The judiciary must uphold statutory safeguards in charge framing, ensuring independent judicial reasoning and preserving defendants' rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act No. 1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No. 46/2025 (State v. Ganpatlal Sharma & Anr.) arising out of FIR No. 157/2024, CPS ACB Jaipur, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 07 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, despite gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 230, 249, 250(1) and 250(2) of the BNSS, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice and infringement of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the impugned order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

2. The brief facts of the present are that the petitioner is Accused No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “A-1”) in the Sessions Case titled State v. Ganpat Lal Sharma & Anr., arising out of FIR No. 157/2024 registered at Central Police Station (CPS) Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Upon completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No. 221/2025 was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended up to 2018) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The present Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2025, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner in blatant violation of Sections 230, 249, 250(1), 250(2) and 252(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The charge-sheet was submitted on 21.08.2025 before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Udaipur, by Respondent No. 2, the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Special Unit, Udaipur.

3. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the learned Special Judge on 17.09.2025, and on the same day, cognizance of the alleged offence was taken, as reflected in the order sheet dated 17.09.2025.

4. Subsequently, on 06.11.2025, the learned Special Judge proceeded to take a decision to frame charges against the petitioner. The order sheet dated 06.11.2025 records that after hearing arguments on charge and perusal of the record, a prima facie case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was found to be made out, and charges were accordingly framed, read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Directions were further issued for summoning prosecution witnesses and for leading prosecution evidence.

5. That the present S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is confined to assailing the order dated 06.11.2025, whereby the decision to frame charges and the consequent framing of charges against the petitioner were undertaken, despite non- compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards contained in Sections 230, 249, 250(1), 250(2) and 252(1) of the BNSS, thereby resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner and causing violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

OBSERVATIONS

A. Scope of Judicial Scrutiny at the Stage of Framing of Charge

7. At the outset, it is necessary to recapitulate the well-settled contours governing judicial scrutiny at t