IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No.334/2006) S. B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 1-3- 2006 passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota in Sessions Case No.11/2006 whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against petitioner. Date of Judgment: November 27, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Rinesh Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Javed Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1-3-2006 passed by Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota whereby the learned Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and under Section 120B IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Shiv Raj Kodap submitted a written report at Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau Chowki, Kota, against five accused persons, including the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, a formal FIR, FIR No.183/2006 was registered. According to FIR, the complainant was having a shop at Vigyan Nagar, Kota in the name and style of Shiv Electronics. On receiving supply order, the complainant used to supply goods to Government departments. In 1999, tender was invited by Nagar Palika, Bundi for supply of electronic goods. The complainant submitted his tender. Being lowest in rates, his tender was accepted. He received the supply order. In pursuance of the supply order, he supplied goods of about Rs.1,50,000/- to Nagar Palika, Bundi. In order to clear his bills, the concerned clerk received Rs.18,000/- in advance as commission. However, despite receiving the commission, the concerned clerk did not get the bills cleared. It was further alleged that in order to clear the bills, Mr.Bohara was demanding a payment of 10% of the bill amount as commission for Executive Officer, Chairman, Accountant, Cashier, and Electrical Inspector. 3. It was further alleged that even in January, 2000, the complainant's tender was accepted. Consequently, in February, 2000, the complainant supplied electrical goods of about Rs.1,77,500/-. In order to get his bills cleared, the complainant contacted the present petitioner. The petitioner also told him that he has to make a payment of 10% of the amount of bills as commission, which would be distributed amongst the Executive Officer, Chairman, Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer, Accountant, Electrical Inspector, and Cashier etc. Since the petitioner was not willing to satisfy the illegal gratification, as demanded by the petitioner and others, he decided to contact the Anti-Corruption Bureau. According to the FIR, Rs.30,000/- were demanded by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the said amount was kept by the complainant in a file as directed by the petitioner, when the petitioner went for his lunch. On the basis of the FIR, the Investigating Agency carried out the investigation and filed the challan against the petitioner and others. Subsequently, vide order dated 1-3-2006, the learned trial court framed charges as mentioned above. Hence, this petition before this Court. 4. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that even if the FIR is take on its face value, no offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, or under IPC is made out. The petitioner was never caught red-handed, when the amount was allegedly paid as illegal gratification. As no offence is made out, the learned trial court was not justified in framing the charge. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Javed Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has supported the impugned order, and contended that there is sufficient evidence available on record to make out a strong prima facie case against the petitioner and others. Thus, the learned trial court was justified in framing the charges. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered the material available on record, and examined the impugned order. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge had examined the FIR, record of the trap proceedings, recovery memo of money, statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of documentary evidence, the learned Judge has concluded that strong prima facie case is made out against the petitioner and others. 8. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that at the time of framing of charge, the Court is concerned with the existence of strong prima facie case. Since, in the present case, strong prima facie case does exist, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing the charge. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. 9. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn/