RAJESH KUMAR MEEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 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 Sec. 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with Sec. 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 Sec. 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC is completely missing in the matter. Thus, in view of above, the impugned order dtd. 18/1/2018 passed by the learned trial Court framing the charges for the offence under Sec. 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC against the petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be discharged.