The power of the judge to sift and weigh the evidence for finding a prima facie case against the accused and the presumption of the alleged offence against the accused are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. praying for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 32/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

2. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vineet Dave appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2019, the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr.P.C., and the learned Court below proceeded to frame the charges against the petitioner under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as it then stood) read with Section 120-B I.P.C.

2.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a communication dated 08.09.2014 was issued by the Superintending Mining Engineer, Circle-Rajasamand, whereby, the then Mining Engineer, Rajsamand-II was forwarded a copy of complaint dated 08.09.2014, made by one Shri Bhura Lal, on the public web portal of the State Government namely 'Rajasthan Sampark Portal' in relation to an unauthorized excavation being undertaken in Nathdwara, District Rajsamand.

2.2 He also submitted that vide communication dated 22.09.2014, the then Mining Engineer, Rajsamand, instructed the Senior Mines Foreman, Rajsamand, to conduct an inspection regarding the same and submit a report within three days thereafter; subsequent to which a Site Panchnama report prepared, and it was found that the unauthorized excavation has been undertaken by one Shri Brijendra Agarwal (the offender), who was utlizing a crusher plant for the said purpose.

2.3 He further submitted that vide communication dated 21.10.2014, the then Mining Engineer, called upon Shri Brijendra Agarwal to submit his explanation within a period of 15 days, after which vide communication dated 28.10.2014 he submitted his explanation and that the present petitioner came to be posted and joined as Mining Engineer, Rajsamand - II on 27.10.2014 and an inspection was carried out by the petitioner who found that the offender without due authorization had excavated and utilized mineral quartzite to the extent of about 185 tonnes, in clear violation of Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986').

2.4 He also submitted that an order sheet came to be drawn by the petitioner and a demand of Rs.1,35,000/- towards cost of mineral, royalty and rent as well as as sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compounding fees in accordance with Rule 48(5) and 48(3) of the Rules of 1986, respectively was raised against the offender for the aforementioned violation of law. And, accordingly a notice for the same came to be to be issued to the offender.

2.5 He further submitted that it is after all of this, that the offender lodged a false complaint to the A.C.B. stating that on 13.01.2015 (on the date of inspection), the petitioner alongwith the Mines Foreman Shri Om Prakash Agaal visited his factory and demanded a bribe which he refused to pay. And that, it was alleged that as a consequence of such refusal, the penalty and compounding fees, as aforementioned, was imposed on him. However, the trap proceedings were set and the Mines Foreman was caught red handed, but that the petitioner was not involved in any kind of transaction with Shri Brijendra Agarwal nor with Shri Om Prakash Agaal.

2.6 He also submitted that furthermore, given the above mentioned background of the case, the complaint is in fact a false and fabricated one.

2.7 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on 18.02.2015, interim bail was granted to the petitioner by the Special Court and Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Udaipur and this Hon'ble Court granted bail under Secti