Order 24

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: In the Court of Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani: Special Judge (PC Act)
(ACB-02), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.
CNR No. DLCT11-000721-2023
CC No. 58/2023
State Vs. Surender Kumar & Ors.
FIR No. 01/2015
P.S. Vigilance
ORDER ON CHARGE
1. The prosecution has filed the present chargesheet against the
accused Surender Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Sharma under
section 7/13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging that
the accused persons, being public servants, demanded and accepted illegal
gratification as a motive or reward for doing an official duty.
Brief facts:
2. As per the chargesheet, the factual matrix of the case is that
that the case was registered on the complaint of Mr. Irshad Khan wherein
it is stated that he was working as the President of
Janta Ka Adhikar
Kalyan Samiti and also working as a cameraman in ‘
Jan Ujala’ daily
newspaper. It is also stated in the complaint that he received information
through secret sources that the PCR policemen Ashok, Constable Pankaj
Rana, Ajay Singh and other constables posted at Anand Vihar Bus Stand
were forcibly and illegally extorting money from the vehicles plying on
the road by getting the vehicles overloaded (due to which there is a
greater possibility of accidents and many times serious accidents have
also occurred in which innocent people have lost their lives). He also
stated that the said police officials collect bribe of Rs.300/- to 500/- per
month from the vehicles and threaten to stop and seize the vehicles if the
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 1
of 21
-- 1 of 21 --
money is not paid. Three shifts of PCR are deployed at this place in which
different policemen are deployed.
3. The complainant further alleged in his complaint that on
23.10.2014 and 09.11.2014, when he went to the said place as the
conductor of the vehicle (Maruti Ecco), the PCR vehicle bearing
registration number DL-1CP-8164 make Innova was deployed there in
different shifts and HC Ashok, Constable Pankaj Rana, Constable Ajay
Singh and other constables stopped his vehicle thrice at different times
and started demanding Rs.500/- in exchange for releasing the vehicle.
When the applicant said that he had all the documents of the vehicle
present and complete, the PCR policemen said that they are on duty and
all the vehicles passing through there are under their surveillance and pay
Rs. 300/- to Rs.500/ per month. They further stated to the complainant
that if he also wanted to drive on this route, then he must make an entry
every month, otherwise the vehicle would be seized and parked at the
police station and he would be arrested in any false case.
4. The complainant stated that he was forced to continue
making rounds of the courts, gave Rs.300/-, Rs.500/- and Rs. 500/- to
various police officers deployed in each of the three shifts. They also
provided their mobile numbers, 9868442188 and 8459148120, and
promised to put them on the phone if anyone stopped them. The
complainant stated that he observed that the aforementioned PCR officers
were behaving similarly with other motor vehicles, extorting money by
threatening to seize them illegally, and also causing accidents by
overloading vehicles. He also stated that he had recorded the said PCR
police officials accepting bribe of Rs.300/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs.500/- on his
video camera. He made the said video recording by posing as a conductor
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 2
of 21
-- 2 of 21 --
to expose the corruption of such corrupt policemen. The complainant
stated that he conducted this sting operation after informing the Vigilance
Center, a CD of which he submitted as evidence.
Investigation:
5. As per order and approval of the senior officers, a case u/s
7/13(1)(d) POC Act was registered and the investigation of the case was
handed over to Insp Rajbir Singh
6. During investigation, Insp. Rajbir played the video CD on
the computer in the presence of the complainant Irshad Khan, who
admitted that it was the same CD which was made by him on 23.10.2014
and 09.11.2014. A working copy of the same CD was made and the
statement of Irshad Khan was recorded in which he stated that his
associate Munna gave Rs.300/-, Rs. 500/- and Rs.500/- to the PCR
officials working in three shifts at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal for plying
their vehicle. He further stated that he will produce Munna and also said
that he also bring his spy- camera from which recording was conducted.
