2017 Supreme(SC) 111

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – APPELLANT
VERSUS
FATEHKARAN MEHDU – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 216 of 2017 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3998 of 2011) With Crl. Appeal No. 217 of 2017 @ SLP(Crl.)No. 3996 of 2011
Decided On : 03-02-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not permissible or court to form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence at the stage of framing the charge itself.
Section 397 aims to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1) (d) & 13(2) – Shri Mehdu although granted quarry licence only for three bigha gap land in Plot No. 1345/1185/124, but technical map issued by Shri Mehdu was to an area of 80,000 Sq. ft, which was a source for Kishan Singh Rawat to carry on unauthorised mining over the larger area than that of actually allotted to him – Offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) and Section 120B IPC made out – Interference by High Court not sustainable. (Para 23, 25)

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Revision – Stage of framing of charge – Court not concerned with proof of allegation – To contend that at the stage of framing the charge itself the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, not permissible. (Para 26)

       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 397 – Revision – Scope – Provision aiming to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding – Quashing of charge (Para 27, 29)

       (2012) 9 SCC 460 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The Respondent, Fatehkaran Mehdu was working as Mining Engineer at Tehsil Bijolia, District Bhilwara, State of Rajasthan in the year 1997-98. One Smt. Sushma Devi had submitted an application for the grant of quarry licence for a mineral (Sand Stone) as per the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. On noticing that the quarry licence issued on 06.05.1998 contained various cuttings, she contacted Fatehkaran Mehdu and handed him the licence for issue of fresh licence. Shri Mehdu after taking all papers from Smt. Sushma Devi did not issue her a fresh licence, whereas, Smt. Sushma Devi had started mining operations. On 18.07.1998 one Shri K. K. Boda, inspected the area and stopped the mining activities informing Smt. Sushma Devi that no quarry licence was issued in her favour. On 11.08.1998, Mining Engineer Fatehkaran Mehdu directed Smt. Sushma Devi to stop the mining activities; Fatehkaran Mehdu was transferred in August 1998 out of Tehsil Bigolia.

       Sushma Devi filed a Writ Petition which was dismissed. Smt. Sushma Devi filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and restored the quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Devi.

       On the other hand, Sri Kishan Singh Rawat, the respondent was also granted quarry licence on gap-land in Block No. 263A and 264A which contained a condition that the said approval shall not be effective outside Plot No. 1345/1185/124. Plot No. 1185/124 was situated towards South of Plot No. 1181/124, which was included in the quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Devi.

       Kishan Singh Rawat alongwith certain other persons had filed a suit against the consenting party of Khatedari Land No. 1238/125 on 23.06.1998 for stopping Sushma Devi from carrying on mining operations. Another suit was filed on 13.7.1998 by Kishan Singh against the Khatedars of Plot No. 1181/124 restraining them from interfering in mining operation on Plot No. 1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha.

       Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prevention of Corruption Bureau of Udaipur, lodged a First Information Report against the Fatehkaran Mehdu and Kishan Singh Rawat under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of IPC.

       The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Udaipur framed charges against both the Respondents under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120B IPC.

       Aggrieved by order dated 05.05.2009, Fatehkaran Mehdu filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition and Kishan Singh Rawat filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition. The High Court set aside the order dated 05.05.2009 allowing the Revision.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court erred in quashing the charges

       Result: Appeals allowed.