Advocates:
['CHANDRA SHEKHAR KOTWANI', '', 'MUKESH PUROHIT', 'KARAN JOSHI', 'DIGVIJAY SINGH SODHA', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 27/2021

Sudhir Bordiya S/o Keshu Lal Bordiya, Aged About 42 Years, R/o

L-4/78, Jai Shree Colony, Bohra Ganeshji, Udaipur At Present

Working As Accounts Officer, Kota.

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. C.S. Kotwani

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 18/04/2022

Pronounced on 20/04/2022

1.

In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2.

This criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with

Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this revision

petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated

9.12.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Prevention of

Corruption Act), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.02/2019 “State

Vs. Sudhir Bordiya” may kindly be quashed and set aside and

the humble petitioner may kindly be discharges of the charges

levelled against him.”

(2 of 7)

[CRLR-27/2021]

3.

Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner are that an F.I.R.,

bearing No.362/2016, was lodged on 27.12.2016, against the

petitioner for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) / 13 (2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

‘Act of 1988’) after two months of the recovery of an amount of

Rs. 50,000/- which was alleged to be a bribe money. And that,

the said F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about 2 months from

the date of recovery of the said amount from the revisionist-

petitioner. And, that he was in fact, traveling from Bikaner to

Udaipur at the relevant time, to visit his family for the festival of

Diwali, when the ACB team apprehended him, and took him into

custody. And that, on 19.02.2019, the charge sheet was filed

against the petitioner under the aforementioned provisions of the

Act of 1988.

4.

Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further

submitted that the learned Court below, without looking into the

facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order,

whereby it proceeded with framing of charges against the

revisionist-petitioner, despite the factum of delay of two months in

registration of the FIR.

5.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while

opposing the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, submitted that the learned court below, after taking

into due consideration all the facts and circumstances of the

present case and after considering the evidence placed on record

before it, has rightly passed the impugned order.

(3 of 7)

[CRLR-27/2021]

6.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned

court below has passed the impugned order of framing of charges

against the petitioner, wherein a detailed analysis or a roving

enquiry is not required at the stage concerned.

7.

Learned Public Prosecutor harped upon the word

“presumption” occurring in Section 228 Cr.P.C. stating that if the

concerned Judge is of the opinion that a ground for presumption

of the alleged offences against the accused person(s) lies after

consideration and hearing of the case, then charges can be framed

against such accused person(s).

8.

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

9.

This Court is conscious of the decision rendered by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla

Kumar Samal and Ors., (1979) SCC (Cri) 609, relevant

portion of which reads as under:

“8. The scope of Section 227 of the Code was

considered by a recent decision of this Court in the

case