7. Later, the IO issued notice to Irshad Khan for producing the
original device by which he had made the sting video and on 07.07.15,
the complainant produced one memory card-8 GB having recording of the
same sting which was conducted by him on 23.10.2014 and 09.11.2014.
The said memory card was played on Laptop in which it was seen that
Munna was talking and giving money to a PCR official HC Ashok No.
660/PCR, Ct Pankaj No 3493/PCR, Ct Harender No. 9694/PCR, HC Ajay
No. 11705/PCR, HC. Subhash No. 4286/PCR, Ct. Surender No.
4257/PCR and Ct. Jaswant No. 7413/PCR. Transcription of the video was
also made in the presence of Irshad Khan. Memory card was seized and
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 3
of 21
-- 3 of 21 --
sealed with the seal of “RS” and deposited in the
malkhana.
8. During further investigation, Vigilance Branch received an
affidavit of Munna Ansari on 15.09.15 wherein he mentioned that from
some time, he has been receiving notices from Vigilance Branch. At
Vigilance Branch, one video CD was showed to him wherein a person
looking like him is seen while giving money to PCR officials but he has
nothing to do with the said CD. He never gave money to any police
official nor did he meet the police official, who is seen in the video CD.
When he was going to vigilance office someone gave an envelope having
a memory card to him and told him to give this at the vigilance office. He
is not concerned with this video nor he wants to give his voice sample.
9. During the course of further investigation, on 11.01.16,
exhibits memory card and video CD seized in the case were sent to FSL
for opinion with “queries” weather audio/video in both exhibits is in
continuation/original or tampered/edited and contents of both exhibits are
same or not.
10. During further investigation, the Chittha and duty Roaster of
PCR dated 23.10.2014 and 09.11.2014 were obtained as per which, the
alleged police officials were deployed on PCR Vehicle Baker 34 at Gagan
Cinema, Nand Nagri. The Chittha and duty Roaster of PCR dated
23.10.2014 and 09.11.2014 were obtained from the PCR office. As per
chittha, the alleged police officials were deployed on PCR Vehicle
Romeo 44 at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal.
11. On 07.11.16, after transfer of Insp. Rajbir Singh, case file
was handed over to Insp Deveshwari for further investigation. During
investigation, on 04.07.17, Insp. Satish Sharma joined the investigation.
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 4
of 21
-- 4 of 21 --
Video CD (working copy) was shown to him and he identified the PCR
officials in video taking money as HC Ashok No. 660/PCR; Ct Pankaj
No 3493/PCR, Ct Harender No. 9694/PCR, Hc Ajay No. 11705/PCR,
HC. Subhash No. 4286/PCR, Ct. Surender No. 4257/PCR, Ct. Jaswant
No. 7413/PCR Statement of Insp. Satish Sharma No.D-1/77 was
recorded.
12. FSL result was received on 21.08.17 (FSL.2016/P-239/PHY-
17/16/10444 dated 29/07/16) in which it has been opined that “There is no
indication of alteration in the video/audio shots in both exhibits and on
examination the contents of both the exhibits are similar.”
13. Thereafter, as per direction, alleged PCR officials joined the
investigation. They were shown the video CD. After seeing the video,
they admitted that they are in the video but they denied the allegations of
taking money from complainant. On 10.04.18, all the alleged PCR
officials refused to give their voice samples in front of MM. Sh. Dinesh
Kumar and they were apprised about the consequences of refusal.
14. On 23.07.18 notice was sent to Munna to join the
investigation to give his voice sample but he did not join. On 16.02.2018,
prosecution sanctions u/s 19 POC Act, to prosecute the accused HC
Ashok No. 660/PCR, Ct Pankaj No 3493/PCR, Ct Harender No.
9694/PCR, were sought from the competent authority.
