Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1445 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar Meel v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-10

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2021
ORDER 1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 18.1.2018 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, ACB Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions ACB Case No. 16/2017 (State of Rajasthan vs. Rajesh Kumar and Anr.) whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the commission of offence under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of sequence of events put forth by the prosecution, prima facie it cannot be said that there is some material on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime. 3. Counsel further submitted that the order of framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the Court to consider judicially whether the material warrants framing of charge. It cannot blindly accept the conclusion of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face the trial. Thus, the impugned order with regard to framing of charge is not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and is bereft of any power to initiate any kind of proceedings pertaining to the illegal trading and transportation of diesel, as such powers vest either in the District Supply Officer or for that matter to the Police, even the presumption of commission of offence by the accused petitioner is not available in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the ingredient of demand, recovery and pendency of work, which is sine qua non to bring home the offences under Section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC is completely missing in the matter. Thus, in view of above, the impugned order dated 18.1.2018 passed by the learned trial Court framing the charges for the offence under Section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged. 4. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made in the instant revision petition and supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no error in framing of the charges by the trial Court. At this stage there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and to weigh the evidence as if trial is being conducted. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and gone through the order impugned and material placed before this Court. 6. Admittedly, the complainant Shri Subhash Kumar submitted First Information Report alleging that the petitioner raised illegal demand of bribe for facilitating the complainant to run his illegal trade and transportation of the diesel and also threatened to seize his truck No. RJ-18-GA-4020. Accused petitioner is an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. At the stage of framing of charges, it is wrong to say that the Court cannot apply its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. Hence, at the stage of framing of charge an individual accused may seek discharge if he or she can show that the materials are absolutely insufficient for framing of charge against that particular accused. 7. However, even at the stage of framing of charge, the sufficiency of materials for the purpose of conviction is not the requirement and a prayer for discharge can be allowed only if the Court finds that the materials are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial. It is also a settled proposition of law that even when there are materials raising strong suspicion against an accused, the Court will be justified in rejecting a prayer for discharge and in granting an opportunity to the prosecution to bring on record the entire evidence in accordance with law so that case of both the sides may be considered appropriately on conclusion of trial. 8. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court. The impugned order passed by the trial Court qua the petitioner is hereby quashed. 9. The revision petition is partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to pass fresh order with regard to framing of charge in relation to the present petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order passed by the trial Court qua the petitioner is hereby quashed. 9. The revision petition is partly allowed and the trial Court is directed to pass fresh order with regard to framing of charge in relation to the present petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. However, petitioner is at liberty to raise all such objections before the trial Court which are raised in this revision petition.