STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus FATEHKARAN MEHDU
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 491, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 49 I 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
FATEHKARAN MEI-IOU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2 I 6 of 20 17) 
FEBRUARY 03, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ASIIOK IlllUSHAN, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 -- s.397 - Revisionary 
;urisdiction - Scope of interference at a .1·1age, when charge had 
been .framed - Held: At the .5/age of framing of a charge, the court 
is concerned not wilh the proof of the alle,gation rather it has to 
focus on the material and form an opinion w/1ether there is strong 
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put 
to trial, could prove his guilt - The framing uf charge is not a stage, 
at which stage final test of guilt is lo be applied - Jn the ins/ant 
case, allegation against l.~e respondent was Iha/ he facilitated a 
person to carry on illegal mining by which he obtained illegal 
benefits to the detriment of the State - Special Judge found a clear 
case of framing charge - High Court exercising revisionary powers 
set aside the order of Special Judge -
High Court failed to advert 
the substance of a/legation against the respondent that he had 
granted quarry licence for only three bigha gap-land but had issued 
technical map for an area of 80,000 sq. ft. - High Court did not 
advert to the technical map which mentioned 80,000 sq. ft. and 
without adverting to that allegation erroneously observed that there 
was no a/legation which may come within the meaning of s.J3(1){d) 
_ rlw s. I 3(2) of the PC Act - Both charge-sheet and
order of the 
Special Judge specifically noted the a/fegations, which clearly made 
out an offence u/s.13(1)(d) and s.13(2) of PC Act and s.120B lPC-
High Court erred in quashing the charges ji·amed - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. l 3(1}(d), 13(2). 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. While framing the charge, the substance of the 
allegation against the respondent was that he had granted a quarry 
licence to 'K' on three bigha area, total area of which comes to 
52,272 Sq. ft. whereas, he was sanctioned 80,000 Sq.ft. Further 
allegation was that respondent permitted 'K' to indulge in 
491 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
492 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
unauthorised mining over the larger area than that granted to 
him putting the Government as well as 'S' to loss. The ltigh 
Court in its order observed that it has been certified !>y the 
present Mining Engineer that the respondent had never 
sanctioned alleged 80,000 Sq.ft. in favour of 'K'. [Para 22) [502-
E-G) 
2. The respondents brought on record the copy of the quarry 
licence granted to 'K' indicating that two quarry licences were 
for 12500 Sq. ft each. The High Court failed to advert the 
substance of allegation against the respondent that the respondent 
although, granted quarry licence only for three bigha gap land 
but technical map issued by the respondent was for an area of 
80,000 Sq. ft, which was a source for 'K' to carry on unauthorised 
mining over the larger area than that of actually allotted to him. 
[Para 23) [503-D-E] 
3. The Special Judge had observed that final adjudication 
of charge caunot be made unless oral and documentaty evidence 
are received. The High Court did not advert to the technical 
inap which mentioned 80,000 Sq. Ft. and without adverting to 
that allegation erroneously observed that there was no allegation 
which may come within the meaning of Sections 13(l)(d) read 
with 13(2) of the Act. Both chargesheet and order of the Special 
Judge specifically noted the allegations, which clearly made out 
an offence uuder Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention and
Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. [Para 25) [503-G-H; 
504-A) 
4. The scop·e of interference and exercise of jurisdiction 
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. at a stage, when charge had been 
framed, is well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the 
~ourt is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it 
has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is 
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which 
if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a 
stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to 
bold that at the stage of framing th~ charge, the court should 
form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committiug 
an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor 
is in consonance with scheme of Code- of Criminal Procedure. 
[Para 26) [504-B-D)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
. 5. Section 397 Cr. P.C. vests the cburt with the power to 
• call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the 
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of 
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this 
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction 
or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. The 
High Court erred in quashing the charges framed. [Paras 27, 30) 
[504-E; 506-H) 
Amit Kapoor and Ramesh Chander and Am: [2012) 7 
SCR 988 : (2012) 9 SCC 460 - referred to. 
f2Q121 7 SCR 988 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
Para 28 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
216 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2010 of the High Court 
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench ins: B. Criminal Revision 
Petiton No. 592 of2009 
WITH 
Criminal Appeal No. 217 of2017. 