15. There are three incidents of demanding and obtaining the
bribe on different dates and time. Therefore, the court ordered to file
three charge sheets as seven police officials were present separately on
three incidents. The three incidents occurred at the same spot where the
PCR Van was stationed but the offences committed were separate and
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 5
of 21
-- 5 of 21 --
distinct at separate times by different accused on the different dates. The
charge sheet was ordered to be returned to the investigating agency with
the direction to file three separate final reports qua the three incidents.
16. On the examination of the DVD/CD (audio/video recording)
produced by the complainant, it was found that HC Ashok Kumar (I/C),
Ct Surender Singh (Driver) and CT Pankaj (Gunman) were on duty at
PCR Van (R-44) from 8.00 PM on 17.11.2014 to 8.00 AM on 18.11.2014
at Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. Ct. Surender was standing outside the van
and received some Rupees from Munna. Ct. Pankaj and HC Ashok were
outside the van and talking with Munna but Munna who reportedly paid
the bribe money and is seen in the video recording did not cooperate in
investigation and sent an affidavit denying his presence in the CD or
payment of any bribe to any police official. The bribe money cash is not
identifiable and could not be recovered.
17. It is the case of the prosecution that there is sufficient
evidence to Charge sheet accused HC Ashok Kumar, Ct Surender Singh
(Driver) and Ct. Pankaj (Gunman) under section 7/13(i)(d) POC Act. On
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was prepared and filed in
the court for trial.
Case of the accused Ct. Surender:
18. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the case of the
prosecution is based on the sting operation footage and the same clearly
shows that the accused Ct. Surender has no role to play. He also argued
that his name is not there in the entire chargesheet and thus, he should be
discharged. Ld. Counsel for the accused Ct. Surender put forward
multifold arguments which shall be dealt with below one by one:
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 6
of 21
-- 6 of 21 --
a. Complainant is not a reliable witness:
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the complainant is
not a reliable witness and that his past conduct is not credible or reliable.
He submitted that on the other hand, accused Ct. Surender is a respected
police official with no past antecedents. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the
State argued that the past conduct of the complainant is immaterial to
determine whether charge shall be framed in the present case or not.
20. It is trite position of law that the past conduct of complainant
cannot be seen at the stage of charge/ discharge and it is the facts of the
case that have to be seen to determine if
prima facie case is made out so
as to frame the charges or not. Therefore, this argument of the accused is
dismissed.
b. Absence of allegations in the complaint and chargesheet:
21. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there is no allegation
of any demand or acceptance by accused Ct. Surender and nothing has
been recovered from him, thus, the main conditions of section 7 or 13 PC
Act are not met. He argued that the prosecution has not been able to
make out a
prima facie case against accused Ct. Surender and therefore,
he be discharged.
22. In contrast, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that
the accused Ct. Surender should be charged with the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
read with Section 34 IPC because the complaint made by the complainant,
Irshad Khan clearly spells out the role played by the accused and clarifies
the act of conspiracy in demanding and accepting bribe to carry out an
otherwise official duty. He also relied upon the FSL report as per which
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 7
of 21
-- 7 of 21 --
the video of the sting operation is unedited. Ld. PP for the State also
submitted that all the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other,
demanded and accepted the bribe money.
23. Clearly, as per the FSL report, the sting operation video has
been reported to be unedited. Further, the memory card containing the
sting operation was played in which, it has been categorically mentioned
in the chargsheet that Munna was seen giving money to many police
officials including Ct. Surender. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
chargesheet is silent about Ct. Surender.
c. Not posted at the crime spot on the alleged date
24. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as per the duty
roster, Ct. Surender was not posted on the crime spot, however, Ld. PP for
the State argued that the incident relates to 18.11.2014 and on the said
date, all the three accused persons were posted on the crime spot i.e.
Anand Vihar Bus Stand. He also argued that the Department ACP has
identified all the accused persons and the question of them not being
present at the spot does not arise.
25. Whether the accused was posted on the crime spot or not is a
matter of trial that can be proved only after leading of evidence. At
present, the chargesheet reveals that the accused was present on the crime
spot.
d. Prosecution sanction is not correct:
26. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as per the
chargesheet, prosecution sanction has been taken for HC Ashok, Ct.
