IMPORTANT POINT
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.

ORDER :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 384 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one FIR was lodged on the basis of complainant submitted by complainant before P.S. ACB Hanumangarh stating therein that he is a contractor and bill of Rs. 6 lacs was pending with the department and the petitioner is asking illegal gratification for clearing his bills. After verification of the complaint, a trap was arranged and a sumo of Rs. 5,500/- was recovered from the pocket of petitioner.

3. After investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the petitioner under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, arguments upon charge were heard and by way of impugned order dated 23.09.2024, charges were framed by the trial court. Hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no demand of bribe by the petitioner as the alleged bills were already paid on 08.03.2019 and therefore, no work was pending with the petitioner. It is further argued that the ACB has failed to verify the demand made by the and therefore, on the basis of mere recovery of amount by the ACB, therefore, cannot be implicated in the case. It is further argued that the contractor has falsely implicated the petitioner as an inquiry was pending against the contractor for substandard construction. It is argued that no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the impugned order framing charges 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 ACB 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 there is allegation against the present petitioner for receiving money from the complainant, therefore, at this stage, 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 the material on record, the demand of illegal gratification made by the petitioner is evident from the transcript of conversation dated 16.05.2019. Further, in pursuance of trap proceedings, the sum of Rs. 5500/- was recovered from the pocket of petitioner After perusing the documents and studying the evidence collected during investigation, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and the trial court has not committed any error in framing charge for offences mentioned above. 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 whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes way for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. But if the evidence itself does not disclose that the accused has committed the offence, then the charge should not be framed. The Court, while framing the charges, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.

8. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 21 of the judgment has laid down the principles which are to be kept i