Seth, J.--1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Rewa in Special Case No. 08/2018 whereby charge under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been framed against the applicant.

2. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was posted and working as Patwari at Halka Louri No. 77. He is a public servant. Allegation against the applicant is that he demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for correction in the revenue records. A complaint in writing was made by complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a criminal case was registered.

3. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the present applicant in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Rewa. On the basis of charge-sheet and material filed along with it, learned Special Judge framed charge against the applicant for the offence mentioned above. Hence, this revision.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence and learned trial Court should have discharged him. Thus, according to counsel for the applicant, the trial Court committed grave illegality in framing charge against the applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that applicant was involved in the alleged offence, hence no fault can be found with the impugned order framing charge against the applicant.

6. We have heard submissions at length and perused the material placed on record. On a careful consideration, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of counsel for the applicant.

7. In view of decision in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others (2008) 14 SCC 1, the legal position is clear that no right is conferred by the Code to the accused person to prove his innocence at the stage of framing of charge.

8. Court, at the stage of framing charge, is not required to hold a mini trial and come to the conclusion that material produced warrants conviction. At this stage, the probative values of the material submitted along with charge sheet are not required to be examined or evaluated under a microscope. That stage would come later. Prior to it, the Court has only to see that material does make out a prima facie case.

9. At the stage of framing charge, Court is required to consider only the material placed by the prosecution and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 giving right to the accused to place material in defence at the stage of framing of charge. That stage would come later in the trial at the time of defence.

10. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu reported in [(2017) 3 SCC 198], Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under :

“The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.”

The Supreme Court has further held that-

“The object of section 397 of CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding.”

11. Thus, after considering all the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, we find no error or illegality with the order impugned.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present criminal revision, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed.

13. Ordered accordingly.