KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.7.2015 passed by the Special Judge, ACD Court No.1, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.79/2008 whereby the learned trial Court has ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") read with Section 120-B IPC.

(2.) Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and co-accused for the aforesaid offences on the premise that the petitioner demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as gratification through co-accused from the complainant. As per prosecution case, a criminal case under the provisions of the Indian Railways Act involving the complainant and his brother as accused was pending with the petitioner, a Police Officer, and he in lieu of to provide help to the complainant and his brother in the aforesaid case demanded and accepted Rs.5,000/- as gratification. According to the prosecution, co-accused-Shri Jagveer Singh accepted Rs.3,000/- on 13.7.2012 on behalf of the petitioner whereas Rs.2,000/- were accepted on 26.7.2012 by co-accused-Shri Sanwar Mal at the instance of the petitioner. It is to be noted that Shri Sanwar Mal was caught red handed while accepting the aforesaid amount. It is further to be noted that at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as SHO, Police Station Reengus (District Sikar) whereas co-accused-Shri Jagveer Singh was Munshi and Shri Sanwar Mal was posted as Constable in the same Police Station under petitioner.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the allegations made in the FIR as well as evidence collected during investigation which has been placed on record by way of copy of the charge-sheet it is clear that at the relevant time no work of any kind of the complainant and his brother was pending before the petitioner as the permission to file charge-sheet against them was granted by the concerned department and the petitioner was having role of a police officer through whom merely charge-sheet was to be filed in the Court concerned and, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to demand gratification from the complainant on the pretext that he would provide help him and his brother for early disposal of the case. It was further submitted that even according to prosecution case no demand of any amount of gratification was made diretly by the petitioner and neither any amount was accepted nor any recovery was made from the petitioner. It was also submitted that as per alleged conversation between petitioner, co-accused and complainant, it cannot be inferred that petitioner directly or indirectly demanded any amount as gratification. It was submitted that although at the stage of framing of charge for an offence only prima facie has to be seen whether sufficient material is available on record to frame charge, but in the present case even prima facie no case is made out from the evidence to frame charge against the petitioner, but the learned Court below without considering the matter in a right perspective has mechanically ordered to frame charge against the petitioner.