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.

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 year 1998, called as ‘Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions) Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘the Rules, 1998’). It is alleged that in the said recruitment process of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, irregularities have been committed by the authorities to appoint their blue-eyed candidate by giving them the advantage without there being any merit position, and they have been illegally selected for extraneous consideration. The authorities have selected their relatives also which is in violation of Section 40 (C) of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993. Ineligible candidates have been selected by giving them higher marks for their experience, there is manipulation in the marks allotted in the interview, and they themselves appeared in the interview committee in which their relatives are candidates and the selection rules have not been followed and there is no fair selection process by which the accused persons have committed the offence.

4. The Collector, Surguja, has constituted a four-member committee for inquiry consisting of the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Surguja, Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Wadraf Nagar, District Surguja, Incharge Joint Director, Public Education, Surguja and Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Surguja. They inquired about the allegation, found substance in the complaint, and submitted their report that there are irregularities and illegalities in the selection process of the Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB/EOW Bilaspur, registered the offence of Crime No. 114/1998 at ACB/EOW, Bilaspur, and started the investigation into the matter. During the investigation, it was found that the present applicant, who was the then Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Wadraf Nagar, along with other nine accused persons, who were members of the Selection Committee, had not followed the fair selection process; marks of the interview were given by only one person, in the list of Schedule Castes category, for 3 posts, total 10 candidates were shortlisted but the 11^th name of Babulal was added; in the list of OBC (female) Category, in place of Vimla Verma, Mala Patel, Kumud, and Ku. Archna, the names of four other candidates, namely Savitri, Anjali, Sangeeta and Savita were substituted. The candidate, Rajkumar Kushwaha, had only one year of experience, and he was allotted 17 marks in place of 9 marks in the OBC (male) category. Ku. Anju Tiwari, Ku. Shashi Kiran, Lata Jaiswal, Shanti Jaiswal, Anil Kumar Verma, Ku. Shashibala, d/o LP Verma were relatives of members of the Selection committee, namely Siddhnath Tiwari, N.R. Bhagat, Chhedilal Jaiswal (present applicant) and Sitaram Kushwaha, and they got higher marks in the interview. After investigation, du