STATE OF RAJASTHANversusFATEHKARAN MEHDU

                          [20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 49 I


                      STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                   A
                                    v.
                      FATEHKARAN MEI-IOU
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 2 I 6 of 20 17)
                         FEBRUARY 03, 2017                                 B

        [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      c
 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       D
  person to carry on illegal mining by which he obtained illegal
  benefits to the detriment of the State - Special Judge found a clear
 case offraming 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
                                                                           E
  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         F
  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                                     G
       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
                                                                           H
                                  491
492            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A     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)
B
            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
c     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
D
      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
E     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
 F    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
G     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.
H     [Para 26) [504-B-D)
        STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                                 493



        .5. Section 397 Cr. P.C. vests the cburt with the power to             A
• 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
                                                                                B
  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.
                           Case Law Reference                                   c
  f2Q121 7 SCR 988                  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
                                                                                D
  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,              E
  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.
                                                                                F
        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       G
  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) &
                                                                                H
494            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A     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/
B     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
c     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
D     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
E     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
 F    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
G     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
H
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                                    495
                   [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was also granted quarry licence on gap-land in Block No. 263A and               A
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           B
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.
                                                                                 c
      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.                                                                             D

        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              E
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           F
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                  G
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
                                                                                 H
496             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             (2017] 2 S.C.R.



A     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).
B
              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
c     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
D     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
E     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
F            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 Fatehkaran
             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
G            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
H     stated:
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                             497
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

     "By investigation it was also found that illegal mining was A
     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
                                                                     B
     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 ofLimbu Bheel Rio Suradiya Tehsil Beawar in khata which c
     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,
                                                                     D
     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 E
     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.
                                                                     F
      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 G
     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
                                                                         H
498            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A     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.
B           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
c           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
D           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. "
E            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
F           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
G
            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
H
      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              B
      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                   c
      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. "
                                                                             D
        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            E
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 F
      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 G
      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,
                                                                             H
500            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 2 S.C.R.



A           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
B
            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
c           having misused his post and powers. It is universal principle
            of law that court is supposed to see at the stage offraming 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. "
D
             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.
E
              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.
 F    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:
G           "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
H
     STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                                501
                  [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

     thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any A
     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
                                                                      B
     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 c
      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
                                                                      D
      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 E
      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. "                    F
       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:                         G

      (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
      misconduct,-


                                                                            H
502            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 2 S.C.R.


A           (d) if he,-
                 {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
B                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
c
                 (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
D
                 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,
E
      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
F     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
G
      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
H
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                                  503
                   [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      subject, as per the record available in the office no licence of        A
      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
                                                                              B
      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                  c
      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    D
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.                                               E

       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               F
       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. "
                                                                               G
       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
                                                                               H
504             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           (2017) 2 S.C.R.


A     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, J988 and Section
      120B I.P.C.
B            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
c     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G            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
H
      STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FATEHKARAN MEHDU                                    sos
                   [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.)

      consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. If                 A
      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          B
      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               c
      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                   D
      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. "
                                                                                 E
      29. The Court in para 27 has recorded its conclusion and laid
down principles to be considered for exercise ofjurisdiction 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                F
      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             G
      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_ ofjurisdiction under Section 397 or Section
      482 of the Code or together, as the case may be:                          H
506           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         (2017) 2 S.C.R.



A          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
B
           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
c          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
D           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
E           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
 F          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
G
            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
H
       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