Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 38 (MP)

Vineet Koushik v. State of M. P.

2018-01-10

ANURAG SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.SETH

body2018
ORDER 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 11.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Sehore in Special Case No.03/2017 whereby charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in alternative under section 120B of IPC have been framed against the applicant and co-accused. 2. At the relevant point of time, the applicant was working as Patwari at Tahsil-Sehore. He is a public servant. Allegation against the applicant and coaccused is that they conspired together to seek illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant for correction in the revenue records. A complaint in writing was made by complainant Harish Rathore and on the basis of the said complaint, a trap was laid and co-accused was caught red-handed accepting illegal gratification. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against accused persons including the present applicant in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Sehore. On the basis of charge sheet and material filed along with it, learned Special Judge framed charges against the applicant for the offences 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 offences and learned trial Court should have discharged him under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He criticized the trial Court acting as the mouthpiece of the prosecution. In this context, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489 and Union of India v. Prafull Kumar Samal and another, reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 . He submitted that the trial Court committed grave illegality in framing charges against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Lokayukt submits that trial has commenced and one witness has been examined and the seizure of the documents is from the applicant. 6. We may point out that law in this regard is well settled in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 , wherein it is held that at the time of framing of charge, the material produced by the defence cannot be considered by the Court. 6. We may point out that law in this regard is well settled in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and others, reported in (2008) 14 SCC 1 , wherein it is held that at the time of framing of charge, the material produced by the defence cannot be considered by the Court. In view of this, 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. We, therefore, find no flaw with the impugned order on this count. This takes us to the first submission that there was no evidence against the applicant. 7. After a careful study of the decisions cited at the Bar, we find that in the present case, the trial Court did not act as the mouthpiece of the prosecution. We do not find force in this contention of counsel for the applicant for the simple reason that the Court has to apply the judicial mind to see whether from the material produced on record, it could be said that the accused might have committed an offence. In this connection, Court 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. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we find no merit and substance in the Criminal Revision, the same is accordingly dismissed. 9. Ordered accordingly.