IMPORTANT POINT
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.

ORDER :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Pali whereby, the trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.2019, the complainant submitted a written report before the Addl. S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau outpost, Pali with regard to demand of illegal gratification by two Inspectors from the office of Dy. Labour commissioner Pali with regard to demand of “labour Cess Tax”. After verification of the demand, a trap was laid and the complainant was sent to office of accused petitioner with demanded money. The complainant entered into the office of accused where the accused received the gratification from the complainant. Upon giving signal, the petitioner was caught with the money in his possession by the trap party. The hands of the petitioner were washed in a solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink.

3. After usual investigation, the police filed a challan against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, arguments upon charge were heard and by way of impugned order dated 01.11.2023, charges were framed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of FIR as well as the challan papers, there is no evidence whatsoever to frame charges against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. It is argued that no specific demand was made by the petitioner and no work of complainant was pending before the petitioner and therefore, no question of seeking bribe is made out in the case. It is further argued that similarly situated co-accused has been exonerated by the police but the petitioner has been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated only on the basis of recovery of bribe which is not sustainable in the eye of law as the said amount was the labour cess tax which the complainant sought to deposit with department under Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act, 1996. Therefore, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the impugned order framing charges against the petitioner is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and argued that the police after thorough investigation submitted challan against the petitioner and the trial court after going through the entire record, has framed charges against the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner has been caught red-handed and the bribe money was recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, the order of framing charge passed by the learned Court below does not suffer from any infirmity and all other questions raised in regard to the present case are to be considered by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

6. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. From the perusal of documents on record, it is evident that upon complaint made by the complainant, a trap was conducted and during the trap, the petitioner had accepted the bribe and the bribe money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was caught red handed by the trap party of the ACD and therefore, prima facie, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is made out against the petitioner. After perusing the documents and studying the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is settled law that at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. At this stage, the Court only has to see