Pankaj, and Ct. Harender and not Ct. Surender.
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 8
of 21
-- 8 of 21 --
27. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the State argued that there is a
typographical error in the chargesheet while prosecution sanction with
respect to Ct. Surender has, in fact, been taken.
28. Perusal of record reveals that in the main body of the charge-
sheet, it has been mentioned that prosecution sanction has been taken for
HC Ashok, Ct. Pankaj, and Ct. Harender. However, the same appears to
be an error as the prosecution sanction for Ct. Surender is already on
record. Therefore, this argument has no weight.
e. The main witness Munna is not supporting the prosecution case:
29. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the main witness
Munna has sent an affidavit to the IO stating that he is not the one in the
video and therefore, the main witness is not supporting the prosecution
case. He submitted that in the absence of any evidence against the
accused, he shall be discharged.
30. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the State argued that the
authenticity of the affidavit is doubtful and it is also not known if the said
affidavit was given under pressure or influence. He argued that the
affidavit cannot be relied upon at this stage.
31. It cannot be denied that the said affidavit given by Munna
cannot be termed as evidence. The authenticity of the affidavit and the
credence of the witness can only adjudged during trial. Thus, this court is
not inclined to rely upon the said affidavit at this stage.
Case of the accused HC Ashok Kumar:
32. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been
falsely implicated in the case and has no role to play. Ld. Counsel for the
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 9
of 21
-- 9 of 21 --
accused HC Ashok put forward multifold arguments which shall be dealt
with below one by one:
a. The FIR no. is wrong:
33. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the chargesheet
mentions the FIR no. as 1/16 while the same is 1/15 and thus, the case is
wrong. However, Ld. PP for the State argued that the same is a
typographical error.
34. Perusal of the chargesheet and the FIR reveal that both
pertain to the accused in the case at hand, therefore, mentioning of a
wrong FIR no. seems to be a typographical error and the accused cannot
be discharged for the same.
b. Complainant is not an authorized person:
35. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the Complainant is
not an auhtorised person as he was neither the driver nor the owner of the
Eeco vehicle. He also argued that the Complainant did not even have the
authority of PIB to conduct the sting operation and thus, the accused
should be discharged for this reason alone.
36. The complaint of the complainant is clear that the accused
persons had demanded bribe money from him and even accepted the
same. Thus, it cannot be said that he had no locus to file the complaint.
However, the capacity in which he was sitting in the Eeco car and who
was the owner of the said car are issued that can be decided upon trial.
c. Complainant is not a reliable witness:
37. This contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused has already
been decided above in the analysis with respect to the case of accused Ct.
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 10
of 21
-- 10 of 21 --
Surender and needs no separate discussion for this accused.
d. The allegations are vague:
38. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that allegations regarding
demand or acceptance by accused HC Ashok are vague in nature and are
not supported by any evidence. He also argued that nothing has been
recovered from the accused and thus, the main conditions of section 7 or
13 PC Act are not met. He also argued that the prosecution has not taken
the original spycam in possession and thus has failed to make out a
prima
facie case against accused HC Ashok and therefore, he be discharged.
39. In contrast, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that
the accused HC Ashok should be charged with the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
read with Section 34 IPC because the complaint made by the complainant,
Irshad Khan clearly spells out the role played by the accused and clarifies
the act of conspiracy in demanding and accepting bribe to carry out an
otherwise official duty. He also relied upon the FSL report as per which
the video of the sting operation is unedited. Ld. PP for the State also
submitted that the memory card is from the original spycam and the
complainant has filed an FIR showing that the spycam was smashed. He
submitted that all the accused persons, in conspiracy with each other,
demanded and accepted the bribe money.
