In Brief
A Mining Engineer was accused of corrupt conduct for allegedly granting an enlarged quarry licence to a third party while cancelling a licence granted to another party, causing financial harm to both the State and the displaced licence holder. The High Court quashed the charges, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court held that at the charge-framing stage, courts need only find strong suspicion based on prima facie allegations, not proof of guilt. Revisional jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly. Here, allegations that the engineer issued a technical map showing greater acreage than actually licensed, enabling unauthorized mining, satisfied the requirements for charging under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The order was restored for trial to proceed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.