VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court) in Sessions Case No. 128/2015, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the Investigating Agency filed a negative final report in the matter on 01.08.2012, however, later on, the trial court had sent the matter for further investigation and thereafter the Investigating Agency has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988. It is contended that the explanation given by the petitioner regarding Rs. 1,00,000/- recovered from him on 08.06.2010 has been rejected by the Investigating Agency without there being any justifiable reason. It is contended that just after recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner, contractor Shankar Lal reached the police station and informed the Anti Corruption Authorities that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given by him to the petitioner and the said amount was for making payment to the daily labourers. It is contended that the contractor Shankar Lal, in his statement, during the course of investigation, has admitted that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was for the purpose of making payment to the labourers and he has given the said amount to the petitioner as he had left the office for some urgent work and he had asked the petitioner to keep the said amount with him and he would take back after some time. It is argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of contractor Shankar Lal but the trial court without appreciating the said piece of evidence have illegally ordered for framing charges against the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that there is no other evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court of framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(E), 13(2) of the Act of 1988 is liable to be set aside.;