40. Clearly, as per the FSL report, the sting operation video has
been reported to be unedited. Further, the memory card containing the
sting operation was played in which, it has been categorically mentioned
in the chargsheet that Munna was seen giving money to many police
officials including HC Ashok. The complaint of the complainant is
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 11
of 21
-- 11 of 21 --
categorical and the accused has been identified in the video by the
concerned ACP. Therefore, at this stage, the allegations cannot be said to
be vague.
e. Not posted at the crime spot on the alleged date
41. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as per the duty
roster, HC Ashok was not posted on the crime spot, however, Ld. PP for
the State argued that the incident relates to 18.11.2014 and on the said
date, all the three accused persons were posted on the crime spot i.e.
Anand Vihar Bus Stand. He also argued that the Department ACP has
identified all the accused persons and the question of them not being
present at the spot does not arise.
42. Whether the accused was posted on the crime spot or not is a
matter of trial that can be proved only after leading of evidence. At
present, the chargesheet reveals that the accused was present on the crime
spot.
f. Prosecution sanction is not correct:
43. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the original sypcam
was not sent to the sanctioning authority and thus, the prosecution
sanction is not correct.
44. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the State argued that the
original spycam was smashed and there is an FIR in that regard, thus, the
sanction cannot be said to be bad in law.
45. Since, the spycam was smashed, the same could not have
been sent to the sanctioning authority. Bare perusal of the sanction order
does not reveal any glaring defect. Whether the sanctioning authority
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 12
of 21
-- 12 of 21 --
applied its mind properly or not and whether the sanction ordedr is proper
or not is a matter of trial. Therefore, this argument has no weight.
g. The main witness Munna is not supporting the prosecution case:
46. This issue has already been decided above in the discussion
regarding case of accused Ct. Surender.
Case of the accused Ct. Pankaj Sharma:
47. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the accused has been
falsely implicated in the case and has no role to play. Ld. Counsel for the
accused Ct. Pankaj put forward multifold arguments which shall be dealt
with below one by one:
a. Complainant is not a reliable witness:
48. This contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused has already
been decided above in the analysis with respect to the case of accused Ct.
Surender and needs no separate discussion for this accused.
b. The name of the accused is wrongly mentioned:
49. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the name of the
accused is Ct. Pankaj Sharma while it has been mentioned as Ct. Pankaj
Rana in the chargesheet and thus, a wrong person has been implicated.
50. Perusal of the chargesheet reveals that in column no. 11, the
name of the accused has been mentioned as Pankaj Kumar Sharma only,
therefore, this argument is dismissed. Also, as per the FSL report, the
sting operation video has been reported to be unedited and when the
memory card containing the sting operation was played, it has been
categorically mentioned in the chargsheet that Munna was seen giving
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 13
of 21
-- 13 of 21 --
money to many police officials including Ct. Pankaj. The complaint of the
complainant is categorical and the accused has been identified in the
video by the concerned ACP. Therefore, at this stage, the allegations
cannot be said to be vague.
c. Not posted at the crime spot on the alleged date
51. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that as per the duty
roster, Ct. Pankaj was not posted on the crime spot, however, Ld. PP for
the State argued that the incident relates to 18.11.2014 and on the said
date, all the three accused persons were posted on the crime spot i.e. PS
Anand Vihar. He also argued that the Department ACP has identified all
the accused persons and the question of them not being present at the spot
does not arise.
52. Whether the accused was posted on the crime spot or not is a
matter of trial that can be proved only after leading of evidence. At
present, the chargesheet reveals that the accused was present on the crime
spot.
d. The main witness Munna is not supporting the prosecution case:
53. This issue has already been decided above in the discussion
regarding case of accused Ct. Surender.
Examination and Analysis:
a. Law Regarding Framing of Charge
54. The law regarding framing of charge was elaborated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy v.
CBI (2020) 2 SCC 768, wherein it was observed as follows:
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 14
of 21
-- 14 of 21 --
“Legal principles applicable in regard to an
application seeking discharge:
17.This is an area covered by a large body of case
law. We refer to a recent judgment which has
referred to the earlier decisions viz. P. Vijayan v
State of Kerala [P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala,
(2010) 2 SCC 398: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1488] and
discern the following principles:
17.1. If two views are possible and one of them
gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from
grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be
empowered to discharge the accused.
