JUDGMENT
B.R. Arora, J.
1. This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated August 8, 1984, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by which the learned Special Judge framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. A First Information Report was registered with the Anti Corruption Department against Gopi Ram Mangal, who was posted as Cotton Purchase Officer at Rawatsar, on the allegation that he accepted the bribe of Rs. 1000/- from Hanuman Prasad. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded in the First Information Report, was that on January 20, 1983, three heaps of cotton were brought by Hanuman Prasad for self and out of the three, Gopi Ram, who was working as Cotton Purchase Officer at Rawatsar, purchased two heaps of cotton, whereas the third heap, weighing about 400 Quintals of cotton, was not purchased by the Cotton Corporation of India as it is alleged that the accused-petitioner demanded Rs. 10/- per quintal for the purchase of the same, which Hanuman Prasad did not want to pay and he, therefore, contacted the Anticorruption Department and a trap was arranged and in pursuance of that trap, the petitioner was caught red-handed on January 25, 1983 for accepting the bribe of Rs. 1000/-. After registration of the First Information Report, the case was investigated by the C.B.I. and the C.B.I., after completing the investigation, submitted the Final Report. That Final Report was not accepted by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. cases, Jodhpur, by his order dated December 7, 1983, and the learned Special Judge sent the papers for further investigation to the C.B.I. and after receipt of the papers, the C.B.I. further investigated the matter, took the sanction against the accused prosecute him and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. The learned Special Judge, thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused, as well as to the learned Public Prosecutor, by his order dated August 8, 1984, framed the charges against the accused under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is against this order of framing the charge that the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the, charges as well as for quashing the proceedings on the ground of delay.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the C.B.I.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that there is no evidence on record, on the basis of which the charges could be framed against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the ingredients of the offence, for which the petitioner has been charged, are not made-out in the present case and, therefore, the learned Special Judge committed an error in framing the charges against the petitioner. It was further submitted that the proceedings pending before the Court below deserves to be quashed on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the incident took-place on January 25, 1983, and the challan was filed by the investigating agency in the Court on April 27, 1984 and the charges were framed on August 8, 1984 and uptill the date, only one witness has been examined and initially the case was tried by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Jaipur and now it has been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. cases, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. It was further submitted that the main witness Hanuman Prasad, who was the only eye witness in the case, has breathed his last and the other two trap witnesses Chet Ram and Sukhdeo Singh, as per their statements, did not support the prosecution case and, therefore, the trial of the petitioner will be a futile exercise and, therefore, the trial, pending in the Court below, may be quashed. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over; Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan , Suraj Mal v. The State of Delhi Administration , K.K. Tewari v. The State through C.B.I. 1989 R.C.C. 117 and Badan Singh v. The State of Rajasthan 1989 Cr.P.C. (Raj.) 750. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order framing the charges against the petitioner and has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record on the basis of which a prima facie case to frame charges against the petitioner has been made-out and at this stage the meticulous examination of the evidence is not necessary. It has further been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that how much weightage is to be given to the statements of the witnesses and the fact of the death of the ocular witness Hanuman Prasad can be looked-into by the trial Court after conclusion of the trial and this is not the stage, at which the charges or the proceed should be quashed.
5. At the time of framing the charges, one has to simply see the broad aspect of the case and the close and critical scrutiny of the evidence is not required to be made at this stage. At the time of framing the charges, the Court is only required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constitution the offence. Even strong suspicion at this stage is sufficient to frame the charges against the accused. From the materials available on record. I am of the opinion that prima facie the materials for framing the charges exist in the present case and the rest is the matter of trial. It is not expected that this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should proceed to discuss all such evidence available on record to see whether the evidence constitutes the offence, because if that will be done then it may prejudice the case of the petitioner himself and that will amount to discharging the functions of the trial Court itself. By evaluating the evidence on record, I am simply to satisfy myself whether prima facie there is some material existing on record which justify the framing of the charges against the petitioner. I am of the view that there are sufficient materials on record, on the basis of which the charges under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be framed against the accused-petitioner. In this view of the matter, the learned Special Judge has not committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections.
6. I have, also, taken into consideration the other aspects of the case, i.e., the delay in the conclusion of the trial. It is, no doubt, true that the challan in the present case was filed on April 27, 1984 and the charges were framed on August 8, 1984 and PW 1 Section Subramanium was examined on April 12, 1985. After recording the statement of PW 1 Section Subramainum, the next date in the case was fixed on June 14, 1983 but on that day, the Presiding Officer was not present and the case was adjourned to August 16, 1983 and on August 16, 1983, the witnesses Hanuman Prasad and Om Prakash were present, but their statements could not be recorded as the accused himself was not present and an application was moved on his behalf by his counsel for granting exemption for his non-appearance on that day and the case was thereafter adjourned to October 15, 1985. On October 15, 1985, the witnesses were present, but the case could not be taken-up on account of death of Shri Damodar Lal Bhargava, Advocate, as the Advocates were not working on that day. The case was, therefore, adjourned to January 8, 1986. On that day, the witnesses were not present and as the witness Hanuman Prasad was ill and a telegram was received hence the case was adjourned to March 24, 1986. On March 24, 1986, both the witnesses were present, but the Presiding Officer was on leave on that day and, therefore, the witnesses could not be examined and the case was adjourned to April 23, 1986. On April 23, 1986, the witness Om Prakash was present and an application was moved on behalf of the accused that he should be examined after the statement of Hanuman Prasad is recorded and as Hanuman Prasad was not present on that day, therefore, the case was adjourned to July 23, 1986. On that day the witnesses were present, but they could not be examined as the case was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jodhpur. After the receipt of the file to the Court of the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Rajasthan, Jodhpur, the notices for the witnesses were sent, but the witnesses could not be examined as the petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court and the record was received by this Court. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the delay in the present case occurred solely due to the salckness on the part of the prosecution.
7. In view of the nature of the allegations and the availability of the evidence, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to terminate the proceedings against the accused in such a manner when the delay or slackness cannot be assigned to the prosecution.
8. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.