S.S. Shamshery, AAG.,Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Ankit Raj, 
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Jagdeep Dhankar, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, Kaushik Chaudhury, 
Punya Garg, Anish Kumar Gupta, Chandra Shekhar Sumath, 
R. K. Rajwanshi, Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment 
dated 16.11.20 I 0 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan atJodhpur 
allowing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.
592/200<) Fatehkaran Mehdu 
versus State ofRajasthan and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 598/ 
2009 Kishan Singh Rawat versus State of Rajasthan. The High Court 
vide its order, allowing the Criminal Revisions, set aside the order dated 
05.05.2009 passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur, 
framing charges against both the respondents under Section 13(1 )(d) & 
493 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
494 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section I 20B 
of !PC. 
3. The brief facts of the case, as emerged from materials on 
record, need to be noted for deciding the issues raised in these appeals. 
Both the appeals having arisen out offirst Information Report No. 342/ 
200 I and order dated 05.05.2009 framing charges, the facts being 
common, it shall be sufficient to refer the facts from Criminal Appeal 
No ....... of2017 @SLP(Cr.) No. 3998 of201 I, State ofRajasthan versus 
Fatehkaran Mehdu. 
4. The Respondent, Fatehkaran Mehdu was working as Mining 
Engineer at Tehsil Bijolia, District Bhilwara, State of Rajasthan in the 
year 1997-98. One Smt. Sushma Devi had submitted an application for 
the grant of quarry licence for a mineral (Sand Stone) as per the Rajasthan 
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Rule 
1986). The application was made for grant of quarry licence for Khatedari 
land situated at Nayanagar in different plots, including Plot No. 1181 I 
124. She deposited a banker's cheque of Rs. I, 75,000/- dated 23.4.1998 
and the quarry licence for 4.95 hectare (30 bigha and 12 biswas) was 
prepared in the name of Smt. Sushma Devi Dhakad and Shri Manoj 
Kumar Sandhya or 06.05.1998. On noticing that the quarry licence issued 
on 06.05.1998 contained various cuttings, she contacted Fatehkaran 
Mehdu and handed him the licence for issue of fresh licence.
Shri Mehdu 
after taking all papers from Smt. Sushma Devi did not issue her a fresh 
licence, whereas, Smt. Sushma Devi had started mining operations. On 
18.07.1998 one Shri K. K. Boda, inspected the area and stopped the 
mining activities informing Smt. Sushma Devi that no quarry licence 
was issued in her favour. On 11.08.1998, Mining Engineer Fatehkaran 
Mehdu directed Smt. Sushma Devi to stop the mining activities; 
Fatehkaran Mehdu was transferred in August 1998 out ofTehsil Bigolia. 
5. Aggrieved by non-issuance of quarry licence Sushma Devi filed 
a Writ Petition No. 166 of 1999 before the High Court of Rajasthan 
which was dismissed by order dated 08.03.1999 due to availability of 
alternate remedy of filing an appeal under the Rules 1986. Smt. Sushma 
Devi filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate 
Authority vide order dated 29.04.1999 allowed the appeal and restored 
the quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Devi. 
6. On the other hand, Sri Kishan Singh Rawat. the respondent
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
was also granted quarry licence on gap-land in Block No. 263A and 
264A which contained a condition that the said approval shall not be 
effective outside Plot No. 1345/11851124. Plot No. 11851124 was situated 
towards South of Plot No. 1181/124, which was included in the quarry 
licence of Smt. Sushma Devi. 
7. Kishan Singh Rawat alongwith certain other persons had filed 
a suit against the consenting party of Khatedari Land No. 1238/125 on 
23 .06.1998 for stopping Sushma Devi from carrying on mining operations. 
Another suit No. 1181/24 was filed on 13.7.1998 by Kishan Singh against 
the Khatedars of Plot No. 1181/124 restraining them from interfering in 
mining operation on Plot No. 1345/11851124 area 3 bigha. 
8. After holding a Preliminary Enquiry No. 7 of 2000 against 
Fatehkaran Mehdu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prevention of 
Corruption Bureau ofUdaipur, lodged a First Information Report against 
the Fatehkaran Mehdu and Kishan Singh Rawat under Section 13(1 )(d) 
and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of 
!PC. 
