Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 Date of Decision:15.11.2010 Dr.Samrat Harsh Sehgal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the present revision petition, is that petitioner-Dr.Samrat Harsh Sehgal was posted and was on duty in the General Hospital, Karnal. On 20.08.2008, a fight had taken place between the two groups of village Jalmana, in which both the parties sustained injuries. However, Gurnam Singh injured was admitted in the General Hospital, Karnal for his treatment. Complainant-Hoshiar Singh was willing that Gurnam Singh be discharged from the hospital and in that regard, he approached the petitioner. The petitioner agreed to discharge Gurnam Singh, but raised a demand of Rs.5,000/- as bribe. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe money and he reported the matter to the police. In the wake of written complaint of complainant-Hoshiar Singh, a raiding party was prepared to trap the petitioner. After assigning the respective duties to the PWs, the raiding party raided the office of the petitioner- accused in the General Hospital. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in all, according to the prosecution that as the bribe money was recovered Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 2 from the petitioner-accused, after following the due procedure, therefore, he committed the indicated crime. In the wake of complaint of complainant- Hoshiar Singh, the present case was registered against the petitioner- accused, vide FIR No.420 dated 01.09.2008, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. 3. Having completed the investigation, the final police report/challan was submitted against the accused and the case was slated for framing of the charge. 4. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner-accused argued before the trial Court that there was no prima facie evidence on record to put the petitioner-accused on trial, for the commission of the indicated offence. His plea did not find favour and the trial Court negatived the same and ordered the framing of charge, by virtue of detailed impugned order dated 14.10.2010. Consequently, the petitioner was charge-sheeted vide separate order of the even date, which is in the following manner:- “That you on 1.9.2008 while posted as District Immunization Officer, G.H.Karnal, a public servant demanded and accepted Rs.5000/- as illegal gratification from Shri Hoshiar Singh son of Kashmir Singh, Jatt Sikh, resident of Village Manchuri, other than legal remuneration as motive for discharging patient Gurnam Singh son of Mann Singh from the Civil Hospital and thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. That on the same date, time and place while posted as District Immunization Officer, G.H., Karnal, a public servant you obtained Rs.5000/- by abusing you position as a public servant from Shri Hoshiar Singh son of Kashmir Singh, Jatt Sikh, resident of Village Manchuri, for discharging patient Gurnam Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 3 Singh son of Mann Singh and committed criminal misconduct as defined in Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act thus you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. And I hereby direct that you be tried on the above said charge by this court.” 5. The petitioner-accused did not feel satisfied and filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order and charge-sheet. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the arguments of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, the sanction of the prosecution was granted without application of mind and since there is no material on record to frame the charge, therefore the trial Court erred in framing of charge against the petitioner, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 8. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, relied on behalf of the petitioner, in case State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sheetla Sahai and others, 2009(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 835, that if upon perusal of the entire material on record, the court arrives at an opinion that two views are possible, charges can be framed, but if only one view is possible to be taken, the court shall not put the accused to harassment by asking him to face a trial, but the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner, at this stage, in the present controversy. 9. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 4 against the petitioner-accused that he demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for discharging injured patient Gurnam Singh. In the wake of written complaint, a raiding-party was constituted to apprehend the accused, while taking bribe. Ramesh Singh, Tehsildar, Karnal, was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner to join the investigation at the time of police raid. 10. What is not disputed here is that ten currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each were initialed by the investigating officer and the Tehsildar, after applying phenolphthalein powder. The same were handed over to the complainant to be given to the accused as bribe money. As per planning/scheme, PW Tinkoo Tondon was appointed as a shadow witness in this respect. In the wake of signal, the police party raided the hospital and ultimately after completion of all the requisite formalities, the same currency notes were recovered from the plastic cover lying on the refrigerator in the room of the accused, on the basis of which, the petitioner- accused was charged accordingly. 11. In this manner, there is ample and sufficient evidence/material on record to charge-sheet the petitioner, for the commission of indicated offences. Hence, it cannot possibly be saith that there is no material on record to charge-sheet the petitioner, as urged on his behalf. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner 'stricto sensu' deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 12. All the remaining arguments, now sought to be urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are factual in nature and relatable to the appreciation of evidence, which can only be appreciated during the course of trial by the trial Court and not otherwise. Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 5 13. No only that, the trial Court charge-sheeted the petitioner vide impugned order. The operative part of which is, as under:- “Not even this, to consider the question of framing of charges in all trial wherever it may be, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanti Badra Shaw Versus State of West Bengal 2000(1), RCR (Crm.), 407, held that at the stage of framing of charges the court is not even required to give any reasons for the same on the contrary the reasons are required only if the accused is to be discharged. And where the court is of the opinion that there is ground to believe and presumed that the accused has committed the offence the charge should be framed without going into the merits of the case and its final outcome. Last but not the least as far as the plea of the counsel for the accused that the documents placed on record by the accused be taken on record to consider the question of charges without any formal proof of the same, is concerned, this question was specifically considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debonder Nath Padhi, 2005(1), RCR (Criminal), 297, and the Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the law laid down in Kanti Badra Shaw's case supra further held that at the stage of framing of charges no defence is to be considered and the accused cannot be allowed to produce any document or evidence to show his defence and charge is to be framed from the police report without going into the merits of the defence of the accused. In view of this proposition, the application filed by the accused to take on record certain documents to see his defence is dismissed being not maintainable and those documents can be considered for any purpose whatsoever. Keeping in view the above mentioned proposition of law and after considering the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. it comes out there is sufficient prima facie evidence on record, which justified the trial of the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. And the entire case put forward by ld. defence counsel to seek Criminal Revision No.3023 of 2010 6 discharge for the accused is based on the appreciation of evidence on the basis of so called grounds, which can be considered only after taking the evidence of the prosecution and at this stage no benefit of those can be given to the accused as only prima facie evidence is required to put the accused on trial after serving a formal charge sheet and the court cannot make contradictions in the oral and documentary evidence a basis to discharge. However, at this stage, this court cannot go into this aspect as only prima facie case is to be seen and the court cannot make a roving inquiry to see the probative value of the material on record. On the contrary where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.” 14. Meaning thereby, the trial Court recorded the valid reasons in this relevant behalf. Such well articulated orders, containing the valid reasons for framing of charges, cannot legally be set aside, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same are perverse or without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned orders. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 16. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition. November 15, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE