Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The said order is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
1. By way of filing the instant revision petition, the petitioner calls in question the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Udaipur, in Special Sessions Case No. 46/2025 (State v.

Ganpatlal Sharma & Anr.), arising out of FIR No. 157/2024, CPS ACB Jaipur, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 07 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, despite gross violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 230, 249, 250(1) and 250(2) of the BNSS, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice and infringement of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the impugned order illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

2. The brief facts of the present are that the petitioner is Accused No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "A-1") in the Sessions Case titled State v. Ganpat Lal Sharma & Anr., arising out of FIR No. 157/2024 registered at Central Police Station (CPS), Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB). Upon completion of investigation, Charge-sheet No. 221/2025 was filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended up to 2018) and Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The present Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06.11.2025, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner in blatant violation of Sections 230, 249, 250(1), 250(2) and 252(1) of (Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:22:09 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15289] (5 of 13) [CRLR-454/2018] the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The charge-sheet was submitted on 21.08.2025 before the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, No. 1, Udaipur, by Respondent No. 2, the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Special Unit, Udaipur.

5. That the present S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is confined to assailing the order dated 06.11.2025, whereby the decision to frame charges and the consequent framing of charges against the petitioner were undertaken, despite non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards contained in Sections 230, 249, 250(1), 250(2) and 252(1) of the BNSS, thereby resulting in grave prejudice to the petitioner and causing violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

11.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that where a statute prescribes a particular procedure, it must be followed in that manner or not at all. Procedural compliance is not a matter of convenience but of jurisdiction. C. Non-Compliance with Section 230 BNSS - Supply of Documents

12.Section 230 of the BNSS mandates that in cases instituted on a police report, the Court shall, without delay, and in no case beyond fourteen days, furnish to the accused copies of all documents forwarded with the police report under Section 193(6) BNSS.