Vastupal Jain vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4673 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015591]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 6/2023

1. Vastupal Jain S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal Jain, Aged About 64 Years, 297, Chanakya Puri, Section 4, Hiran Magri, Dist. Udaipur.

2. Dinesh Kumar Daad S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Daad, Aged About 58 Years, 48, Kashi Puri, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/05/2023

1. The legality, correctness and propriety of the order dated

08.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of

Corruption Act Cases) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.08/2022

whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the

petitioners under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

read with Section 120-B of the IPC has been assailed by the

petitioners by way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition.

2. Bereft of elaborated details, the facts necessary for the

disposal of the instant criminal revision petition are that the

complainant is a registered contractor in the PWD, who undertakes

various works relating to construction of buildings roads and their

maintenance etc. The petitioner No.1 was the Executive Engineer

in PWD, District Chittorgarh and Petitioner No.2 was an Assistant

Engineer in the same department at the relevant point of time.

[2023/RJJD/015591] (2 of 6) [CRLR-6/2023]

The complainant had obtained two work orders amounting to

Rs.90 Lakhs and Rs.83 Lakhs. It is alleged that the complainant

approached the petitioner No.1 in connection with clearance of his

dues with the Department where he was relegated to petitioner

No.2 for the purpose of settling the dues. It is further alleged that

when the complainant met petitioner No.2, he was asked to pay

commission of 2-3% on the total amount of work orders for which

the complainant was not willing thus, he made a complaint to the

Department of Anti-corruption Bureau. As per the averments

made, the investigating agency set up a trap with the help of the

complainant but the complainant forgot to switch on the digital

voice recorder. There are allegations in report dated 28.4.2015

that the demand of Rs.2,60,000/- was raised by the petitioners

from the complainant for the clearance of his bills with the

Department. The conversation recorded in the digital tape

recorder makes it abundantly clear that demand of illegal

gratification in lieu of favours to be extended to the complainant

was made, which is very much evident from the transcription

dated 28.7.2015, available on the record. After filing the charge

sheet, parties were heard on the point of charges and whereafter,

the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases)

No.1, Udaipur after due appreciation of legal and factual aspects

of the matter passed the order dated 08.03.2022, which is under

assail before this Court.

3. Heard Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr.Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul

Rajpurohit and so also Shri Abhishek Purohit Additional

Government Advocate and perused the order impugned and gone

[2023/RJJD/015591] (3 of 6) [CRLR-6/2023]

through the material available on record as also copies of the

record made available with the petition.

4. There is no dispute with the fact that the transcript available

on record is manifestly indicating demand of bribe by the

petitioners. The allegations made by the complainant are

supported with the conversation made between the complainant

and the petitioners which are getting further corroboration from

the evidence collected by the team of the ACB. The agency has

collected requisite material during investigation by which a strong

prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. The learned

Judge has aptly considered the submissions made at the bar as

per the mandate provided under Sections 266-228 of the Cr.P.C.

and then passed a reasoned and speaking order regarding framing

of charges. Prima facie, an opinion can be formed that there are

reasonable grounds for presuming that the accused-petitioners

have committed the offences. Learned counsel for the petitioners

places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in the case of Satvir Singh Vs. State of Delhi (2014) 13

SCC 143 and contends that mere proof of demand by itself is not

sufficient to establish commission of an offence under the P.C. Act.

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable

in the facts and circumstances of the instant case in view of the

clear provision of the Act that the proof of demand itself is

amenable for a criminal prosecution. The standard of proof

required at the stage of culmination of trial is altogether different

than to the stage of framing charges. It is neigh well settled that

at the time of hearing on the point of charge, the Court is not

required to go deep into the merits of the case. Neither meticulous

[2023/RJJD/015591] (4 of 6) [CRLR-6/2023]

examination of the evidence is required to be discussed nor

threadbare discussion of the matter is warranted. At the stage of

framing of the charges only the fact has to be seen whether or not

a prima facie case is made out and at the same time the defence

of the accused is not required to be considered. In a recent

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (Criminal

Appeal No.407/2021 arising out of the SLP No.3194/2021

decided on 13.04.2021). The law relating to scope of

interference in order framing charge has aptly observed and this

Court is supposed to follow the enunciation made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. The relevant paragraphs No.11 & 13 of the afore-

mentioned judgment is reproduced as under:

"11. Having considered the reasoning given by the High Court and the grounds which are weighed with the High Court while discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 Cr.P.C.

While discharging the accused, the High Court has gone into the merits of the case and has considered whether on the basis of the material on record, the accused is likely to be convicted or not. For the aforesaid, the High Court has considered in detail the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused which exercise at this stage to consider the discharge application and/or framing of the charge is not permissible at all. As rightly observed and held by the learned Special Judge at the stage of framing of the charge, it has to be seen whether or not a prima facie case is made out and the defence of the accused is not

[2023/RJJD/015591] (5 of 6) [CRLR-6/2023]

to be considered. After considering the material on record including the transcript of the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the learned Special Judge having found that there is a prima facie case of the alleged offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, framed the charge against the accused for the said offence. The High Court materially erred in negating the exercise of considering the transcript in detail and in considering whether on the basis of the material on record the accused is likely to be convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act or not. As observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible. At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence. Therefore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application.

12. We are not further entering into the merits of the case and/or merits of the transcript as the same is required to be considered at the time of trial. Defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of the charge and/or at the stage of discharge application.

13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court discharging the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is unsustainable in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Special Judge framing charge against the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is hereby restored. Now the case is to be tried

[2023/RJJD/015591] (6 of 6) [CRLR-6/2023]

against the accused by the competent court for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, in accordance with law and its own merits."

5. Considering the material available on record and following the dicta in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (Supra), this court is of the firm opinion that there are reasonable grounds to presume that the petitioners have committed offences alleged and for that they deserve to be tried.

6. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant Criminal Revision

Petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. The stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stands

disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 9-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)