Omission To Frame Charges, Under Section 464 Cr.p.c , Not Fatal If In Opinion Of The Court No Failure Of Justice Has Occassioned- Says Supreme Court In The Case Of Soundarajan Vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul

What is the case about 

The present appeal is against the impugned order and judgement passed by the High Court of Tamil Nadu. 

The High Court in its judgement upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was punished with rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine.

As per the complaint filed by the complainant, a trap was laid on 13th August 2004 which caught appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe.

Twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

Contentions of the parties 

The learned counsel of the appellant submitted that there was material defect in framing charges and there was omission to frame charge regarding the alleged demand made by the appellant on 6th and 13th August 2004. This has caused serious prejudice to the appellant causing him not to defend himself properly. It was urged that the offence charged under Section 7 of the said act is not based on proof of demand.

The counsel of the respondent, on the other hand committed that in light of section 464 of Cr.P.C, no error or omission is made in framing charges and no prejudice if caused is shown by the appellant.

Observations made by the Court 

The court allowed the appeal and  set aside the impugned orders and judgement passed by the High Court in this case. The appellant was acquitted of the offence alleged against him.

Court observed that charges have been framed unstrictly in the given case. There is no doubt that in the given case  there is omission in framing charges but it has not lead to any prejudice to the accused. Thus, in the light of facts and circumstances of the given case, error causes in framing charges is not fatal.

Court also observed that there was no evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of the illegal bribe. Thus the alleged conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) is not established.