Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 Date of decision:- 4.12.2008 Manohar Singh ...petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehar Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab, for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The present revision petition is directed against the order framing of charge under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act for short) and Section 342 IPC against the petitioner. This is a second round for the petitioner to be before this Court. Earlier also identical charge was framed against the petitioner which he impugned by filing a revision No. 2215 of 2005. The said revision petition was allowed and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for passing fresh order after hearing the petitioner. This was so ordered on 20.4.2006. The Court thereafter afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has again framed charge against him, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-1. The grievance of the petitioner is that there has been non application of mind while framing the charge. The same charge, which was Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 2 earlier set aside by the Court, is repeated. The charge as framed now and which was earlier set aside reads as under:- “ That you Manohar Singh on 18.4.2005 while working as ASI in the department of Police, a public servant in the said office by abusing the position as public servant accepted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Harbans Kaur as illegal gratification for not registering the case under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C against Balbir Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and within cognizance of this Court.” Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, Advocate submits that the charge as framed would reflect non-application of mind inasmuch as the facts which are available on record are not taken note of while framing the above referred charge. The counsel contends that the FIR had already been registered at 7.30 a.m. on 18.4.2005 but in the charge it is mentioned that the petitioner accepted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from complainant-Harbans Kaur, as illegal gratification for not registering a case against Balbir Singh and others. Submission is that once FIR was already registered then the question of accepting money for not registering a case would not arise. Initially, the reasons given in support of order framing charge were not placed on record. Criminal Misc. No. 53754 of 2006 was subsequently filed with the prayer to place the said order on record as Annexure P-10. It appears that the said Annexure has not been ordered to be placed on record. Application, however, is available on record. Order, Annexure P-10, is permitted to be placed on record. Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 3 The Court has noticed in detail the background of the case under which the complainant-Harbans Kaur received a telephone call at a number which belongs to her neigbour. Accordingly, she had proceeded to the place where it was stated that her husband met with an accident. She allegedly met petitioner Manmohan Singh of CIA Staff, Jalandhar. She was apprised that fake currency has been recovered from her husband and son and if she wants their release, she has to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant expressed her inability to pay this amount as she was only having 5-7 thousands of rupees. The petitioner allegedly gave her a time till 9.00 a.m. next day to make arrangement for the money. The mobile phone belonging to the husband of the complainant was given to her and so also the mobile phone of her son. On the next day, complainant again received a call to come with money failing which her husband and son would be put to loss. The complainant statedly took a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from a Broker and Rs. 50,000/- from another Broker of village Khanna. On receipt of call she went to Lucky Dhaba, G.T. Road, Jalandhar. She was accompanied by her relatives. On reaching the bus stand, they were directed to reach at Nakodadr Chowk, Jalandhar. One of her relative Jagtar Singh was sent with the money contained in packets. The number of currency notes were noted. She had filed complaint on these lines after having handed over this money which led to registration of the FIR. The submissions as now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were made before the trial Court while it was in the process of framing the charges. Counsel submits that question of raising a demand for bribe would not arise once the case had already been registered at 7.30 a.m. in the morning. It is observed by the Court that while framing the charge Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 4 the material and the evidence is not to be evaluated. Only prima facie evidence is to be seen by the Court to frame a charge. It is not clear from the record whether the complainant knew that the FIR against her husband and son had already been registered when she parted with this money. It may well be that she learnt about it subsequently and accordingly had gone to lodge the FIR. On the basis of material collected and specially the evidence given by the complainant, prima facie it can be said that this bribe indeed was apparently paid so that the case is not registered against the husband and son of the complainant. If still it was done it would not retrieve the petitioner from the consequences of accepting the bribe. It is not that the son and husband of the complainant were not in the custody of the police. Other reason given by the petitioner in support of this false implication would obviously be his defence which he is entitled to raise during trial. All these finer points are required to be appreciated and analysed by the Court once the parties are given opportunity to lead their respective evidences. For the purpose of framing charge prima facie material is available on record. The submission that the same charge has been repeated would again be of a not much avail to the petitioner. It from the facts as noticed, the same charge is revealed or made out then the Court has to frame charge accordingly. This in itself would not show that the Court has not applied its mind. The application of mind is reflected from order, Annexure P-10. The submissions that were made at the time of framing of charge were duly noticed by the Court as are reflected in the order, Annexure P-10. It cannot be said that the reasoning given in support of the order framing charge suffers from any non application of mind. I am thus not inclined to interfere Criminal Revision No. 1659 of 2006 5 in the order framing the charge. The parties would be at liberty to raise their respective pleas before the trial Court. It may need a notice that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court State of Madhya Pardesh Versus Awadh Kishore Gupta, 2004 (1) RCR (Crl) 233, any proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be stayed. This revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the parties appear before the trial Court. Whatever is observed hereinbefore would not prejudice the trial of the petitioner in any manner and observations made herein are only for the purpose of the disposing of the prayer made in the revision petition. December 04, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE