State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p vs Connected With

Mr. Aditya Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 19/05/2025 Order

1. These two revision petitions were preferred by petitioners accused- Ramesh Tomar and Padam Data aggrieved from order to frame charge dated 03.08.2024 in sessions case no. 12/2017 arising out of FIR no. 501/2013 by learned Special Sessions Judge, PC Act cases, Alwar.

2. On earlier occasion, these two petitioner(s) had filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition nos. 2263/2018 and 147/2019 against order to frame charge dated 11.10.2018 in same sessions case by [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (2 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] same Court. Both the revision petitions were partially allowed by this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.05.2024 and after setting aside order dated 11.10.2018 and matter was remitted back to the trial court with direction to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Ramesh Tomar was not holding the post of Environment Engineer at the time of alleged incident, holding the post of Regional Officer in the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and he just acted as per report received by him. Even otherwise also, the ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out looking to the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge under Section 120-B of IPC was framed against the petitioners but there is no evidence to show involvement and element of conspiracy against petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioners were not involved in preparing any document and they were bound by the report of the revenue authority submitted in due course. He further submitted that the petitioner has acted on the basis of the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by Nagar Palika, Tijara under Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the petitioner was under an obligation to exercise authority in accordance with rules. He also submitted that the ACB has not only tried for procuring prosecution sanction but after failing in obtaining prosecution sanction a charge-sheet was filed after [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (3 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] superannuation of petitioner accused Ramesh Tomar. He also submitted that the charges were framed without any ground and when a specific role and involvement is not proved from the material available on record, a charge cannot be framed to face trial.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners accused Padam Data while relying upon judgment in case of Union of India Vs. Praful Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Praveen @ Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC Online SC 1184, Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijay 2008 14 SCC 1, Pavana Dibbur Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1586 has submitted that this petitioner was charged for alleged conspiracy in committing the crime with other persons. He further submitted that the petitioner is a minority shareholder in joint venture for establishment of a stone crusher, so he is not responsible for day to day operation of crusher. He further submitted that as per facts of the case a joint venture was formed for setting up of a stone crusher in the area where two stone crushers were already existing and the relevant permissions were procured in accordance with rule and procedure. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record to show any overt act or involvement of present petitioner. He also referred the role of petitioner and submitted that he is a private person and all other persons including other partners of joint venture and the department including environment engineer Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thakuriya. He also submitted that in order to frame a charge, it is necessary that their exists basic element of criminal conspiracy [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (4 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] with evidence of active involvement of present petitioner. He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Lalu Nahar Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2006 SCC Online All 245.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned public Prosecutor and submitted that a detailed and reasoned order was passed by the trial court after considering the grounds and material.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record and also considered written submission of petitioner accused Padam Data and the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner Padam Data.

8. The brief facts of the case clearly indicate that on a complaint alleging that stone crusher of “Neeraj Shailja” joint venture was functioning within a radius of 600 meters from Abadi area of village Hasanpur_ Mafi, Tijara (Alwar) whereas guidelines and norms of Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) provides that the distance between stone crusher and Abadi area of village must be minimum 1.5 kms. On procuring a status report from Tehsildar, it has come to notice that Patwari Kailash Choudhary has certified that the distance between stone crusher and village abadi is 1600 meter and on the basis of this report, application of stone crusher was forwarded to RSPCB. Thereafter, consent to establish and operate dated 03.08.2009 and

28.01.2010 were granted to joint venture. An explanation was sought by ACB from Regional Officer of RSPCB on various points. After an enquiry, the ACB has found misuse of official position to help private individuals to establish and operate stone crusher, so [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (5 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] filed a charge-sheet. Initially, charges were framed on 11.10.2018 but same were set aside on 23.05.2024 and matter was remitted back to the trial court.

9. On dated 03.08.2024 the trial court has not only discussed the role and involvement of each of the petitioner Ramesh and Padam but also considered various grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners and thereafter directed to frame a charge against the both the petitioners.

10. To our surprise, learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 2 SCC 135 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, 2010 9 SCC 368 whereas it is a settled position under the law that at the stage of framing the charge neither defence can be looked nor documents relating to defence can be considered by the trial court to discharge of any accused. The trial court has referred judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 1 SCC 568, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down broad contours on point to consider the documents at the stage of framing the charge.

11. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (6 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application.

12. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction.

13. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (7 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024] vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge application.”

14. Having considered the material on record it is apparent that initially charge was framed on 11.10.2018 but after filing revision petitions, both these petitioners had dragged the trial and ultimately, this court has to withdraw the interim order on

17.10.2023 in said revision petitions and the revision petitions were decided on 23.05.2024. Again, when a reasoned order was passed by the trial court on 03.08.2024 and two revision petitions were filed by same petitioners.

15. A perusal of material available on record clearly indicate that the petitioner Ramesh Tomar has already superannuated and as per legal position the provision of prosecution sanction is not applicable to prosecute him in the instant case. Even if there is a ground then same can be raised at the stage of trial before the trial court.

16. Another petitioner Padam Data has submitted that he is having only 10% stake in the stone crusher firm but again same is a defence and it can be considered during trial and not at the stage of charge. The ACB has mentioned that Padam Data is having 20% partnership in stone crusher firm and he was authorized to perform all acts from establishment till operation. The ACB after considering the role and involvement of both petitioners has filed a charge-sheet. [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (8 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

17. The legal position as referred hereinabove clearly indicate that at the stage of charge a roving enquiry is not permissible, therefore, the judgments as referred by learned counsel are not helpful to support the arguments of petitioner accused.

18. The trial court has not committed any error while framing charge on the basis of material forwarded to it by the ACB, therefore, both the revision petitions sans merit and are liable to be dismissed.

19. Hence, the revision petitions nos. 1645/2024 and 1397/2024 are hereby dismissed.

20. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. CHETNA BEHRANI /131-132 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J