Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Themeshwar Kanshi, son of late Mahendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of disproportionate income and expenditure against the petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's evaluation of the necessity for a trial. (Para 5) |
| 3. framing of charge and the significance of evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. limits of revisional jurisdiction in criminal proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court's decision on material sufficiency for framing charges. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of A.C.B.
2. This Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1584 of 2024 in connection with Vigilance (Special) Case No.5 of 2023, arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No.7 of 2018 registered under section 13(2) read with Section 13 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has been registered and after the investigation the charge sheet has been filed wherein it has been stated that during the check period, Rs.25,25,847/-, whereas the total
The High Court upheld the dismissal of the discharge petition, emphasizing that sufficient evidence warrants framing charges against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on dis....
Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to ensuring legal correctness, not reappraising evidence or factual disputes that must be resolved at trial.
The necessity of proper evidence evaluation at trial for substantiating income claims in disproportionate assets cases, distinguishing the limited scope of revisional power concerning discharge decis....
The court upheld the rejection of a discharge application, emphasizing that a prima facie case must exist without conducting a mini-trial, affirming the principles of evidence evaluation at the disch....
(1) No provision in Cr.P.C. grants any right to accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge.(2) Revisional court cannot sit as an appellate court and start appreciating....
The court emphasized the limited scope of the court's jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code at the stage of framing of charges, highlighting the need to accept the material brought on record....
The court ruled that sufficient prima facie evidence can justify proceeding with charges of misappropriation, irrespective of past departmental findings of non-responsibility.
At discharge stage, prima facie evidence must indicate a case exists; defence matters cannot be thoroughly examined until trial. Abetment can include non-public servants aiding corrupt conduct.
The court affirmed that a fresh charge can be framed by the Special Court without prior hearing, adhering to previous directions, and that evidence already recorded need not be discarded.
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
