Forcing A Person To Go Through Rigor Of Trial Without 'Apt Prima Facie Evidence' Is Direct Infringement Of Fundamental Rights: Rajasthan High Court

Observing that the framing of charge by the trial court is a determinative action and an important exercise of power, the Rajasthan High Court said that forcing a person to go through the rigors of trial without there being any prima facie evidence would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.

“Forcing a person to go through the rigor of trial without there being apt prima facie material or evidence would surely be direct infringement of his fundamental rights. Of course, if a person has to do nothing in connection with the alleged offence but is still forced to remain on bail and to attend the court proceedings, then restraining his liberties would tantamount to breach of his fundamental rights…Framing of charge is a determinative action,” the bench observed.

The court said if the charges are framed without there being even a scruple of the ingredients or circumstances required to constitute an offence under the Sections alleged against the accused, then the accused is made to face the rigour of the trial which may prove to be deleterious to him as he may finally be acquitted of the charges so framed against him.

Justice Farjand Ali made the observations in a judgment on a petition challenging the framing of charges against an accused in a case under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

According to the prosecution case, when the complainant went to the house of one Rakesh Sharma to deliver the illegal gratification as demanded, Sharma specifically asked his servant to accompany the complainant to a grocery shop and deliver the amount to one Mahendra Singh.

Advocate Priyanka Borana, representing the petitioner, argued that the lower court had failed to note that the essential elements required to establish the alleged offences were not made out in the chargesheet. She further submitted that the petitioner’s name was neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the conversation demanding illegal gratification. She submitted that evidence was insufficient to support charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.

On the issue of framing charges against the petitioner under Section 120B of IPC, Borana argued that mere acceptance of an amount at the instructions of another individual and recovery of the same, does not prove conspiracy. She submitted that merely alleging conspiracy without any evidence would not relieve the prosecution from its liability to produce sufficient material to justify a trial under Section 120B of IPC.

While referring to the facts of the case she submitted that the prosecution's case relied solely on the fact that the petitioner owns a grocery shop where the complainant used to purchase items on credit. Borana argued that this fact alone was not enough to frame charges against the petitioner under the relevant sections of the law.

Public Prosecutor Advocate Mohd. Javed Gauri contended that the prosecution had presented cogent oral and documentary evidence, establishing a prima facie case against the petitioner. Gauri maintained that the lower court had not erred in assessing the facts and applicable law.

Verdict

Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is not a public servant, the bench observed that there was no evidence to suggest that he could be accused of committing offence under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.

The bench also said there was nothing on record to reveal any transaction between Rakesh Sharma and the petitioner.

“Mere recovery of tainted currency is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable,” the bench said.

While referring to Section 120B IPC, the bench further observed, “It is emanating from the definition that there should be agreement between two or more persons to do or not to do an illegal act or an act per se not illegal but done by using illegal means, thus, there should be mutual consent for evil design between two or more persons.”

The bench, referring to the impugned order, said it does not reflect as to how offences under Section 120B of the IPC were made out when no evidence was available on record.

“It is expected from the trial Judge to form an opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to presume that the accused should be tried for the offences alleged. It is imperative upon the trial Court to see as to whether the ingredients essential to constitute alleged offences are present or not in the fact situation of the case,” Justice Ali observed.

Observing that no evidence justifying the commencement of trial was available on record, the bench said that the ingredients of all the three alleged offences were not proved and a prima facie case was not made out so as to form basis for framing of charge under the three provisions.

The bench further said that the stage of framing of charge is a very significant step in a criminal case and it is the duty of the court to frame charges against the accused in accordance with the statutory terms stipulated in Section 228 of CrPC.

It observed said that Section 227 of the CrPC provides that “it is the consideration of the judge, post careful weighing of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the prosecution as well as the accused on this count, that there is lack of adequacy in the grounds on the basis of which the proceedings can move forward against the accused, then the judge shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for said discharge.”

The bench also noted that a detailed discussion of the evidence is not required during the stage of framing of charge but an application of mind by the trial court to see the sufficiency of material on record is required so as to put the accused to face the rigour of trial.

While allowing the revision petition, the bench observed that sufficient material was not there on record on the basis of which the accused can be put to trial. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ajmer was quashed and set aside.

Case Title: Jitendra Singh vs. State Of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 265/2023

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Priyanka Borana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.

Click Here To Read/Download Order