17.2. The trial Judge is not a mere post office to
frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
17.3. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in
order to find out whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of
the statements recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the Court.
17.4. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor
proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the
accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the
defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the
accused committed offence, then, there will be no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
17.5. It is open to the accused to explain away the
materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
17.6. The court has to consider the broad
probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the court, any basic
infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This,
however, would not entitle the court to make a
roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
17.7. At the time of framing of the charges, the
probative value of the material on record cannot be
gone into, and the material brought on record by the
prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
17.8. There must exist some materials for
entertaining the strong suspicion which can form
the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to
discharge the accused.
18. The defence of the accused is not to be looked
into at the stage when the accused seeks to be
discharged under Section 227 CrPC (see State of
J&K v. Sudershan Chakkar[State of J&K
v.Sudershan Chakkar, (1995) 4 SCC 181: 1995
SCC (Cri) 664: AIR 1995 SC 1954]). The
expression, “the record of the case”, used in Section
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 15
of 21
-- 15 of 21 --
227 CrPC, is to be understood as the documents
and the articles, if any, produced by the
prosecution. The Code does not give any right to
the accused to produce any document at the stage of
framing of the charge. At the stage of framing of
the charge, the submission of the accused is to be
confined to the material produced by the police (see
State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [State of
Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568:
2005 SCC (Cri) 415: AIR 2005 SC 359]).”
55. It was further observed in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy
(
Supra) that:
“28. It is here that again it becomes necessary that
we remind ourselves of the contours of the
jurisdiction under Section 227 CrPC. The principle
established is to take the materials produced by the
prosecution, both in the form of oral statements and
also documentary material, and act upon it without
it been subjected to questioning through cross-
examination and everything assumed in favour of
the prosecution, if a scenario emerges where no
offence, as alleged, is made out against the accused,
it, undoubtedly, would enure to the benefit of the
accused warranting the trial court to discharge the
accused.”
56. Further, in the case of Akbar Hussain v. State of J&K
(2018) 16 SCC 85, it was held as follows:
“
5...At the time of framing the charge, the trial
court has to consider the material before it by the
investigating officer and form a prima facie opinion
thereupon as to whether it is a fit case for framing
of charge under a particular provision. The standard
of proof test, which is to be applied at the final
stage, in order to find out as to whether the accused
is guilty or not on the basis of actual evidence
produced is not to be applied at the stage of framing
of the charge. Charge can be framed even when
there is a strong suspicion founded upon materials
before the Court, which leads the court to form a
presumptive opinion as to existence of the factual
ingredient constituting the offence alleged.”
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 16
of 21
-- 16 of 21 --
57. Furthermore, in the case of Mauvin Godinho v. State of Goa
(2018) 3 SCC 358, it was held as follows:
“
12. At the outset it would be pertinent to note the
law concerning the framing of charges and the
standard which courts must apply while framing
charges. It is well settled that a court while framing
charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should apply the prima facie standard.
Although the application of this standard depends
on facts and circumstance in each case, a prima
facie case against the accused is said to be made out
when the probative value of the evidence on all the
essential elements in the charge taken as a whole is
such that it is sufficient to induce the court to
believe in the existence of the facts pertaining to
such essential elements or to consider its existence
so probable that a prudent man ought to act upon
the supposition that those facts existed or did
happen. However, at this stage, there cannot be a
roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a
trial.”
b. Law regarding discharge if two views are possible:
58. In the matter of "P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.,"
(2010) 2 SCC 398, the Supreme Court took note of the Judgment in
Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra) and after quoting
Section 227 Cr. P. C observed as under.
