Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : MOHD.YAMIN
BRIJKUMAR SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
S. B. CRI. M. P. 916 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/27/1997
CRIMINAL LAW - CHARGE FRAMING - S. 409, IPC AND S. 5 (1) (D) (2) READ WITH S. 5 (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERRED: S. 482, Cr. P. C., S. 409, IPC, S. 210-B, IPC, S. 5 (1) (D) (2), PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, S. 5 (2), PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - KEY LEGAL PROVISIONS, INTERPRETATIONS, AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE COURT'S DECISION: The court discussed the principles for framing charges under S. 227 of the Code and held that the trial court has the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists. The court also clarified that a charge can be framed based on strong suspicion. In this case, the court found that the petitioner, as Vikas Adhikari, had issued 50 bags of cement despite knowing that the work was completed, which raised a strong suspicion against him, justifying the framing of charges.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Vikas Adhikari, was charged under S. 409 read with S. 210-B, IPC, and S. 5 (1) (D) (2) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly issuing 50 bags of cement to a Jr. Engineer, Ramesh Chandra Dedor, despite knowing that the work was completed. The petitioner challenged the framing of charges, arguing that there was no conspiracy and that the issuance of cement was a mere irregularity.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court did not commit any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner. The court found that there was a strong suspicion against the petitioner, as he had issued 50 bags of cement despite knowing that the work was completed. The court also clarified that the trial court has the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists and that a charge can be framed based on strong suspicion.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in framing charges against the petitioner under S. 409, IPC, and S. 5 (1) (D) (2) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Whether the petitioner's act of issuing 50 bags of cement to Ramesh Chandra Dedor constituted an offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles laid down in Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1981 Cr LR (Raj) 143, which held that the trial court has the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists and that a charge can be framed based on strong suspicion. The court also noted that the petitioner, as Vikas Adhikari, had issued 50 bags of cement despite knowing that the work was completed, which raised a strong suspicion against him.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's petition, upholding the trial court's order framing charges against him.
MOHD. YAMIN, J.
( 1 ) THIS is a misc. petition under S. 482, Cr. P. C. against the order of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption cases, Udaipur passed on 6-9-1996 by which he framed charge under S. 409 read with S. 210-B, IPC and u/s. 5 (1) (d) (2) read with S. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P. P.
( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that one Ramesh Chandra Dedor and petitioner were working in the Panchayat Samiti, Girwa. The petitioner was Vikas Adhikari while Ramesh Chandra was working as Jr. Engineer. Girwa was declared as a famine striken area and famine works commenced w. e. f. 20-5-88 which came to an end on 15-7-87 when a declaration was made that no more famine work should continue. In all a sanction of Rs. 1,60,000/- was given by the government to be spent for the famine work. Out of it Rs. 79,000/- was to be spent towards the materials and Rs. 81,000/- were sanctioned for famine relief work. It is said that upto 15-7-88 out of Rs. 81, 000/- sanctioned for labour purposes, a sum of Rs. 80,980/- was already spent but towards the purchase of materials a sum of Rs. 18,346. 74 was spent in excess of the sanctioned amount for which Ramesh Chand Dedor did not take sanction of the government nor of Panchayat Samiti. On 26-8-1988 Ramesh Chandra made an application to the petitioner for issuing 70 bags of cement as the plaster work had remained incomplete and as the monsoon season was on the property might be damaged due to rains. It is alleged that on an application of Ramesh Chandra a sanction was given and it was ordered that 50 bags of cement may be issued. After receipt of 50 bags of cement from the store on the application of Shri Dedor, he was transferred from that place. 50 bags of cement was not utilised by Ramesh Chandra. A complaint was filed before the Anti Corruption department and thorough investigation was done and challan presented. Special Judge, Anti Corruption framed charge as stated above.
( 4 ) IT has been submitted before me that there was no conspiracy and that the petitioner passed an order issuing cement on the application of Shri Dedor who was the Jr. Engineer. He submitted that mere issuance of 50 bags of cement to Ramesh Chandra on his application does not constitute any offence. At the best it may be an irregularity for which no offence under S. 409, IPC can be made out. He submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has misappropriated or embezzled the sale proceeds of the said cement (about Rs. 28,000/-) and caused the government or panchayat samiti any loss. He also submitted that there is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner was ever a party as illegal gratification or the sale proceeds were shared by him. He has, therefore, prayed that the charge against the petitioner may be quashed under S. 482, Cr. P. C.
( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned PP has opposed it.
( 6 ) IT is settled law that at the stage of framing of the charge, a Judge/magistrate has to see a prima facie case. In 1996 (1) Crimes 21 : (1996 Cri LJ 1372) (SC), State of Bihar v. Sri Rajendra Agrawalla, it was observed that the High Court cannot appreciate evidence in coming to conclusion that no offence is made out and if it does so, exceeds its jurisdiction under S. 482, Cr. P. C. However, I have regarded this petition as a revision because a revision can be filed against the order of framing the charge. I will like to say that it is also well settled that the charge can be framed on the basis of strong suspicion. The petitioner was definitely Vikas Adhikari and knew it very well that the work had been completed. He on the basis of an application of Jr. Engineer issued 50 bags of cement is itself a circumstance against the petitioner. Trial Court at the time of framing of charge is to decide whether or not there exist sufficient grounds for framing the charge. The inquiry at that time is limite
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
