Power Of Revision At The State Of Framing Of Charges Is Very Limited: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).The court opined that if a strong suspicion exists in the mind of...
The Rajasthan High Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s).
The court opined that if a strong suspicion exists in the mind of the court at the stage concerned, then the same is sufficient for the court to proceed with the framing of the charge against the accused person(s). And if a prayer for discharge has been made before a revisional court, then the same may only be allowed if the court finds that the materials on record are wholly insufficient for the purpose of trial, added the court.
Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the decision of trial court, ruled,
"This Court, therefore, finds that the judicial precedents laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear, and that at the stage of framing of charge, the scope of interference of the Hon'ble High Court, as a revisional Court is very limited, so much so that the Court must be concerned only with the question whether there is any suspicion against the accused, and not with the proof of the allegation(s). And, as an exception to this, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335"
Relying on Ashish Chadha v. Asha Kumari & Ors (2012) and State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors. (2020), the court observed that it is conscious that at the stage of framing of charge, the learned trial court is not required to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or a roving inquiry into the same.
The petitioner's case is that an F.I.R was lodged on 27.12.2016, against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 13 (1) (e) / 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after two months of the recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was alleged to be a bribe money. The said F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of about 2 months from the date of recovery of the said amount from the revisionist petitioner. Moreover, he was in fact, traveling from Bikaner to Udaipur at the relevant time, to visit his family for the festival of Diwali, when the ACB team apprehended him, and took him into custody. On 19.02.2019, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under the aforementioned provisions of the Act of 1988.
The petitioner prays that his revision petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by trial court be quashed and set aside. He also sought that he be discharged of the charges levelled against him.
The counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submitted that the learned Court below, without looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, passed the impugned order, whereby it proceeded with framing of charges against the revisionist-petitioner, despite the factum of delay of two months in registration of the FIR.
The Public Prosecutor harped upon the word "presumption" occurring in Section 228 Cr.P.C. stating that if the concerned Judge is of the opinion that a ground for presumption of the alleged offences against the accused person(s) lies after consideration and hearing of the case, then charges can be framed against such accused person(s).
Case Title: Sudhir Bordiya v. State, Through Pp
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 140