Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J
Virendra Singh S/o Shri Bikh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint initiated (Para 2) |
| 2. fir registered (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. defense arguments presented (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 4. charges quashed (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
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
Charges must be supported by sufficient evidence; mere assumptions cannot justify the framing of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC.
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....
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, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists, focusing on the allegations rather than the proof of guilt.
The necessity of proving demand for illegal gratification and mutual agreement in conspiracy is essential for framing charges under the relevant provisions.
Point of Law : When the allegations against an accused do not constitute an offence, even if such allegations are presumed to be true, a Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code to....
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....
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
