Back
SHEEL NAGU, HIRDESH
U. S. (Upjeet Singh) Arora, S/o Shri Maya Singh Arora – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Special Police Establishment, Office of Lokayukt – Respondent
ORDER
1. This petition invoking inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashment of charge-sheet bearing No.1/2005 dated 17.01.2005 emanating from Crime No.35/1998 registered at Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Bhopal. Further challenge is made to the order dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure A/26) taking cognizance of the offences punishable u/S 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "PC Act") read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and to the order dated 19.11.2010 (Annexure A/7) of framing charge qua the said offences.
2. Learned counsel for rival parties Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Ritu Janjani, Advocate and Shri Abhijeet Awasthy, Advocate are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.
3. Learned senior counsel Smt. Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Ritu Janjani, has essentially raised following grounds in support of aforesaid challenge:
(i) Bare reading of allegations in the charge-sheet do not disclose any cognizable offence either under the PC Act or under the IPC.
(ii) The transaction lying at the foundation of the offence
The suspicion of involvement, the impact of statutory amendments, and the establishment of mens rea are crucial factors in determining the validity of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, ....
Criminal Conspiracy and Misappropriated public funds - Addition/Alteration of charge - Section 216 CrPC empower Court to alter or add any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. It is now w....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to frame charges, emphasizing that only a prima facie case is required at this stage, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The High Court's jurisdiction to quash an order framing charges is limited to cases of patent error of jurisdiction and does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or interference with the trial c....
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.
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....
The absence of evidence proving demand for illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act led to the quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
The court established that the applicability of Section 17(A) of the P.C. Act requires prior approval for prosecuting public servants, and that the trial court's findings on such matters are conclusi....
The Special Court has the authority to order further investigation in cases involving offences under the Penal Code intertwined with the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the absence of prosecution s....
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
