Back
2026 Supreme(Raj) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Ganpat Sharma S/o Shri Chatru Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1675 of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA : S.61(2)
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.193(6), S.230, S.249, S.250, S.250(1), S.250(2), S.251, S.252(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.14, Art.21
Headnote
(B) Judicial Scrutiny - At charge framing, the court must ensure that a prima facie case exists without mechanical endorsement of the prosecution's allegations, reflecting independent judicial reasoning. (Para 8)
(C) Procedural Compliance - Statutory provisions are not mere formalities; courts must observe statutory mandates, particularly in upholding defendants' rights. (Paras 10, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, contested the legality of charge framing due to procedural inadequacies, including the failure to provide requisite documents and the absence of a proper prosecutorial opening.
Findings of Court:
The order dated 06.11.2025 lacked adequate judicial reasoning and violated procedural safeguards, necessitating its annulment.
Issues: The main issues included the violation of statutory requirements in charge framing and the infringement of the accused's fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutory procedures are essential for ensuring a fair trial and that the trial court must independently assess whether the essential elements of the offence are met.
Result: The revision petition is allowed in part; the impugned order is set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
For the Appellants : C.S. Kotwani, Preeti Sharma, Manoj Chaudhary
For the Respondent: Ram Chaudhary
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. violation of procedural rights in charge framing (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding procedural compliance (Para 6 , 34) |
| 3. detailed scrutiny of charge framing procedures (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) |
| 4. need for adequate judicial reasoning in charge decisions (Para 31 , 32) |
| 5. order to remand for proper legal process (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
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