9. After conducting the investigation, a chargesheet No. 208/2005 
dated 24.10.2005 was submitted. The Special Judge, Prevention of 
Corruption Act, Udaipur vide order dated 05.05.2009 framed charges 
against both the Respondents under Section 13( 1) (d) read with Section 
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120B !PC. Aggrieved 
by order dated 05.05.2009,
Fatehkaran Mehdu filed S.B. Criminal 
Revision Petition No. 592 of2009 and Kishan Singh Rawat filed S.B. 
Criminal Revision Petition No. 598 of2009. The High Court ofRajasthan 
vi de its judgment and order dated 16.11 ... 20 I 0 set aside the order dated 
05.05 .2009 allowing the Revision against which these two appeals have 
been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 
I 0. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 
the records. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were 
sufficient materials on record against the respondent, relying on which 
learned Special Judge has framed the charges and the-High Court 
committed an error by interfering with the charges framed, in exercise 
ofrevisionaljurisdiction. It is submitted that there was no ground made 
out for exercise of revisionaljurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for 
quashing the charges framed. It was proved on the materials on record 
that the Respondent Mehdu had facilitated Shri Kishan Singh Rawat to 
495 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
496 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 2 S.C.R. 
carry on illegal mining by which, he obtained illegal benefits to the detriment 
of State of Rajasthan as well as Smt..Sushma Devi. The quarry licence 
granted to Sushma Devi was cancelled by Mehdu to facilitate Kishan 
Singh Rawat to carry on illegal mining on the plot, which was included in 
the quarry licence ofSushma Devi. Shri Mehdu being a public servant 
has committed an offence under Section 13(1 )( d) read with Section 13(2). 
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent, refuting the submission 
of appellant contends thatthe High Court on valid grounds has set aside 
the order framing the charge, since there was no allegation before the 
Special Judge on which, it can be said that any offence under Section 
I 3(1)(d) read with 13(2) and 120B was made out. The allegation against 
Shri Mehdu that he has granted quarry licence of80,000 Sq. ft. to Kishan 
Singh Rawat, was factually incorrect since Kishan Singh Rawat was 
sanctioned quarry licence of only 25,000 Sq. ft. It is submitted ·that 
cancellation of licence of Smt. Sushma Devi by Shri Mehdu cannot 
amount to any offence within the meaning of aforesaid sections and the 
order of Appellate Authority, setting aside the cancellation order does 
not lead to any presumption that aR offence was committed by Shri 
Mehdu. 
12. Before we proceed to examine the respective contentions, it 
is necessary to look into the chargesheet to find out the nature of
allegations made against the respondents. The chargesheet has been 
brought on record as Annexure A-9. It is relevant to note some of the 
allegations, as recorded in the chargesheet against the respondent. The 
chargesheet notices the following: 
"1vhereas it is also pertinent to mention here that area ofplot 
No. 1345111851124 is three bigha 52272 Sq. ft. whereas, Shri 
Fatehkaran Mehdu Mining Engineer, Bijolia has granted 
sanction of 80, 000 Sq. ft. as gap fat. Thus, Shri F atehkaran 
Mehdu Mining Engineer in collusion with Shri Kishan Singh 
Rawat granted sanction for 80, 000 Sq. ft land as against 
52272 Sq. ft. available land, by which obviously proceeding 
for giving land to Shri Kishan Singh Rawat out of plot No. 
