STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus FATEHKARAN MEHDU

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 03-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.