has purchased the house from the loan obtained under GPF

Page 11 of 14
account and after due permission, he has purchased the same, starting
of dairy farm in the name of his wife and all the properties have been
purchased after permission or duly intimation to the authorities, as
such the offence is not made out, are the defence of the applicant
which cannot be adjudicated by this Court at the time of examining the
legality and propriety of the charged framed by the learned trial Court
as settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manendra Prasad
Tiwari Vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari & another [(2022) 20 SCC 757]
wherein it has been held in paragraphs 23, 24 & 25 as under:-
“23. It is also well settled that when the petition is filed by the
accused under Section 482 CrPC or a revision Petition under
Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the
quashing of charge framed against him, the Court should not
interfere with the order unless there are strong reasons to hold
that in the interest of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of
the Court a charge framed against the accused needs to be
quashed. Such an order can be passed only in exceptional cases
and on rare occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial
court has framed a charge against an accused the trial must
proceed without unnecessary interference by a superior court and
the entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge
before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record
should not be entertained sans exceptional cases. [see State of
Delhi v. Gyan Devi, (2000) 8 SCC 239].
24. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this
Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC
at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At
the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with
the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material
and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the
accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could
prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which
stage the final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at
the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion
that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to
hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance
with the scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
25. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for

Page 12 of 14
and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any proceedings
or order made in a case. The object of this provision is to set right
a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity
which has crept in the proceeding.”
16. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs.
Pratima Behera [AIR 2025 SC 218] has held in paragraphs 10, 11 &
12 as under:-
“10. We may hasten to state at this juncture that though at the
stage of framing of issue what is to be seen is only whether there
is a prima facie case to make the accused to stand the trial at the
trial, certainly, the presumption of innocence should be in favour
of the accused.
11. Taking note of the fact that in the case on hand, the High
Court set aside the charge framed against the respondent while
exercising the revisional power, it is relevant to refer to the
decision in Minakshi Bala v. Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024
Sudhir Kumar & Ors4. This Court on the question of quashing of
charge by the High Court made the following pertinent
observations: -
“7…To put it differently, once charges are framed under
Section 240 CrPC the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
would not be justified in relying upon documents other than
those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 CrPC; nor would it
be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to quash the same except in those rare cases
where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify
such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional
cases the High Court can look into only those documents
which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into
relevant evidence.
8. Apart from the infirmity in the approach of the High Court
in dealing with the matter which we have already noticed, we
further find that instead of adverting to and confining its
attention to the documents referred to in Sections 239 and
240 CrPC the High Court has (1994) 4 SCC 142; 1994 INSC
201 Criminal Appeal No.3175 of 2024 dealt with the rival
contentions of the parties raised through their respective
affidavits at length and on a threadbare discussion thereof
passed the impugned order. The course so adopted cannot
be supported; firstly, because finding regarding commission
of an offence cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit
evidence and secondly, because at the stage of framing of

Page 13 of 14
charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a Trial Court
to delve into and decide upon the respective merits of the
case.” (underline supplied)
12. In short, while reiterating the position that in a prosecution,
presumption of innocence should be in favour of the accused, it
has to be said that at the stage of framing charge, even a very
strong suspicion, of course, founded upon materials and
presumptive opinion would enable the Court to frame charge
against an accused.”
17. Considering the well settled position of law, particularly in a case under
the Act, 1988 in case of Aman Kumar Singh (supra) wherein Hon’ble
the Supreme Court has held that principle of non-interference has to be
followed by the Court, except in such cases where special feature
exists which is not available in the present facts and circumstances of
the case. Further considering that this Court while hearing the petition
against the framing of charges, is required to examine whether the
material placed by the prosecution, if accepted at its face value,
discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged and whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The Court is not
required to conduct a roving or meticulous examination of the evidence
or to determine whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed in
establishing the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the
material collected during investigation cannot be said to be so deficient
or inherently improbable as to warrant interference with the order
framing charges. Thus, the instant criminal revision deserves to be
dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the criminal revision is hereby dismissed . The order
framing charges against the applicants for offences punishable under
Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 is hereby

Page 14 of 14
affirmed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
19. It is made clear that the observations made herein are confined solely
to the consideration of the present revision against the order framing
charge shall not prejudice the applicant or the prosecution during the
trial and the learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on the
basis of the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by any
observation made in this order on its own merit.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun