[2025:RJ-JP:26855] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 419/2018 Chandra Mohan Pareek S/o Shri Ram Pratap Pareek, aged about 60 years, R/o 4000/B, Behind Gota Factory, Soorajpole Bazar, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan Through PP. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/07/2025 1. Instant Revision Petition is preferred by petitioner-accused aggrieved from judgment dated 14.07.2017 in A.C.D. Case No. 48/2015 passed by learned Special Judge, ACD No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the Trial Court has framed charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010) [2025:RJ-JP:26855] (2 of 3) [CRLR-419/2018] 2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. 4. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. [2025:RJ-JP:26855] (3 of 3) [CRLR-419/2018] 5. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191 and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge and / or at the stage of discharge application. 6. Having considered the grounds as raised by learned counsel for petitioner and also the order passed by learned Trial Court, I am of the considered view that the Trial Court has not committed any error while framing the charge against the appellant-accused and there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /01-C