Trial Courts must be meticulous while framing charges says Supreme Court

While hearing the case “Soundarajan vs State Rep. The Inspector of Police Vigilance AntiCorruption Dindigul,” the Supreme Court stated that the Trial Courts must be meticulous when it comes to the framing of charges. The bench, Justice Rajesh Bindal, and Justice Abhay S. Oka also opined that “Apart from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an appropriate charge.” The bench further highlighted that “Under Section 464 of CrPC, omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.”

In this case, the appellant was holding the post of Sub-Registrar, and the complainant, had purchased land measuring 16.05 cents. The sale deed was presented before the appellant by the complainant and his vendors. According to the case made out by the complainant in his complaint, apart from getting the sale deed typed on a stamp paper, he paid a sum of Rs.190/ towards the registration charges of the sale deed. A receipt for the said amount was issued by the appellant. The complainant arranged for transport for the appellant to enable him to make a site visit. The appellant instructed the complainant to get a TOPO Sketch from the concerned office to show that the land subject matter of sale was cultivable. 
 

According to the complainant, at that time, the appellant demanded gratification of Rs.500/ for handing over the registered sale deed. A trap was laid, which was unsuccessful. Further, the trap was again laid which was successful, and in the presence of the shadow witness Michael (PW3), the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. Therefore, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000 by the trial Court which was further confirmed by the High Court. The appellant then approached the top Court against his conviction. 

The Supreme Court stated the Special Court omitted to frame a specific charge on demand allegedly made by the appellant on 6th and 13th August 2004 and acceptance thereof on 13th August 2004. In this case, from the perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 and other prosecution witnesses made by the Advocate for the appellant, it was apparent that the appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand. The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and the impugned judgments were quashed and set aside. Also, the appellant was acquitted of the offences alleged against him and the bail bonds of the appellant stand canceled.

Also Read: Supreme Court Updates