11811124 of Smt. Sushma Devi situated neighbouring has been 
done by collusion. " 
13. Further, afternoticing the facts, pertaining to grant of quarry 
licence to Kishan Singh Rawat and Smt. Sushma Devi following was 
stated:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
"By investigation it was also found that illegal mining was 
done on plot No. 11851124 of Shri Kishan Singh Rawat for 
years. Jn the year 1997 the Mining Enginner in collusion under 
gap fat policy with view to provide undue profit by back door 
got surrendered 3 bigha land out of 5 bigha in favour of 
State Government and recorded without name sa that gap fat 
could be approved under above policy. Under rules lease 
can be granted only on land of without nanie. To land so 
surrendered plot No. 1345111851124 was given rest of two 
bigha land of khatedar property No. 11851124 was given 
which presently is recorded as khatedari land in name Dhiru 
son of Limbu Bheel Rio Suradiya Tehsil Beawar in khata which 
is ancestral village of Kishan Singh Rawat. Plot No. 11851 
124 combined rakba 2 pigha land is also recorded as 
khatedari therefore, gap fat permission can not be accorded 
under gap fat policy but Mining Engineer in files of office 
accorded approval of plot No. 1345111851124 rakba 3 bigha, 
entry in which regard was made with special stipulation on 
quarry licence but in technical map told about according 
approval on plot No. 11851124 combined so that if anytime 
measurement is carried out then same could be found 
according to technical map and according to same Shri Kishan 
Singh Rawat could get illegal profit. On spot Shri Kishan 
Singh Rawat in present time is also doing mining work on 
plot No. 11851124
com. Rakba 2 bigha land and whenever 
question for measurement arises then he shows being approval 
on the basis of departments technical map whereas, in quarry 
lincence and files.permission is accorded only to plot No. 
1345111851124, 'total area ofwhich comes to be 52472 Sq.ft 
whereas, according to technical map area 80, 000 Sq. ft is 
shown. Under khatedari policy Shri Fatehkaran Mehdu only 
with view fo cause loss to tenure holders of plot No. 11811 
124 situated in south ofplot No. 11851124, called back issued 
quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Dhakad in name of correcting 
same by violating all rules, cancelled quarry licence and 
information in which regard was not given to licence holders. " 
14. There was a clear allegation in the chargesheet that quarry 
licence to Kishan Singh Rawat was given by Shri Mehdu in furtherance 
497 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
498 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
ofobject and purpose of illegally benefitting Kishan Singh Rawat. It was 
further stated that although, approval for quarry licence on Plot No. 
1345/1185/124 area 3 bigha was granted, total area of which comes to 
only 52,272 Sq. ft., whereas in the technical map, area was shown 80,000 
Sq. ft. dishonestly benefiting Kishan Singh Rawat. 
15. Considering the chargesheet and other materials on record, 
the charges have been framed. In Para I of the order, the learned 
Special Judge has noted the following facts: 
"1. It is worth-mentioning that total area of land No. 13451 
11851124 is total three bigha i.e. 52272 Sq. ft. while 
Fatehkaran Mehdu issued sanction of 80,000 Sq. ft. in the 
form of gap fat area and thus, accused Fatehkaran Mehdu 
connived with Kishan Singh Rawat, he connived in the 
proceedings for getting alotted more land to Kishan Singh 
Rawat out of the land of neighbour Sushma Devi, on which 
on establishing the prima facie case making out, the then 
Additional Superintendent of Police of Prevention of 
Corruption Bureau, Udaipur, sent an First Information Report 
without numbering to the Headquarter, on which case First 
Information Report No. 342101 was registered on 18.09.2001 
and was received for investigation. " 
16. Further in para 2, the order states: 
"2. From the investigation it was established that Smt. Sushma 
Devi, Mano} Kumar Sandhya and Jitmal Balai submitted 
application on
01.05.1998 in prescribed form. Landowners 
of concerning khasra numbers expressed their consel1f in 
favour of applicants, thereafter, on 06. 05.1998 Shri Mehdu 
granted approval for issuing quarry licence and licence were 
issued. Smt. Sushma Devi checked quarry licence on 
08. 05.1998, then came to know that serious nature of lacunae 
were found. At the same time Smt. Sushma Devi contacted 
