Ramesh Tomar S/O Late Shri Charan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:22902)

Ramesh Tomar S/o Late Shri Charan Singh, Resident Of 4-Ta-22, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1397/2024 Padam Data S/o Shri Ram Vilas Data, R/o Ramjikripa, Kherthal Ward No.7, Kherthal, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta Mr. Aditya Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

19/05/2025

1. These two revision petitions were preferred by petitioners

accused- Ramesh Tomar and Padam Data aggrieved from order to

frame charge dated 03.08.2024 in sessions case no. 12/2017

arising out of FIR no. 501/2013 by learned Special Sessions

Judge, PC Act cases, Alwar.

2. On earlier occasion, these two petitioner(s) had filed S.B.

Criminal Revision Petition nos. 2263/2018 and 147/2019 against

order to frame charge dated 11.10.2018 in same sessions case by

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (2 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

same Court. Both the revision petitions were partially allowed by

this Court by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.05.2024 and

after setting aside order dated 11.10.2018 and matter was

remitted back to the trial court with direction to pass appropriate

reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Ramesh

Tomar was not holding the post of Environment Engineer at the

time of alleged incident, holding the post of Regional Officer in the

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) and he just acted

as per report received by him. Even otherwise also, the

ingredients of the alleged offence under Section 13 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out looking to the

evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, against the

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge under

Section 120-B of IPC was framed against the petitioners but there

is no evidence to show involvement and element of conspiracy

against petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioners were not

involved in preparing any document and they were bound by the

report of the revenue authority submitted in due course. He

further submitted that the petitioner has acted on the basis of the

order dated 26.05.2009 passed by Nagar Palika, Tijara under

Section 90-B of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and the petitioner

was under an obligation to exercise authority in accordance with

rules. He also submitted that the ACB has not only tried for

procuring prosecution sanction but after failing in obtaining

prosecution sanction a charge-sheet was filed after

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (3 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

superannuation of petitioner accused Ramesh Tomar. He also

submitted that the charges were framed without any ground and

when a specific role and involvement is not proved from the

material available on record, a charge cannot be framed to face

trial.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners accused Padam

Data while relying upon judgment in case of Union of India Vs.

Praful Kumar Samal and Anr. (1979) 3 SCC 4, Praveen @

Sonu Vs. State of Haryana 2021 SCC Online SC 1184,

Rukmani Narvekar Vs. Vijay 2008 14 SCC 1, Pavana Dibbur

Vs. The Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC

1586 has submitted that this petitioner was charged for alleged

conspiracy in committing the crime with other persons. He further

submitted that the petitioner is a minority shareholder in joint

venture for establishment of a stone crusher, so he is not

responsible for day to day operation of crusher. He further

submitted that as per facts of the case a joint venture was formed

for setting up of a stone crusher in the area where two stone

crushers were already existing and the relevant permissions were

procured in accordance with rule and procedure. He further

submitted that there is no evidence on record to show any overt

act or involvement of present petitioner. He also referred the role

of petitioner and submitted that he is a private person and all

other persons including other partners of joint venture and the

department including environment engineer Mr. Rajesh Kumar

Thakuriya. He also submitted that in order to frame a charge, it is

necessary that their exists basic element of criminal conspiracy

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (4 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

with evidence of active involvement of present petitioner. He also

placed reliance upon judgment in case of Lalu Nahar Vs. State

of UP and Anr. 2006 SCC Online All 245.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned public

Prosecutor and submitted that a detailed and reasoned order was

passed by the trial court after considering the grounds and

material.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record and also considered written submission

of petitioner accused Padam Data and the judgments as referred

by learned counsel for petitioner Padam Data.

8. The brief facts of the case clearly indicate that on a

complaint alleging that stone crusher of "Neeraj Shailja" joint

venture was functioning within a radius of 600 meters from Abadi

area of village Hasanpur_ Mafi, Tijara (Alwar) whereas guidelines

and norms of Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB)

provides that the distance between stone crusher and Abadi area

of village must be minimum 1.5 kms. On procuring a status report

from Tehsildar, it has come to notice that Patwari Kailash

Choudhary has certified that the distance between stone crusher

and village abadi is 1600 meter and on the basis of this report,

application of stone crusher was forwarded to RSPCB. Thereafter,

consent to establish and operate dated 03.08.2009 and

28.01.2010 were granted to joint venture. An explanation was

sought by ACB from Regional Officer of RSPCB on various points.

