2024:CGHC:28750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 695 of 2021 • Suresh Gupta S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad Gupta, Aged About 53 Years (Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat, Abhanpur) R/o. House No. 302, Near Mother Pride School, Sunder Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Oic Pow/acb, Police Station, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Premshankar Dubey, Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

Order On Board

02.08.2024

1. The applicant has filed this present criminal revision under Section

397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure A/1) by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely implicated in the offence as from the material collected by the prosecution in the charge-sheet, it does not reflect that the applicant was involved in the commission of offence and thus he would submit that the framing of charges is frivolous one and deserves to be set aside by this Court and he may be discharged.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission would submit that whatever stand taken by the applicant in this revision is his defence which can be examined by the learned trial Court during the course of evidence, therefore, at this juncture framing of charges is very well merited and the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing of charges, thus, no interference is required by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the criminal revision.

4. The record of the case would show that the applicant alongwith other co-accused were charged for commission of offence under Section 7, 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120(b) of the IPC. After filing of the chage-sheet the trial has also begun, almost all the witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at conclusion stage.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The submissions made by the applicant that there is no sufficient evidence and there is no material collected by the prosecution against him deserves to be rejected as the stand taken by the applicant is his defense which can be very well taken in the evidence and can be considered by the learned trial Court after appreciating evidence material on record, therefore, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be disposed of.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and also on framing of charges or the quality of the material so collected by the prosecution, it is for the learned Trial Court to ascertain it and decide the case on the basis of material placed and evidence recorded before it. It is also made clear that disposal of criminal revision will not prevent the trial Court to decide the case in accordance with law and on the basis of material placed before it.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present criminal revision is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge Manish