IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R (1)S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.871/2011 Ashok Kumar Verma vs. State of Rajasthan WITH (2) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.872/2011 Jai Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan DATE: 25.07.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr.R.K. Jain, for petitioners. Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP for CBI ****
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. Both the revision petitions are directed against common order dated 21st May, 2010 passed by trial court, therefore, the both were heard together and are being disposed off finally by this common order.
3. Petitioners have preferred this revision petitions against impugned order dated 21st May, 2010 passed by the trial court, whereby charges under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC have been ordered to be framed against them.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that there is no evidence against petitioners and trial court committed an illegality in framing charges against petitioners for the above offences, therefore, impugned order is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required to see whether there is any prima facie material to proceed against petitioners in the case or not. He is submitted that there is prima facie evidence against petitioners to frame charge, therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties in the light of reasons assigned by trial court in the impugned order for framing charges against petitioners. Learned trial court has considered the facts and evidence of the case in detail and while referring the same has passed an order to frame the charges against petitioners.
7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.B. Johari & Ors (2000) 2 SCC 57 has held that at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court is required to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. The Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter at this stage.
8. The impugned order will show that evidence available against the petitioners in the case has been referred. The case of petitioners has been dealt with in para 20 of the impugned order. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.
9. Consequently, I do not find any merit in these revision petitions and the same are, accordingly dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
Sanjay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION No.1859/2011
IN
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.871/2011
Ashok Kumar Verma vs. State of Rajasthan
DATE: 25.07.2011
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Mr.R.K. Jain, for petitioners.
Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP for CBI
****
Since the main petition itself has been dismissed today, therefore, stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
Sanjay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. STAY APPLICATION No.1860/2011
IN
S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.872/2011
Jai Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan
DATE: 25.07.2011
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Mr.R.K. Jain, for petitioner.
Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, SPP for CBI
****
Since the main petition itself has been dismissed today, therefore, stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.
Sanjay