Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Ganpat Sharma S/o Shri Chatru Lal Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 a
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.
Criminal proceedings require substantial, corroborative evidence, and charge framing must reflect judicial application rather than mechanical adherence to procedural norms under the NDPS Act.
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.
Court has not entered into merits of the charge so framed at this stage. It is for the learned Sessions Judge to frame charge on the basis of charge sheet papers after following provisions of section....
The court held that failure to give the accused an opportunity to file for discharge before framing charges violates the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
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....
Framing charges without affording accused opportunity for discharge under BNSS Section 262(1), hearing, or legal aid to custodial accused violates mandatory procedure; order set aside and remanded.
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
