Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 320 of 2004 Revisionist :- Bharat Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kr. R.C. Singh,Krishan Pahal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri N.D. Rai and Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh on behalf of revisionist is taken on record.
Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist Bharat Singh and learned AGA. Perused the record.
This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated 12.1.2004 passed by Special Judge(Anti Corruption), Meerut in Criminal Case No. 20 of 2003(State vs. Bharat Singh) under Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut thereby prayer for discharge of revisionist was rejected and charges have been framed against revisionist.
In the nutshell, facts of the case are that on the complaint alleging that accused Bharat Singh, public servant was demanding bribe, City Magistrate raided on 1.11.2000 about 6 P.M. at R.T.O., Hapur Raod, Meerut and found that bribe money of Rs.3080/- was in the pocket of Bharat Singh and in enquiry, property in possession of accused Bharat Singh was found disproportionate to his known source of income. After investigation charge sheet was submitted.Prayer for discharge was refused.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that impugned order is illegal, against facts and law. He further submitted that recovered money of Rs.3080/- belonged to the revisionist and he explained the source of that money, and revisionist has been falsely implicated.
Learned AGA opposed the contention of learned counsel for revisionist and submitted that order passed by the Court concerned is legal and revision has no force.
From perusal of record, it transpires that all above arguments were also raised before the trial Court and all such pleas of the revisionist have been discussed in detail in the impugned order; thereafter plea for discharge was rejected and charges were framed by the Court concerned on 12.1.2004. Charges were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi. He claimed not guilty and claimed for trial.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Salman Salim Khan, 2004(48) ACC 606(SC) has held that revisional power cannot be exercised to quash charge framed by lower Court.
In the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another in Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.
In the case of Nemichand Jain vs. Roshanlal and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 461 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that at the Stage of framing charges, the High Court should not have considered the whole evidence and then concluded that there were no materials to frame charges under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the case on the basis of the charges framed by Sessions Court under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC.
It is also pertinent to mention here that revisionist will have opportunity to produce his evidence before the Court below at the defence stage.
This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 12.1.2004. The present revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed.
Copy of this order be transmitted to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 P.P.