Back
FARJAND ALI
Jitendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER
1. The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ajmer in Sessions Case No.19/2018 whereby an order framing charge has been passed against the petitioner under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law on the sole count that the learned Court below has not applied its mind to see whether the elements essential to constitute the alleged offences are present or not in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution. It was contended that even assuming all that the prosecution say are true, the materials are insufficient to support a charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and Section 120B IPC. While proceeding the investigation in the matter, when the complainant went to the house of Mr. Rakesh Sharma to deliver the illegal gratification, he specifically called his servant and asked him to accompany the complainant to the Rajshree Grosery shop and deliver th
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
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 court ruled that charges framed against an accused must have sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance to uphold prosecutorial validity; otherwise, it constitutes an infringement of fundamenta....
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.
Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act require a pending official duty and a clear demand for gratification, which were not present in this case.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act was emphasized.
Charges under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act require a substantive offence to be present and can be altered by the court before judgment, according to legal precedents.
Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence; mere assumptions cannot justify the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
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
