9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused. 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bharatpur stating that for the purpose of issuing Domicile Certificate and OBC Certificate of his son, he has submitted an application enclosed with complete certificates before the accused Patwari Ashok Kumar Kashyap for endorsing his report. However, the Patwari in lieu of endorsing his report over the said application demanded a bribe of ₹ 2,800/-. Thereafter after conducting the investigation a chargesheet came to be filed by the investigating agency against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. That the learned Special Judge heard the prosecution as well as the defence at the time of framing of the charge. After hearing the prosecution as well as the counsel for the defence and considering the material on record which included the transcript of conversation recorded between the complainant and the accused and considering the other material on record and having found that there is a prima facie case made out and the defence of the accused is not to be considered at this stage, by order dated 22.06.2018 framed the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 4. Feeling aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for making a bonafide residence certificate, rather, petitioner had mentioned in the transcript that as the complainant and his son are residing in Agra (U.P.), a bonafide residence certificate cannot be issued. No trap proceedings were conducted in the case and the matter has remained pending with the Anti Corruption for a period of more than five years. There is no specific demand of money by petitioner and on the date of transcript no matter was pending before him. 11. In view of the same, it is evident from bare reading of the transcript that offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be made out against the petitioner. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, discharging the accused and quashing and setting aside the order of framing charge by the learned Special Judge, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the State has preferred the present appeal. 6. Mr. Vishal Meghwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in discharging the accused of the charged offence when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 7 of the PC Act, the High Court has rightly discharged the accused by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge framing charge against the accused. It is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent-accused that, as such, the accused refused to issue residence certificate and caste certificate having come to know about the complaint being the permanent resident of Agra. It is submitted that in fact the complainant wanted a false residence certificate and caste certificate illegally to be made in the State of Rajasthan, though he was the permanent resident of Agra. It is submitted that in fact the respondent-accused gave a report rejecting the request of the complainant on 29.08.2010 and therefore, as such, there was nothing pending before the accused and the decision regarding his application was already taken. 7.1 It is submitted that in fact even as per the case of the prosecution and even the complainant the trap failed and the accused refused to accept the bribe in the trap proceedings. 7.2 It is submitted that at the time of conversation two persons were present, (1) the complainant Jai Kishore; and (2) Devi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dering the discharge application, we do not propose to go into in detail on merits of the allegations and the evidence on record as for the reasons stated hereinbelow the same is not permissible at this stage. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge framing the charge against the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act and consequently has discharged the accused for the said offence. What has been weighed with the High Court while discharging the accused is stated in paragraphs 10 11 of the impugned judgment and order, which are reproduced hereinabove. 9. While considering the legality of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the law on the subject and few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to. 9.1 In the case of P.Vijayan (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage. 10. We shall now apply the principles enunciated above to the present case in order to find out whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in discharging the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
