Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence; mere assumptions cannot justify the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.

Order :

1. This criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS has been preferred by the accused-petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No. 1, Jaipur Metro II (for short, the ‘trial Court’) in Criminal Case No. 10/2024, State Vs. Virendra Singh whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for offences punishable u/S 384 of IPC and Section 8 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (for short ‘the Amended Act of 2018’) and also Section 12 0B IPC .

2. The facts in brief of the case are that on 11.07.2019 informant Rajendra Singh Bidhudi submitted a complaint before the Inspector General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur, which is as under:-

Based on the aforesaid complaint, proceedings were initiated wherein an alleged sum of Rs.11,18,600/- were given to Tejpal i.e. worker of the informant by one Sh. Himanshu Agarwal and the amount so given was alleged to be the illegal gratification to be given to the informant on behalf of the petitioner by way of Hawala. The alleged amount was said to be accumulated by way of extortion which was given to the informant in order to aid the petitioner.

3. On the basis of aforesaid information, reverse trap and recovery of amount given by Himanshu Agarwal to Tejpal, an FIR No. 289/2019 dated 27.09.2019 was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur, District Jaipur for the offences under Section 8, 12 of the Amended Act of 2018 read with Section 109 and 120B IPC .

4. After investigation the Police submitted the charge- sheet against the accused petitioner as well as Himanshu Agarwal for the offences under Sections 8, 12 of the Amended Act of 2018 and under Section 120B IPC .

5. The so-called co-accused Himanshu Agarwal filed a S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.119/2020 before the High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. It was contended by Himanshu Agarwal that he was having transactions with Sidhanta Alumint Private Limited and on receiving a call from his father, he delivered the amount. His father received the message from Sushant who is the Director of the Sidhanta Alumint Private Limited and Sushant has also been interrogated. He also placed before the Court the purchase order for the alleged amount which as per him was the valid sale consideration.

Having taken into consideration the aforesaid submissions, the High Court vide an interim order dated 06.03.2020 stayed the proceedings pertaining to the charge-sheet qua him.

6. After taking cognizance, the learned trial Court framed the charges only against the accused petitioner for the aforementioned offences vide order dated 02.09.2020 for the offences punishable under section 384 IPC , sections 8 and 12 of the Amended Act of 2018 and Section 120B IPC . The proceedings against other accused were stayed by the High Court. The accused petitioner aggrieved with the order of framing charges has preferred instant criminal revision petition before this Court.

7. Mr. David Mehla alongwith Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat appearing for the accused petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court is ex-facie illegal as it has been passed over-looking material evidence on record as well as the same is also in sheer contravention of the settled canons of law due to which the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court failed to take note of the fact that there w