Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lokendra Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13177
1 CRR-2438-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2438 of 2024
LOKENDRA SINGH RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Sarvate - Advocate for the SPE Lokayukt.
ORDER
Per: Justice Smt. Anuradha Shukla
This revision petition has been preferred to challenge the order passed
on 10.2.2024 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Panna, in
Special Case No.6/2023 and the charges framed thereby under Sections 7 and
12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act, 2018).
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of this criminal revision are that
petitioner Lokendra Singh Rajput was posted as Forest Guard, Van
Parikshetra, Madwa Range, Mohandra, district Panna; according to
complainant Kamal Kishore Kushwaha, petitioner and Deputy Ranger
Shravan Kumar Shukla both demanded bribe from him for allowing him to
work as "Fadh Munshi"; he gave a written complaint to Lokayukt Office,
Sagar, wherefrom he was given a voice recorder; a conversation was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13177
2 CRR-2438-2024
recorded on 30.6.2021 regarding this demand of bribe and it is claimed that
voice of petitioner was also recorded showing his involvement in this
demand; later, a trap was arranged on 2.7.2021 but it could not materialize;
on 3.7.2021 again a trap was laid down and co-accused Shravan Kumar
Shukla was caught red-handed with bribe money; voice samples of petitioner
and co-accused Shravan Kumar were taken and sent to FSL, Sagar, from
where a positive report was received; hence, petitioner was charge-sheeted
along with co-accused Shravan Kumar Shukla under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(b)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. the trial court
took cognizance of the offence and framed charges of Sections 7 and 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner. Hence, this revision.
3. It is a settled law that in a criminal revision challenging the charge, the
meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving enquiry is not permissible.
The legal requirement has been aptly laid down by Apex Court in the case of
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, 1979 SCC (Cri.) 609
which reads as under:-
"Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take place of proof of his guilt at the
conclusion of trial, but at the initial stage if there is a strong
suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not
open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused."
4. In the light of this settled law, the jurisdiction of this revisional court is
limited and unless it is shown that there was a lack of strong suspicion about
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13177
3 CRR-2438-2024
the commission of offence, the order framing the charge and the charges
framed thereunder cannot be interfered with.
5. The grounds raised in this criminal revision are that evidence on
demanding illegal gratification was missing and applicant was not
empowered to execute any work in favour of complainant. It is also
submitted that the transcript prepared too does not disclose any demand for
illegal gratification. On these submissions, a request has been made to
discharge the applicant in the light of decision of Apex Court in Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.
6. State has opposed the revision claiming that no interference is required
in the impugned order and the charges framed.
7. Both the counsel have been heard and the record produced by applicant
has been gone through.
8. It has been claimed in this criminal revision that the transcript of
conversation, allegedly recorded by complainant, does not reveal any
demand of bribe to have been made by the applicant but it cannot be ignored
here that prior to this conversation, complainant was asked to pay a bribe of
Rs.4,000/- and, having been aggrieved by this demand, the complainant
approached the Lokayukt establishment. Therefore, whatever is written in
the transcript memo has to be considered in the light of earlier conversation
held between the complainant and the applicant. The demand of Rs.4,000/- is
very much made in this conversation, though by Speaker No.2, but applicant,
Speaker No.3, has also referred to some Kharcha Patta. Regarding this
conversation, the complainant may give further details during his statement
and applicant will definitely have opportunity to assail this accusation.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13177
4 CRR-2438-2024
9. We have considered the case of Neeraj Datta (supra) cited in revision
petition. There, the Apex Court was considering whether in the light of
hostile testimony or death or unavailability of complainant can the
prosecution case still be proved for the offence of Section 7 and 13 (1)(b)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other related
issues. The entire judgment has been gone through meticulously but no
finding was given therein that even if prima facie facts about demand of
dowry are made out, the revisional Court should interfere in the charges
framed by the trial Court.
10. From the foregoing discussion, it can be safely observed that present
case definitely does not fall in the category of cases where there is total lack
of evidence and charges are framed on groundless facts. The learned trial
court has passed the impugned order and framed the charges on the basis of
facts, prima facie indicating the guilt of applicant. Therefore, in the light of
legal proposition held in case of Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), no
interference is warranted in this criminal revision.
11. Thus, the criminal revision fails and is accordingly dismissed .
12. Let a copy of this order be send to the trial court for information and
necessary compliance.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
ps
