P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) In the instant revision petition, under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., petitioner has assailed order dated 2nd of March 2017 passed by Sessions Judge Special Court (Anti Corruption Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No.04/2015. By the order impugned, learned trial Court has framed charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B as well as Section 420 or 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that a case is registered against petitioner and some other incumbents, interalia, with the allegation that certain construction works carried out by Gram Panchayat 30 APD are tainted with corrupt practices, involving Sarpanch, Secretary, Junior Engineer, Vikas Adhikari concerned. As per the allegations in the FIR, while executing these construction works, all of them prepared forged bills & muster rolls and withdrawn amount without undertaking any construction work at the site. A specific allegation was made that requisite completion certificate was also not issued by the Gram Panchayat or Junior Engineer concerned and these omissions and commissions of the accused persons has resulted in loss of exchequer to the tune of Rs.3,24,222. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No. 23/2012 came to be registered at concerned police station. After completing investigation, chargesheet is filed before the learned trial Court against petitioner, he being Secretary of the Gram Panchayat 30 APD, and others. The learned trial Court took cognizance against petitioner and others and after hearing arguments on charge, by the order impugned, framed the aforesaid charges.
(3.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has seriously erred in framing charges in the matter. Mr. Beniwal, learned counsel, would contend that as a matter of fact involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged offences is not made out from the FIR and other evidence collected during investigation yet the learned trial Court has proceeded to frame charges for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel further submits that at the stage of framing charge, learned trial Court was expected to scrutinize the evidence meticulously which is not borne out from the impugned order, therefore, impugned order is per se vulnerable.;