1 Judgment reserved on: 24.06.2025 Judgment delivered on: 16.07.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.247 of 2025 Krishna Singh Kanyal --Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present criminal revision, revisionist is seeking quashing of final order dated 01.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Kumaun Mandal, Nainital District Nainital, by which, charges under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “The Act, 1988”) has been framed against the revisionist in S.T. No.21 of 2025 and is also praying to stay the further proceeding of the said trial. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the revisionist is working as an Executive Engineer in minor irrigation department and an FIR No.0010 of 2024 was registered against him under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 alleging therein that he demanded illegal gratification for payment of an amount which has been already paid to the complainant. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 vide order dated 01.02.2025 which has been assailed in the present revision. 2 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the learned Special Judge has erred in law in framing the said charge as for a charge under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, there should evidence available on record against the revisionist both for demand and receipt of illegal gratification by public servant. He also submits that bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the documents relied upon by the prosecution, it is very clear that apart from ocular evidence there is no evidence on record which connects the revisionist with the alleged crime. 4. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned trial court has committed a grave irregularity by framing charges against the revisionist/accused without supplying him copies of document relied upon by the prosecution which is mandated by legislation under Section 207 Cr.P.C. He further submits that non-compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. renders the framing of charge void. He relied upon multiple judgments passed by the Apex Court specifying the mandatory nature of Section 207 Cr.P.C. He also submits that revisionist made oral application before the learned trial court to discharge the accused/revisionist as no material showing his complicity in the crime is available on record and also that he has not been supplied with copies of document and voice recording relied upon by the prosecution. 5. As the revision is at the stage of admission, this Court inquired upon the irregularity, illegality committed by the learned court below in the impugned order. To which the learned counsel for the revisionist replied that the charges have been framed without any evidence available on record and without complying 3 with Section 207 Cr.P.C. This Court even at the risk of repetition, is willing to enunciate that it is a settled principle of law that ambit of High Court while exercising its power under revision is only to the extent of interfering in the order if the High Court is not satisfied as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist and on perusal of material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned court below has committed no irregularity or illegality in framing the charges against the revisionist/accused. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the revisionist regarding no evidence available on record does not hold any ground and is merely a bald statement as from the bare perusal of the impugned order, it is quite clear that the charges were framed against the revisionist/accused only when learned court below was satisfied from the material available on record that a prima facie case against the accused/revisionist is made out. 8. The argument that Section 207 Cr.P.C. was not complied with also fails because the bare perusal of the impugned order is sufficient to show that the copies of the document relied upon by the prosecution was supplied to the revisionist/accused and also the transcript of voice recording was supplied to the revisionist/accused. 9. This Court has no hesitation in saying that insistence of supplying the voice recording in pen drive and filing of this criminal revision, revision is nothing but a technique to deliberately delay the pending criminal proceeding. 4 10. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is hereby dismissed. 11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.07.2025 AK