MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Durga Ram Mahiya – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460
Knati Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal : (2000) 1 SCC 722
Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
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.
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 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 es....
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....
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.
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, strong suspicion suffices to establish grounds for proceeding against an accused, without delving into evidentiary details.
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
A mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish bribery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act without proven demand; the court evaluates only whether a prima facie case exists....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.