Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Chedilal Jaiswal S/o Devi Prasad Jaiswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer – Respondent
Order :
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.)
1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Balrampur at Ramanujganj in Special Criminal Case- 1 of 2017, whereby the learned trial court has framed the charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is an accused in Crime No. 114/1998 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing, (hereinafter called as “ACB/EOW”) Bilaspur unit, for the offence under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the learned Trial Court where the Special Criminal Case No. 01/2017 is pending for consideration.
3. The allegation against the present applicant is that on 27-07-1996, the applicant was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Wadraf Nagar, District Surguja. There was a recruitment process published by the State for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III at Janpad Panchayat, Wadraf Nagar, in the
At the charge-framing stage, the court must ascertain if there is sufficient prima facie evidence to proceed with trial, without conducting a mini trial.
At the charge framing stage, prima facie evidence must substantiate serious suspicion; the trial court is not to weigh evidence but must proceed based on materials presented by the prosecution.
Insufficient evidence of criminal misconduct or pecuniary advantage under the Prevention of Corruption Act leads to the discharge of accused in a recruitment-related irregularity case.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
The court emphasized that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defence version or the merits of the materials, and the court is not to examine the merits and d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court is not required to consider the defense version or evaluate the merits of the prosecution's evide....
The court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
