MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Majorsingh Dillon S/o Late Shri Atma Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 08.03.20
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460
Knati Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of West Bengal
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.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
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....
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
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.
At the charge-framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to establish grounds for proceeding against an accused, without delving into evidentiary details.
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 affirmed that at the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case is required, emphasizing that meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary.
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.