Bhim Singh Khathait v. State of Uttaranchal

Smt. Farida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 6.7.2006 passed Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Dehradun in S.S.T. No.28 of 2005, State Vs. Bhim Singh Kathait.

I have heard Smt. Farida Siddiqui, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri M.A. Khan, learned brief holder for the State and perused the entire material available on file.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the charge was framed against the revisionist vide order dated 6.7.2006 of the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Dehradun with the averment that the revisionist being a public servant, employed Lakhpal directly accepted/obtained from Chandna Barswal Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty Thousand) on 30.4.2005 at 11:40 A:M at 2 Lekhpal Officer Jhazra, P.S. Sahaspur, Dehradun, a gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive for doing/forbearing to do an official act, and thereby arrested by Vigilance Unit, Dehradun on spot and thereby committed an offence under 13(1)(d) which is punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Another charge was also framed against the revisionist with the averment that the revisionist being a public servant employed as Lekhpal Jhazra, P.S. Sahaspur, Dehradun committed criminal misconduct by abusing official post during the period between March & April 2005, demanded Rs.30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand) Chandna Barswal for measurement of his land bearing Khasra No.810 situated at Jhazra Village and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The revisionist was arrested by the police on 30.4.2005 at 11:40 A:M while accepting bribe and the F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station Sahaspur on 30.4.2005 at 2:50 P:M by Sri R. L. Arya, Inspector, Vigilance Unit, Dehradun. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 6.7.2006, the revisionist has come up in revision before this Court.

I have perused the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Dehradun and the entire material available on file. It is a settled legal position that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that 3 stage. Before framing a charge the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. From the above said discussion and from the evidence available on record, at this stage there is ample evidence to frame the charge against the accused/revisionist u/Ss 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the order dated 6.7.2006 passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, is correct & justified and I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the said order.

For the reasons recorded above, the revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 29.12.2008 RG