448 Criminal Revision No1824 of 2008 4 INTHE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No1824 of 2008 Dateof DecisionlFebruaryj7 2009 JPChadha setitioner Versus State of Punjab espondent 1 CORAMl HONBLE MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLAJ tr 0 Presentle MtlPChadha Petitioner in person C0 Mr CBrar DAG Punjab I C5 RAJIVE BHALLA J IORALI I r Z The petitionerIayschallengeto an order dated 31 72008 m directingthe framingof charges and the order of even date framing chargesagainstthe petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code I 08 and Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act r10 FlR N0229 dated 051 22000 came to be registeredunder 7 Z Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 80f the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Sirhind District FatehgarhSahib against the petitioneron the basis of a complaintmade by one Gurcharan Singh son of Sucha Singh that the petitioner demanded and received an amount of Rsl 000001 for paymentto the Senior of Police FatehgarhSahb for registration of an FIR on his behalf After investigationthe policefiled a final reportunder Section 17361of the Code of CriminaIProcedure Uponappraisalof the contents of the final report the Iearned Sessions Judge FatehgarhSahib directed vide order dated 31 72008 that chargesbe framed againstthe petitioner As a result chargeswere framed againstthe petitionerunder Sections 1 1 Uma 2013.03.18 14: 29 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 449 0 Criminal Revision No1824 of 2008 2 Section420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 80f the Prevention of Corruption Act The petitionerwho is a practicingadvocate and appears in personsubmits that chargescould not have been framed on the basis of an incompletefinal report It is submittedthat initiallythe complaintwas forwardedto the ChandigarhPolice as the allegationsdisclosed that a pan of the money was receIved at the HighCourt premisesin ChandigarhThe ChandigarhPolice recorded the statements of the complainantand his witnesses but thereafter returnedthe complaintto the policeat Fatehgarh 1 Sahibfhe respondenthowever have not appendedthe aforementioned L statements with the final report These statements are material and 0 0 relevant as there are serious contradictions between them and the I C5 statements recorded by the complainantand his witnesses before the policeat FatehgarhSahib It is submittedthat at some placespaymentof Z Rs 300001 IS allegedto have been made in the cou rt complexat FatehgarhSahib whereas at another it is stated to have been made at the A petitionersresidence at Chandigarhand in yet another statement at the I a5 HighCourt premisesin Chandigarh The petitionerfiled an application r Cr before the trial courtto directthe prosecution to producethe foiwarding a Z note recorded by the ChandigarhPolice and the originalstatements m recorded by them Vide order dated 291 12005 this applicationwas dismissed Criminal Revision No 1290 of 2005 filed againstthls order was dismissed on 1 032008 It is submjtted that the statements recorded bythe ChandigarhPoIice were placedon record in the revision petitionand therefore the Iearned Sessions Judge should have all in fairness to the petitionersrightsreferredto the statements while framing chargesagainstthe petitionerit is furtherarguedthat even if the trial cour1 does not have p0wers to consider these documents this court can in the exercise of its powers examine the statements and if it appears that the Uma 2013.03.18 14: 29 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1Iri 450 l 1 IJ le 64 VA CriminalRevision No1824 of 2008 w3w allegationsIll the final report do not make out anY case againstthe 1 or that the allegations are absurd or preposterousproceedto quashthe chargeasheet Counsel for the respondenton the other hand submits that the documents referredto bythe petitioner do not form a pan of the final repon and therefore were rightlydiscarded by the trial court At the stageof chargesa Court appraisesthe Onalreportfor the Iimitedpurpose of whether there is any materialon record that would enable the court to proceedagainstthe accused The argumentadvanced by the W 1 regardingthe contradictions in the statements made by the 0 and his witnesses can onlybe considered duringtrial and Co I thenalso if the petitionerputsfo11hthese documents in his defence The C5 trial court has framed chargesafter due consideration of the arguments I urgedbythe petitioner and thereforethe presentpetitionbe dismissed Z have heard counsel for the paniesand perusedthe impugned W tr chargesheet as also the order framingcharges I A chargeis a preciseformulation of the specificaccusations 08 r0 made againsta person who is entitled to know its nature before the e7 commencementof the trial It is no partof a trial Courts duty at the stage Z of framingchargesto embark upon an enquiryinto the defence put forth by an accused or consider documents or material other than those appendedwith or contained in the final repon It is a settled positionin Iaw that at the stage of framingchargesan accused has no rightto call uponthe prosecutionto produce documents not appendedwith a final report or to insist that a court consider documents other than those appendedwith the final report At the stage of framingchargesa coun does not opineas to the Iegalitythe sufficiency or the correctness of the allegationsin the final report or in the documents appendedtheretoA submission by counsel for the petitionerthat the trial court has failed to Uma 2013.03.18 14: 29 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 451 1 Criminal Revision No1824 of 2008 4 considerthe statementsof the complainant and his witnesses recorded by the PoIice or that the statements have been intentionally withheldwould be a matterto be considered bythe triai coun as and when the petitionersummons these documents in his defence It would necessarily requirenotice that the two sets of statementsare consistent as to the illegaldemand of money The contradictions if any even if considered at this stageare insufficientto hold that the materiaton record IS insufficientto frame chargesorissO inherentlyabsurd preposterous or concocted as to warrant the settingaside of the order framingcharges 1 The truth of these aiiegationsthe allegedcontradictions in the statements 0 made at various places are mattersthat would be considered by the trial Co coun as and when theyare raised bythe petitioner in his defence I C5 The petitionerhas been arraigned for a sertous offence namely I r receivingmoney for paymentto the SSP to get a FlR registeredThe trial Z cour1after consideringthe Onal reportthe documents appendedthereto 1 and upon an appraisalof the material placedby the prosecutionhas I recorded its opinionthat there is sufficient material to hold that the 08 QO petitionershould be chargedfor commIssion of the allegedoffences As W2 the impugnedorderisdo not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of iaw as Z wouid requireinterference in the exercise of revisional jurisdictionthe CL presentpetitionis dismissed Nothingstated herein shall be construed to be an expressionof opinionon the merits of the controversy Februaryl72009 RAJIVE BHALLAI nt JUDGE A 6 r Uma 2013.03.18 14: 29 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document