Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.04.02, rendered by the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, vide which, it discharged Bachan Singh, accused (now respondent), holding that no prima-facie case was made out, for framing the charge.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Harbinder Singh, complainant, was working as Forest Guard. He was Incharge of Oind beat, having Kharar range. On 18.05.01, some people of his department, told him, that a person had come under the railway train, near Railway Station, Ropar, as a result whereof, he had died. On account of this reason, a case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against Harbinder Singh, in the Government Railway Police Post, Ropar. When Harbinder Singh, came to know about the registration of the aforesaid case, against him, he applied for anticipatory bail, in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ropar. His arrest was stayed till 08.06.01, which was extended upto 09.06.01. On 09.06.01, he alongwith his brother Gurjinder Singh, came to the Court. Harbinder Singh, was standing outside the Court. After sometime, his brother Gurjinder Singh, came to him, and told that Bachan Singh, Incharge, Police Post Ropar, where the case, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against him (Harbinder Singh), met him and demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, on the assurance, that he would get him released on bail. He further told Harbinder Singh, that said Bachan Singh, had advised him to bring the amount to Railway Station, Ropar. Accordingly, Harbinder Singh, and his brother Gurjinder Singh, went to Railway Station Ropar, where Bachan Singh, was already present. In the presence of the complainant, Bachan Singh, received a sum of Rs. 14,500/-, from his brother, and assured that he would get him (Harbinder Singh) released on bail, in the aforesaid case. It was further stated that this amount was brought by Harbinder Singh, and his brother, from their uncle, Madan Singh. It was further stated that they paid this amount to Bachan Singh, Incharge, Police Post Ropar, because he was harassing his (Harbinder Singh's) family. On the application, moved by Harbinder Singh, on 19.07.01, case under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against Bachan Singh, accused. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested. After the completion of investigation, he was challaned.
3. On his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution.
4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, came to the conclusion, that no prima-facie case, was made out, against the accused, and accordingly, it discharged him and did not frame the charge.
5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, was filed by the State of Pun-jab/Revision-petitioner.
6. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the record of the case, carefully.
7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, at the time of consideration, as to whether, charge was to be framed, or not, the Court is not required to go deep into the merits of the case. She further submitted that, at that stage, the Court is only required to look into the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the other documents attached therewith, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, a prima-facie case was made out, or not. She further submitted that the trial Court, was wrong in discharging the accused, by taking into consideration the merits of the case, and the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, which was not a part and parcel of the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She further submitted that the order impugned, is liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the trial Court was right, in coming to the conclusion, that no prima-facie case was made out, against the accused, as the application, was moved by the complainant on 19.07.01, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered, though the amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration was paid by the complainant to the accused on 09.06.01. He further submitted that even the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 19.07.01, i.e. after much delay. He further submitted that no recovery of the amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration, was effected from the accused. He further submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Government Railway Police, exonerating the accused, was rightly taken into consideration, by the trial Court, for coming to the conclusion, that no prima-facie case for the commission of offences, punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was made out.
9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, carry substance, and deserve to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. It is settled principle of law, that at the time of considering the question, as to whether, charge is to be framed, or not, in a criminal case, instituted on Police report, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the case. At that time, the Court is only required to sift the material i.e. report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the documents enclosed thereof, as also the statements of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the course of investigation, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, a prima-facie case for framing the charge was made out, or not. From the contents of the application dated 19.07.01, moved by Harbinder Singh, complainant, on the basis whereof, the first information report, was registered, it was prima-facie established that a case, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered, against him and Bachan Singh, accused (now respondent) was the Incharge of the Police Post. Bachan Singh got registered the case under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Government Railway Police, Sirhind. Thereafter, Harbinder Singh, had applied for anticipatory bail, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar. On one of the hearings, in that application, when Harbinder Singh, was present alongwith his brother, the accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-, as gratification, other than legal remuneration, and accepted a sum of Rs. 14,500/-, on the assurance, that he would get him (Harbinder Singh) released on bail. The alleged amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded and accepted by Bachan Singh, accused (now respondent), as a motive or reward. Even this fact, is very much evident, from the statement of Gur-jinder Singh brother of Harbinder Singh, a witness, through whom the amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded. It is further evident, from the record, that even sanction for launching prosecution, against the accused (now respondent), was granted by the competent authority. The enquiry report, vide which the accused (now respondent) was exonerated, later on, by the Deputy Superintendent of Government Railway Police, could not be legally acted upon, at the stage of consideration of framing of charge. Any document produced by the accused, at the time of consideration of charge, and not relied upon by the prosecution, is not to be looked into, by the Court concerned. What is the effect of delay, in lodging the report, as also of recording the statements of the witnesses, after delay, is required to be seen, by the trial Court, at the time of final decision of the case. Since, it was not a trap case, the question of recovery of tainted currency notes, from the accused, did not at all arise. The perusal of the impugned order, shows that the trial Court, took into consideration, the material, which was only required to be taken into consideration, during the course of trial, or at the time of final decision of the case. Adoption of such a course, by the trial Court, was not permissible. The impugned order, therefore, on the face of it, appears to be illegal and is liable to be set-aside.
10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition is accepted and the order dated 16.04.02, rendered by the trial Court, is set aside. The record is ordered to be sent back to the Court of Special Judge (District & Sessions Judge), Rupnagar, for proceeding further, in accordance with the provisions of law.
11. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, on 22.04.2009, at 10.00 AM.
12. The Registry is directed to send the records alongwith certified copy of the order immediately so as to reach there well before 22.04.2009.