Fatehkaran Mehdu, Mineral Engineer about the abovesaid, 
then he issued directions for making correction the quarry 
licence and handed over letters etc. to the Office Assistal1f 
Sohanlal. Stating excessive cuttings, Shri Mehdu instead of 
taking all the papers from Smt. Sushma Devi for issuing new 
quarry licence, with intentions to get other person Kishan
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
499 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Singh unlawfully benefits, connived with him and ma/afide 
A 
and issued licence. " 
17. In para 2, it has further been noted: 
"2. Under the quarry licence passed by Shri Fatehkaran 
Mehdu, Shri Kishan Singh undertook unauthorized mining 
work for years on five bigha land in place of three bigha 
land due to which State Government suffered loss of annual 
rent etc. and Kishan Singh earned unlawful profits. On 
account of conspiracy hatched with him and connivance 
forgetting Kishan Singh benefitted, it established that Shri 
Fatehkaran Mehdu allotted land to Kishan Singh Rawat 
contrary to rules or in the form of gap & fat due to which the 
present charge sheet under section 13(l)(d) read with section 
13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 120 
Indian Penal Code was filed in which Kishan Singh Rawat, 
beneficiary was also made accused. " 
18. The Special Judge after considering the contention putforth 
by the learned counsel for the parties noted the charge that against the 
total area of 52,272 Sq. ft. available, Shri Mehdu has issued sanction for 
80,000 Sq. ft. in the form of'gap area' to Kishan Singh Rawat to unduly 
benefit him, and the same can be decided after recording oral and 
documentary evidence. The Special Judge found, a clear prima facie 
case of framing charges. It is relevant to extract the findings from Para 
6 of the order. In Para 6 of the order, following has been stated:
"Prima facie charge has been framed against accused persons 
that with the intentions to cause loss to Khatedars of land 
No. 11811124 situated in the southern side of land No. 11851 
124, on which licence issued to Smt. Sushma Dhakar, Shri 
Fatehkaran Mehdu called for the same in the name of,. 
rectifying the same, he canceled the quarry licence in 
violations of all the rules and its information was not conveyed 
to the licence holders. Shri Mehdu did not try to settfe the 
disputes on the spot rather he issued licence to parties without 
any acceptable demaraction and canceled without adopting 
process. Dispute prevailing between land No. 11851125 and 
11811124 could have been settled earlier by carrying out 
measurement in detail through the Department of revenue, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
500 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
but no any effort was made in this context, consequently, 
Kishan Singh Rawat has undertaken unauthorized mining 
work on five bigha area of land No. 11851124 in place of 
three bigha land due to which State Government has suffered 
loss of annual rent etc .. it also established in the investigation 
that Fatehkaran Mehdu had got the intentions behind 
cancelling of quarry licence of Smt. Sushma Dhakar that 
Kishan Singh Rawat be benefited by allotting land to Kishan 
Singh Rawat neighbour of Smt. Dhakar in the name of gap 
fat and Shri Mehdu has got Kishan Singh Rawat financially 
benefitted unl011ful/y by allotting land in the form of gap fat 
having misused his post and powers. It is universal principle 
of law that court is supposed to see at the stage of framing of 
charge as to whether prima facie case worth triable makes 
out on the basis of evidence and the facts putforth by the 
prosecution or not. Final disposal of the charges framed 
against accused on merits does not require at the said stage. " 
19. In view of what has been noted above, whether the High 
Court was right in quashing the order framing charges by Special Judge 
on 05.05.2009, is the question to be answered in these appeals. What is 
the basis for quashing the charges by the High Court, has to be found 
out from the order of the High Court, allowing the Criminal Revisions. 
20. The High Court, after noticing the few allegations
against the 
respondent observed that there was no allegation made by the prosecution 
against the respondent to the effect that by any corrupt or illegal means 
Shri Mehdu obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself 
or for any other person. With regard to alleged allotment of 80,000 Sq. 