After an enquiry, the ACB has found misuse of official position to

help private individuals to establish and operate stone crusher, so

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (5 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

filed a charge-sheet. Initially, charges were framed on 11.10.2018

but same were set aside on 23.05.2024 and matter was remitted

back to the trial court.

9. On dated 03.08.2024 the trial court has not only discussed

the role and involvement of each of the petitioner Ramesh and

Padam but also considered various grounds raised by the counsel

for the petitioners and thereafter directed to frame a charge

against the both the petitioners.

10. To our surprise, learned counsel has placed reliance upon

judgment in case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of

Maharashtra 2002 2 SCC 135 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI,

2010 9 SCC 368 whereas it is a settled position under the law

that at the stage of framing the charge neither defence can be

looked nor documents relating to defence can be considered by

the trial court to discharge of any accused. The trial court has

referred judgment in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra

Nath Padhi 2005 1 SCC 568, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court

has laid down broad contours on point to consider the documents

at the stage of framing the charge.

11. The principles of law at the stage of charge were considered

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh

Singh : (1977) 4 SCC 39 and Union of India Vs. Prafulla

Kumar Samal & Anr. :(1979) 3 SCC 4 and were referred and

relied in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. : (2010)

2 SCC 398. It was held that at the initial stage, if there is a

strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is

ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (6 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient

ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of

the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is

not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in

France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the

contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima

facie case whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not.

The test to determine a prima facie case would depend upon the

facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal

application.

12. Again in case of State By Karnataka Lokayukta Police

Station, Bengaluru Vs. M. R. Hiremath : (2019) 7 SCC 515,

Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering several judgments on

the issue in a matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, has held that the trial court while dealing with an

application for discharge at the stage of framing of charge must

proceed on the assumption that the material which has been

brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the

material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from

the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the

ingredients necessary to constitute an offence. At this stage,

probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court

is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the

materials would not warrant a conviction.

13. A similar opinion was also expressed in case of State of

Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap : (2021) 11 SCC 191

and relied upon in case of Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) (Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:22902] (7 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

vs. Hussain Mohammed Shattaf (2023 INSC 555), wherein it

was held that at the stage of framing of charge and/or considering

discharge application, a mini trial is not permissible. A defence on

merits is not to be considered at the stage of framing of charge

and / or at the stage of discharge application."

14. Having considered the material on record it is apparent that

initially charge was framed on 11.10.2018 but after filing revision

petitions, both these petitioners had dragged the trial and

ultimately, this court has to withdraw the interim order on

17.10.2023 in said revision petitions and the revision petitions

were decided on 23.05.2024. Again, when a reasoned order was

passed by the trial court on 03.08.2024 and two revision petitions

were filed by same petitioners.

15. A perusal of material available on record clearly indicate that

the petitioner Ramesh Tomar has already superannuated and as

per legal position the provision of prosecution sanction is not

applicable to prosecute him in the instant case. Even if there is a

ground then same can be raised at the stage of trial before the

trial court.

16. Another petitioner Padam Data has submitted that he is

having only 10% stake in the stone crusher firm but again same is

a defence and it can be considered during trial and not at the

stage of charge. The ACB has mentioned that Padam Data is

having 20% partnership in stone crusher firm and he was

authorized to perform all acts from establishment till operation.

The ACB after considering the role and involvement of both

petitioners has filed a charge-sheet.

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:22902] (8 of 8) [CRLR-1645/2024]

17. The legal position as referred hereinabove clearly indicate

that at the stage of charge a roving enquiry is not permissible,

therefore, the judgments as referred by learned counsel are not

helpful to support the arguments of petitioner accused.

18. The trial court has not committed any error while framing

charge on the basis of material forwarded to it by the ACB,

therefore, both the revision petitions sans merit and are liable to

be dismissed.

19. Hence, the revision petitions nos. 1645/2024 and 1397/2024

are hereby dismissed.

20. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

CHETNA BEHRANI /131-132

(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:12:43 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)