The court emphasized the importance of considering the sufficiency of evidence and following the guidelines for framing charges in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Challenge in this petition is made to the entire criminal proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.03 of 2018, State vs. Trepan Singh Rana, pending in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance/First Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

2. In the special sessions trial, on 04.08.2018, charges were ordered to be framed against the petitioner under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) and Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). The order dated 04.08.2018 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2018, Trepan Singh Rana vs. State and others (for short, “revision”), which was decided by this Court on 12.01.2021. This order was further challenged by the petitioner in SLP (Crl.) No.2659 of 2021, Trepan Singh Rana vs. the State of Uttarakhand. The SLP was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as may be available under the law.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy has already been narrated by this Court in the revision. In para 3, the Court reproduced it as hereunder:-

“3. Facts necessary to understand the present controversy, briefly stated, are as follows;

Informant Janak Singh Rawat was awarded a contract of constructing a portion of a road in District Uttarkashi. On 06.03.2017, the informant gave a report to Vigilance Department. According to it, the revisionist is Junior Engineer on the job but he is not measuring the work done by the informant. Although, the informant had completed the work amounting to about Rs.70 Lakh. The revisionist is demanding Rs.1 Lakh as bribe to conduct the measurement. Based on this complaint given by informant to the Vigilance Department, Bhaskar Lal Sah, Inspector, Vigilance made a preliminary assessment on 07.03.2017 and recommended that it is a case fit for trap. Accordingly, on 08.03.2017, a trap was laid in the presence of witnesses and the revisionist was arrested red-handed while taking Rs.50,000/- bribe from the informant Janak Singh Rawat. His hands were washed in the prescribed solution, which turned pink. A trap memo was prepared and based on it, Case Crime No. 01 of 2017 under Section 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was lodged. After trap, the hand-wash of the revisionist was sent for forensic examination, which confirmed the case. After investigation, the chargesheet was submitted against the revisionist under Section 7 r/w 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Act. At the stage of framing of charge, an application for discharge was filed by the revisionist, which was rejected by the impugned order. It is impugned herein.”

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the revision was preferred by the petitioner, but the revision was not maintainable, therefore, the finding recorded in the revision may not bar the petitioner to raise the issue again.

6. Learned counsel had also raised the following points in his submissions:-

(i) The SSP (Vigilance) was interested in the trap. He himself managed the trap and was present.

(ii) When the informant informed the SSP (Vigilance) about the demand allegedly made by the petitioner, FIR ought to have been lodged, but it was not so lodged.

(iii) In FIR, the denominations of the currency notes offered to the petitioner has not been given.

(iv) The denominations of the currency notes have been given in a letter written to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, “FSL”) and in the FSL report, but the FSL report is not admissible under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) because the Scientific Officer is not a person named therein.

(v) The prosecution is mala fide because the informant was a contractor, who was pressuring the petitioner to clear his running bills without any work, which the petitioner d