Back
GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Rajesh Kumar Meel – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.1.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, ACB Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions ACB Case No. 16/2017 (State of Rajasthan vs. Rajesh Kumar and Anr.) whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 120B IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of sequence of events put forth by the prosecution, prima facie it cannot be said that there is some material on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime.
3. Counsel further submitted that the order of framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether the material warrants framing of charge. It cannot blindly accept the conclusion of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face the trial. Thus, the impugned order with regard to framing of charge is not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel further
The sufficiency of evidence is crucial at the charge framing stage, and courts must exercise judicial discretion in assessing whether to proceed with charges.
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court determined that for an effective charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, details must be specific, ensuring the accused is informed effectively for a fair trial.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists, focusing on the allegations rather than the proof of guilt.
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
The trial court must provide minimum reasons for framing charges, and framing of charges is an important part of the trial that cannot be done casually.
The court confirmed that sufficient evidence at the charge framing stage is adequate to proceed with a trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
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
