The court confirmed that sufficient evidence at the charge framing stage is adequate to proceed with a trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No.1, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.5/2018. Learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 has ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 is prima facie made out against the petitioner. That he has wrongly been charged with the offence. That, so called demand of bribe was said to be made by Constable Rambahadur and Pratap but Pratap has not been made accused. That in this case, in fact, an FIR No.117/2016 was registered against one Himanshu Jain who is the complainant of this case. The petitioner was Investigating Officer of that FIR. Therefore, the complainant falsely lodged an FIR against the petitioner in this case. There is no legal evidence against the petitioner in this case to convict him. The memo of voice recorder transcription, has been drawn on 05.05.2016 in the presence of witnesses Pramod Kumar Sharma and Shashi Kumar Gathera but their presence is doubtful on the said date. So, he argued that the order of the learned trial Court dated 19.09.2019 be quashed and the petitioner be discharged in this case.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal revision petition.

4. As per the brief facts of the case, complainant Himanshu Jain lodged a complaint on 04.05.2016 in the Anti Corruption Bureau to the effect that an FIR No.117 was lodged against him on 27.02.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-D and 341 IPC. The petitioner Rambahadur and one Pratap were demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- to file negative FR in that case. The complaint was verified by the Officials of ACD. FIR no.146/2016 under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 was registered and after investigation charge sheet under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act was produced.

5. After hearing both the parties, learned trial Court found that the case under Section 11 of the Act of 1988 is not made out so the Court discharged the petitioner from the offence punishable under Section 11 of the Act of 1988 but learned trial Court found that from the evidence collected during investigation, such as statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other material available on record, there is sufficient material to proceed with the trial and charge the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988. Therefore, vide order dated 19.09.2019 learned trial Court has discharged the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 11 of the Act of 1988 but ordered to frame charge against him under Section 7 of the Act.

6. The law is trite, that at the time of framing charges, learned trial Court has to see whether the material collected during investigation is sufficient to proceed with the trial. For the framing of charges, the Court is not expected to go deep into the merits of the case and see, if the material produced, will lead to conviction. As per law, even if there is grave suspicion charges can be framed. In this case, a criminal case was being investigated by the accused petitioner in which the complainant of this case Himanshu Jain was accused. As per the version of the complainant of this case, the accused petitioner asked for some illegal gratification to close the criminal case against the complainant of this case. This fact has been specifically narrated by the complainant Himanshu Jain in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., other witnesses have also supported the prosecution version in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Transcription of voice recorder also supports the prosecution version. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, this Court deems it that learned trial Court has not committed any error