"10. Before considering the merits of the claim
of both the parties, it is useful to refer to Section
227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which reads as under:
"227. Discharge. - If, upon consideration of the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 17
of 21
-- 17 of 21 --
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.”
If two views are possible and one of them gives rise
to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave
suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to
discharge the accused and at this stage he is not to
see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal. Further, the words "not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused” clearly show
that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the
charge at the behest of the prosecution, but has to
exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in
order to determine whether a case for trial has been
made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact,
it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros
and cons of the matter or into a weighing and
balancing of evidence and probabilities which is
really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has
merely to sift the evidence in order to find out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. In other words, the
sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the
nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the
documents produced before the court which ex
facie disclose that there are suspicious
circumstances against the accused so as to frame a
charge against him.”
59. In Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2
SCC 135, the Supreme Court after relying on Union of India Vs. Prafulla
Kumar Samal (supra) observed as under:
“12. Now the next question is whether a prima facie
case has been made out against the appellant. In
exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is
that the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under the said section has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 18
of 21
-- 18 of 21 --
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a
prima facie case against the accused has been made
out; where the materials placed before the court
disclose grave suspicion against the accused which
has not been properly explained the court will be
fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding
with the trial; by and large if two views are equally
possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some
suspicion but not grave suspicion against the
accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the
accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section
227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge
cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of
the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
court but should not make a roving enquiry into the
pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial.”
60. In the matter of "State of M. P. Vs S. B. Johari & Ors.",
(2000) 2 SCC 57, the Supreme Court has held that:
“
charge can be quashed if the evidence which the
prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of
the accused, even if fully accepted before it is
challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by
defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the
accused committed the particular offence and in
such case, there would be no sufficient ground for
proceeding with the trial.”
61. The Apex Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel Vs. State
of Gujarat & Anr., (2019) 16 SCC 547 opined as follows:
"At the stage of framing the charge in accordance with the
principles which have been laid down by the Court, what the
court is expected to do is, it does not act as a mere post office.
The Court must indeed sift the material before it. The material
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 19
of 21
-- 19 of 21 --
to be sifted would be the material which is produced and
relied upon the prosecution. The sifting is not to be
meticulous in the sense the court dons the mantle of the trial
judge hearing arguments after the entire evidence has been
adduced after a full-fledged trial and the question is not
whether the prosecution has made out the case for the
conviction of the accused. All that is required is, the court
must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is
made out for the accused to stand trial. A strong suspicion
suffices."
c. Conclusion:
62. Even though it is trite law that if two views are possible and
the court is satisfied that the evidence gives rise to some suspicion but
not grave suspicion against the accused, it will be fully justified to
discharge the accused, however, it is also settled law that at the stage of
framing of charge, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous
appreciation of evidence. It is sufficient if a
prima facie case is made out
showing grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence.
63. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons Ct.
Surender, HC Ashok and Ct. Pankaj Sharma, in furtherance of their
common intention, demanded and accepted money from the complainant
as illegal gratification. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have
presented multifold arguments which have already been discussed above.
Considering the above arguments as well as the entire record including
the complaints as well as the FSL reports, this court is of the view that
there are no two views possible in this case at this stage and there exists a
prima facie case that the accused Ct. Surender, HC Ashok and Ct. Pankaj
Sharma, being government servants, in furtherance of their common
intention, demanded and accepted bribe from Munna Ansari, associate of
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 20
of 21
-- 20 of 21 --
the Complainant Irshad Khan and thus,
prima facie there is sufficient
material to frame charge against the accused persons Ct. Surender, HC
Ashok and Ct. Pankaj Sharma u/s 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of PC Act read with
Section 34 IPC.
Charge be framed accordingly.
Announced in the open court today
on this 18th day of October, 2025.
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
Special Judge (PC ACT)/(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue Courts/New Delhi.
CC No. 58/2023 in FIR No. 01/15 State Vs. Surender Kumar and Ors. Page 21
of 21
-- 21 of 21 --