ft. in favour of Kishan Singh Rawat, it was held prima facie not to be 
correct since concerned Mining Engineer had certified that there was 
no allotment of 80,000 Sq. ft. by Mehdu to Kishan Singh Rawat. It is 
useful to extract para 8 and 9 of the judgement of the High Court which 
is to the following effect: 
"8. Having gone through the aforesaid provision and 
;udgments cited at the bar and upon perusal of the order 
dated 5.5.2009, this Court does not find any a/legation made 
by the applicant or prosecution against the present petitioner 
that by any corrupt or illegal means he obtained any valuable
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any 
other person. Even alleged allotment of 80,000 Sq. ft. land in 
favour of petitioner no. 2 Kishan Singh was pri11ia facie found 
to be incorrect since concerned Mining Engineer himself 
certified that there was no allotment of 80, 000 sq. ft. area by 
the present petitioner in favour of petitioner No. 2 Kishan 
Singh and only allotment made was way back in 1997-98 of 
25,000 sq. ft. Mere fact that application Smt. Sushma Devi 
had to file appeal before the competent authority under the 
Mining Act against the alleged illegal cancellation of her 
quarry licence and succeeded therein does not amount to any 
criminal charge against the present petitioner under the 
purview of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988. Obviously, these proceedings are quasi judicial 
in nature undertaken in exercise of powers conferred upon 
the Mining Engineer under the said Act and any error which 
can be corrected by appellate or revisional authority does 
not amount to a criminal charge established against the said 
authority. This Court does not find any allegation of taking 
bribe or any other allegation of that nature which would come 
within the ambit of words employed in Section 13 (1) {d) 
namely; "by corruption or illegal means obtains for himself 
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary 
advantage. " 
"9. In the absence of any
such allegation, this court cannot 
appreciate how the charge under Section 13(1) {d) and 13(2) 
of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section l 20B /PC 
has been framed against the present Petitioners. " 
21. The High Court based its judgement for quashing the charges 
on the aforesaid conclusion, as recorded in para 8 and 9. Section 13( I) 
(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under which 
charges have been framed, are to the following effect: 
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: 
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal 
misconduct,-
501 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
502 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(d) if he,-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
{i) by corrupt or illegal means. obtains for himself or for 
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary 
advantage; or 
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains 
for himself or for any other person any valuable thing 
or pecuniary advantage; or 
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for 
any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage 
without any public interest; or 
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct 
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which 
shall be not less than one year but which may extend to 
seven years and shall also be liable to fine." 
22. What are the allegations against Mehdu to frame charge under 
Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) has to be found out from the 
Chargesheet and other materials. We have already extracted the relevant 
allegations, made against Shri Mehdu in the chargesheet as well as the 
facts noticed by the learned Special Judge. While framing the charge, 
the substance of the allegation against Mehdu is that he-has granted a 
quarry licnece to Kishan Singh Rawat on three bigha area of plot No. 
134511185/124, total area of which comes to 52,272 Sq. ft. whereas, he 
was sanctioned 80,000 Sq.ft. Further allegation is that Mehdu permitted 
Kishan Singh Rawat to indulge in unauthorised mining over the larger 
area than that of granted to him putting the Government as wel I as Smt. 
Sushma
Devi to loss. The High Court in its order has observed that it 
has been certified by the present Mining Engineer that Mehdu had never 
sanctioned alleged 80,000 Sq.ft. in favour of Kishan Singh Rawat for 
which observation, the High Court based a letter dated 13 .11.2009 filed 
as Annexure A-11 in the appeal, which was also taken on the record by 
the High Court. The said letter was addressed to Fatehkaran Mehdu in 
reply to his querry, as to whether, Kishan Singh Rawat was granted 
quarry licence for 80,000 Sq. ft. The answer given in the said letter 
dated 03 .11.2009 is to the following effect: 
. "As per the information sought with regard to the captioned
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
subject, as per the record available in the office no licence of 
80, 000 Sq. ft. has been granted to Shri Kishan Singh Rawat 
in Arazi No. 11851124 Mauza village Nayanagar, Tehsil 
Bijoliya, District - Bhilwara. In the circumstances, it is not 
possible to give the copy. In the year 1997-1998, the quarry 
licence holder in Plot No. 263 A and 264 A of Arazi No. 11851 
124 Shri Gopal Singh Rawat Slo Shri Anna Singh Rawat Rio 
Suradia Tehsil Byawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) was 
granted permission and quarry licence of total 12500-12500 
Sq. ft. The said quarry licence was transferred in the name of 
Kishan Singh Rawat Slo Devi Singh Rawat resident of Suradia, 
Tehsil Byawar District Ajmer (Rajasthan), which is not 
effective at present. " 
23. The Respondents have brought on record the copy of the 
quarry licence granted to Kishan Singh Rawat as Annexure A-3 and A-
4 which indicates that two quarry licences were for 12500 Sq. ft each. 
It appears that the High Court failed to advert the substance of allegation 
against Shri Mehdu, as we have already noticed from the chargesheet 
that Shri Mehdu although, granted quarry licence only for three bigha 
gap land in Plot No. 1345/1185/J 24, but technical map issued by Shri 
Mehdu was to an area of 80,000 Sq. ft, which was a source for Kishan 
Singh Rawat to carry on unauthorised mining over the larger area than 
that ofactually allotted to him. 
