Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sheel Nagu, Hirdesh, JJ.
Pushpa W/o Ramesh Kumar Goyal – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 3183 of 2023
Decided On : 26-10-2023
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a revision filed by the petitioner against charges framed by the trial court under sections 13(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code (!) .
The facts relate to allegations of collecting bribe money from a complainant, with the petitioner asserting no knowledge that the amount was a bribe and claiming that her involvement was based on instructions from her superiors (!) (!) .
The petitioner, a contractual supervisor, contends she had no authority or role in the transaction and was unaware that the money was bribe money. She argues that the charges were framed without proper appreciation of the record and that there is no evidence linking her to the offence (!) .
The opposing counsel maintains that at the charge-framing stage, only the materials presented by the prosecution should be considered, and that the court is not required to evaluate evidence or defenses at this stage (!) .
The legal framework for charge framing is outlined, emphasizing that the court’s role at this stage is to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed, based on the material on record, and not to evaluate the evidence in detail (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court notes that tainted money was recovered from the petitioner’s possession, which is a significant material consideration (!) .
The petitioner’s claim of ignorance regarding the money’s nature is regarded as a defense that cannot be assessed at this preliminary stage (!) .
The presumption provisions under the relevant section of the Prevention of Corruption Act are acknowledged, which facilitate inference of guilt if certain elements are proved, unless the accused proves otherwise (!) .
The court clarifies that the challenge to the conviction in a case is different from a challenge at the charge-framing stage; the latter involves a limited review based on the material on record (!) .
After considering the material and legal principles, the court finds that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case against the petitioner and that the charges were properly framed (!) .
The petition for revision is dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations do not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case but are solely for disposal purposes (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the charges against the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on the validity of charges framed. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis on charge evaluation criteria. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. sufficient grounds for framing charges established. (Para 18) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 19) |
ORDER
HIRDESH, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this revision under section 397/401 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 ( in short “Code”) against the charges framed by the learned trial Court, Special Judge, Lokayukt, Raisen (M. P) under sections 13(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “PC Act”) and section 120(b) of INDIAN PENAL CODE in Special Case No. Lok/02/2021.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 10-5-2016, the complainant Smt. Chandra Prabha Rathore submitted a written complaint in the O/o of SP Lokayukt, Bhopal that she is the President of Shri Devi Helping Group which is involved in providing food to some of the wards of Begumganj Raisen. The expenditure of the food provided by the said Group is borne by the State Government and the amount thereof was disbursed on the sanction of Project Officer-Archana Bajpayee and then sent to Raisen by her, after which, the amount for the said project is credited to the account of Helping Group. It was alleged in complaint that the husband of Smt. Archana Bajpayee, Shri Vikas Tiwari is demanding Rs. 19,000/- for withdrawal of money. On the same day, the complainant was given DVR to record the demand conversation. It is alleged that she recorded the demand conversation made by Shri Vikas Tiwari but, Smt. Archana Bajpayee did not make any conversation regarding demand and instead directed complainant to talk about this to her husband only. In view of the said allegations, trap proceedings were initiated against the accused persons on 16-5-2016. However, on the date of trap proceedings Shri Vikas Tiwari did not turn up to receive the amount from the complainant. It is alleged that Shri Vikas Tiwari has sent the present petitioner/applicant along with Shri Bhagwati Sahu to collect money from the complainant, who was alleged to be caught red-handed while taking bribe from complainant.
3. In view of said proceedings Crime No. 150/2016 has been registered against the present petitioner/applicant. Aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 10-11-2021 bearing No. 121/21 filed in the Court of Special Judge, Lokayukt, Raisen (M. P) against the present applicant and in view thereof on 20-4-2023 charges were framed against the applicant under sections 13(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and under section 120(b) of INDIAN PENAL CODE in Special Case/Lokayukt/02/2021.
4. Being aggrieved by framing of charges, the petitioner/applicant filed this revision petition for discharging her on the following grounds that the petitioner has no knowledge that said money given by the complainant is bribe money. The petitioner is no way involved in the said transactions between the complainant and the other co-accused. She has no knowledge that the said amount was bribe. The petitioner went to collect the amount only upon the instructions of her superior authorities being aware of the address of the complainant, as she was a tenant of the present complainant.
4.1 The petitioner is a Contractual Supervisor at Rural area Women and Child Development Project, Begumganj District Raisn and has no authority or role to play in the said transaction. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has framed the aforesaid charges without appreciating material available on record against the petitioner. He further submitted that the entire material collected by the Police, it is clear that there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of an offence under sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act and in absence of any evidence against the petitioner, no charge can be framed. So, prayed to allow the revision petiti
At the charge-framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to establish grounds for proceeding against an accused, without delving into evidentiary details.
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.
At the charge framing stage, only a prima facie case needs to be established, without detailed examination of evidence.
At the charge framing stage, the court assesses whether a prima facie case exists, focusing on the allegations rather than the proof of guilt.
At the charge framing stage, courts must accept prosecution materials as true without conducting a mini-trial, determining only if prima facie evidence exists to proceed.
The power of the judge to sift and weigh the evidence for finding a prima facie case against the accused and the presumption of the alleged offence against the accused are crucial legal principles es....
A mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient to establish bribery charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act without proven demand; the court evaluates only whether a prima facie case exists....
The court determined that for an effective charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, details must be specific, ensuring the accused is informed effectively for a fair trial.
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....
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
