JUDGMENT :

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 9.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.02/2019 “State Vs. Sudhir Bordiya” may kindly be quashed and set aside and the humble petitioner may kindly be discharges of the charges levelled against him.”

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that an F.I.R., bearing No.362/2016, was lodged on 27.12.2016, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) / 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’) after two months of the recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/-which was alleged to be a bribe money. And that, the said F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about 2 months from the date of recovery of the said amount from the revisionist-petitioner. And, that he was in fact, traveling from Bikaner to Udaipur at the relevant time, to visit his family for the festival of Diwali, when the ACB team apprehended him, and took him into custody. And that, on 19.02.2019, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under the aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1988.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submitted that the learned Court below, without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order, whereby it proceeded with framing of charges against the revisionist-petitioner, despite the factum of delay of two months in registration of the FIR.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the learned court below, after taking into due consideration all the facts and circumstances of the present case and after considering the evidence placed on record before it, has rightly passed the impugned order.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned court below has passed the impugned order of framing of charges against the petitioner, wherein a detailed analysis or a roving enquiry is not required at the stage concerned.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor harped upon the word “presumption” occurring in Section 228 Cr.P.C. stating that if the concerned Judge is of the opinion that a ground for presumption of the alleged offences against the accused person(s) lies after consideration and hearing of the case, then charges can be framed against such accused person(s).

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

9. This Court is conscious of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Ors., (1979) SCC (Cri) 609, relevant portion of which reads as under :

“8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, 1977 CriLJ 1606 where Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows :-

Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the