24. In the chargesheet
following has been specifically noted : 
"' .... On spot Shri Kishan Singh Rawat in present time is also 
doing mining work on plot No. l185//24 com. Rakba 2 bigha 
land and whenever question (or measurement arises then he 
shows being approval on the basis of department's technical 
map whereas, in quarry lincence and files permission is 
accorded only to plot No. / 345/11851124, total area of which 
comes to be 52472 Sq.ft whereas, according to technical map 
area 80. 000 Sq. ft is shown. " 
25. As noted above, learned Special Judge had observed that 
final adjudication of charge cannot be made unless oral and documentary 
evidence are. received. The High Court has not adverted to the technical 
map which mentions 80,000 Sq. Ft. and without adverting to that allegation, 
has erroneously observed that there is no allegation which may come 
503 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
504 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 2 S.C.R. 
within the meaning of 13 (1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Both 
chargesheet and order of the learned Special Judge have specifically 
noted the allegations, which clearly makes out an offence under Section 
J3(1)(d) and 13(2} of Prevention and Corruption Act, J 988 and Section 
120B I.P.C. 
26. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under 
Section 397 ofCr.P.C. has been time and again explained by this Court. 
Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 Cr.P.C. at a stage, 
when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing 
of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation 
rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there 
is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if 
put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at 
which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the 
stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the 
accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something 
which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 
27. Now, reverting to the limit of the scope of jurisdiction under 
Section 397 Cr. P.C., which vests the court with the power to call for 
and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of satisfying 
itself as
to the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made 
in a case. The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect or an 
error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the 
proceeding. 
28. It is useful to refer to judgment of this Court in Amit Kapoor 
and Ramesli C/iander and Anotl1er, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where scope 
of Section 397 Cr. P.C. have been succinctly considered and explained. 
Para 12 and 13 are as follows: 
"12. Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power to 
call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the 
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity 
of any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of 
this provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of 
;urisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and 
it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinize the orders, 
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.) 
consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If 
one looks into the various judgments of this Court, it emerges 
that the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the 
decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no 
compliance with the provisions of law, _the finding recorded is 
based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial 
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not 
exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would 
have to be determined on its own merits. " 
"13. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional 
iurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and 
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt 
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or 
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the 
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to 
injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question 
as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in 
accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to 
interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the 
case substantially falls within the categories aforestated. Even 
framing of charge is a much advanced stage in the 
proceedings under the CrPC. " 
29. The Court in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid 
down principles to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 
397 particularly in context of quashing of charge framed under Section 
228 Cr. P. C. Para 27, 27(1 ), (2), (3), (9), ( 13) are extracted as follows: 
"27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these 
two provisions, i.e., Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code 
and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be 
appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to 
which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, 
it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with 
precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis 
of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out 
some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of 
iurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge 
either in exercise_ of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 
482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 
sos 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
506 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 2 S.C.R. 
27.1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court 
under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the 
more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these 
powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, 
particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the 
Code should be exercised very sparinKIY and with 
circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 
27.2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the 
um:ontroverted allegations as made from the record of the 
case and the documents submitted therewith pri111a 
facie establish the offence or not. If the a/legations are so 
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent 
person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic 
ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the 
Court may interfere. 
27.3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No 
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for 
considering whether the case would end in conviction or not 
at the stage of fra111ing of charge or quashing of charge. 
27.9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to 
observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and 
materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient 
material on the basis of which the case would end in a 
conviction; the Court is concerned primarily with the 
allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an
offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading 
to injustice. 
27.13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of 
continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly 
satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit 
continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that 
initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records 
with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the 
documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. " 
30. Applying the above tests, we are of the considered opinion 
that High Court erred in quashing the charges framed by the order dated

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU 
507 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
05 .05 .2009.. In result, both the appeals are allowed. The order of the 
A 
High Court is set aside and the order dated 05.05.2009 is restored. The 
learned Special Judge may proceed with the trial in accordance with the 
law expeditiously. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed. 
B