STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP (2021)

CITATION	AIRONLINE 2021 SC 210
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	13 April 2021
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	State of Rajasthan
RESPONDENT	Ashok Kumar Kashyap
BENCH	M. R. Shah, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud

INTRODUCTION

The case of State of Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap states about appeal filed by appellant aggrieved by the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan which quashed the order framing charge against the respondent-accused and discharged the accused for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This case involves allegations of demanding bribe by a public servant. A revision application was filed and by exercising the same the High Court of Rajasthan exceeded its jurisdiction. 

FACTS

1. Original complaint was filed by Jai Kishore and Devi Singh before a Special Judge that for the purpose of issuing Domicile certificate and OBC certificate for their son, they had applied and submitted the required documents to the respondent accused who worked as a Patwari.
2. The respondent-accused demanded for bribe of Rs. 2800/- for the same.
3. Charge sheet was filed by the investigating agency under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All the material evidence was considered which included transcript of conversation recorded between the complainant and respondent- accused. Prima facie case is made out and defence is not considered at this stage by order dated 22 June 2018.
4. Respondent-accused filed for a Criminal Revision Application No. 1270 of 2018 before the High Court of Rajasthan. 
5. The revision application was opposed by a public prosecutor. 
6. Allowing the revision application, the High Court quashed the charges against the respondent-accused and set aside the earlier order.
7. The State thus filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against the said judgement of High Court. Adv. Vishal Meghwal appeared on the behalf of the State. 

ISSUES

1.  Whether the material evidences were examined efficiently so as to apply Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
2. Whether the quashing of charges by the High Court of Rajasthan was evident and based  on investigation and examination of evidences?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

1. The appellant contended that the conversation between the complainant and respondent-accused through the transcript clearly shows the existence of demand of bribe. Therefore, the respondent-accused is liable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. At the stage of framing of charge the material evidence should be examined if they disclose existence of material and documents on record as the transcript clearly states the existence of demand of bribe.
3. Further, contentions were made that the High Court erred in examining the evidence and the discharge of application is impermissible and beyond the scope of exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent-accused contended that charges were quashed stating that he refused to issue the bonafide residence certificate and hence no work was pending before him.
2. No specific demand of bribe was revealed in the transcript.
3. The respondent stated that offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act hence, cannot be made applicable as it is evident from the transcript.  

JUDGEMENT

 The Special Judge by order dated 22 June 2018 framed charge against accused for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Revision Application was filed by the respondent-accused in the High Court of Rajasthan which quashed and set aside the order passed by the Special Judge and discharged the accused from the offence. 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Rajasthan exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope of Section 227/239 of Cr.P.C. The High Court erred in considering the transcript in detail. At the stage when charge needs to be framed and discharge application is to be considered, mini-trail is not permissible. 

Thus, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the High Court. The order passed by the Special Judge is restored and the respondent-accused is being tried for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

ANALYSIS

The Advocate appearing on the behalf of the State, while contending against the respondent-accused, mentioned various cases and relied upon their decisions. Cases like Srilekha Sentil Kumar vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai (2019), Asim Shariff vs. National Investigation Agency (2019), and State of Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru vs. M. R. Hiremath (2019) are some of the cases mentioned by the learned Advocate.

On the other hand, the Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused stated that the High Court of Rajasthan rightly passed the decision as no case can be made against the respondent-accused through the transcript and material evidences presented.

The High Court of Rajasthan completely relied on the contentions of the respondent-accused without investigating the matter in depth. Thus, the earlier order passed by the Special Judge was right as stated by the Apex Court. 

CONCLUSION

The framing of charges takes place after first hearing. Mini-trial took place at the stage of framing of charges in the said case which is not acceptable as stated by the Apex Court. The investigation of evidences was compromised as a result of which the transcript was not interpreted efficiently. This resulted in erred judgement of the High Court of Rajasthan. The Supreme Court thus, reversed the judgement of the High Court of Rajasthan agreeing with the decision of Special Judge.

REFERENCES

Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90321236/

This Article is written by Kavita Rajendra Amin, student of DES’s Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College, Pune; intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.