Rajasthan High Court quashes PC Act framing against quality assurance officer, orders fresh charge consideration

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an order framing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a former Assistant Director of the Government of India’s Quality Assurance establishment, holding that the trial court had failed to weigh whether the allegations disclosed a deliberate corrupt act or merely an erroneous administrative decision, and had ignored the legal effect of a later contrary expert report.

Justice Farjand Ali, sitting in the Jodhpur Principal Seat, partly allowed eight connected criminal revision petitions and set aside the framing order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, SriGanganagar in Sessions Cases Nos. 03/2016, 04/2016 and 05/2016. The matters have been remanded to the trial court to reconsider the question of charge afresh in accordance with law.

The Court’s reasoning, in the operative paragraph, recorded:

“The learned trial Court, while framing charges, failed to examine the legal effect of such subsequent variation in testing reports and whether the same, by itself, could constitute criminal misconduct under the PC Act. Equally, the aspect as to whether the allegations merely disclose an erroneous or negligent decision, administrative lapse or procedural irregularity, as distinguished from a deliberate act actuated by corrupt motive, has not at all been considered.”

The petitioner was Mukteshwar Prasad, who at the relevant time held the post of Assistant Director Quality Assurance Grade II at the Rajasthan Sub Centre of the Government of India’s Directorate at New Delhi. The prosecution traced its origin to Contract No. 31/ACEB/11-12 dated 18.01.2012, executed by the Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Region Bikaner, with Marudhar Alum and Chemical Private Limited, Bhilwara, for the supply of 40 metric tonnes of Alumino Ferric for water purification under the control of the Superintending Engineer, PHED, Anoopgarh.

After complaints of supply of sub-standard material in lesser quantity, the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a physical verification of the godown on 24.02.2012, in which it found 2,400 blocks of Alumino Ferric weighing approximately 40.8 metric tonnes along with a 770 kg stock already lying in the godown and 700 additional blocks said to have been issued. Samples were subsequently sent to the National Test House, Jaipur for examination.

It was on the basis of the contrary opinion expressed by the National Test House — given, the bench noted, after a considerable lapse of time — that FIR No. 28/2014 came to be registered against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC, alleging that the petitioner had issued a Quality Assurance Certificate certifying the material as water grade II Type I despite its allegedly inferior quality. The trial court framed charges on 05.07.2017.

Senior Advocate Mr. Dhirendra Singh, assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Nishant Bora, appeared for the petitioner across the eight connected revisions filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State was represented by Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate, and Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Additional Government Advocate.

Examining the file, the bench held that the trial court was under an obligation to independently apply its mind to whether the material collected during investigation reached the threshold required for framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that the impugned order had failed in that exercise. The Court observed that “the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

The bench was at pains to leave the merits open: the trial court has been directed to pass a fresh speaking order, after hearing the parties and considering the material on record as well as the settled legal principles governing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, “uninfluenced by any observation made herein.” Stay petitions and all pending applications stood disposed of with the principal order.

The order is a reminder that, even at the threshold stage of framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial court is required to examine whether the material on record discloses the mens rea component of corrupt motive that distinguishes a criminal offence from an administrative or technical lapse — and that subsequent contradictory expert opinions, particularly those rendered after a long interval, do not by themselves carry the day for the prosecution.

Arguments in the eight connected revisions had concluded on 16.02.2026, with the order reserved the same day. It was pronounced on 14.05.2026.

Title: Mukteshwar Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1164/2017 with connected S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 1165/2017, 1166/2017, 1228/2017 and others (arising out of Sessions Cases Nos. 03/2016, 04/2016 and 05/2016)

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Nishant Bora

Counsel for respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Deputy Government Advocate; Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Additional Government Advocate