Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. - (1.) This revision petition has arisen out of order dated 10.3.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Sessions Court Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Kota in Sessions Case no.13/2011, whereby learned Special Judge framed charges u/s 7, 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC against the petitioner.
(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no independent evidence available on record so as to frame any charge against the petitioner. Learned Trial Court has relied upon statements of co-accused, which cannot be read against the other accused. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the documents obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act from the competent police authorities and produced before learned Trial Court at the time of framing of charge, have not been considered by the learned Trial Court. In the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in 2005 Cr.L.R. 169 , relied upon by learned Trial Court, it has also been held that if any document of unimpeachable evidence is produced by the accused at the time of framing of charge, it should not be discarded.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that statements recorded by police under section 161 Cr.P.C. does not disclose any evidence so as to implicate the present petitioner. Demand of an illegal gratification is a sine-qua-none to constitute an offence under section 13 of the P.C. Act. In the instant matter, there is no evidence of making any such demand by the present petitioner. There is no evidence with regard to hatching of any conspiracy. No circumstances are being disclosed from the material which may inspire to believe the conspiracy.;