Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 464—Omission to frame charge—Effect of—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—From the perusal of cross-examination of shadow witness and other prosecution witnesses made by the advocate for the appellant, it is apparent that the appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case about the first alleged demand and subsequent alleged demand and acceptance—There is no doubt that this is a case of omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se defective—However, by reason of the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned—Omission to frame charge and/or error in framing charge is not fatal to case of prosecution.
[Para 15]
Section 464—Omission to frame charge—Effect of—charge has been framed very casually—Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous when it comes to framing of charges—In a given case, any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be passed under subsection (2) of Section 464 of CrPC—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.
[Para 16]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2)—Illegal gratification—Proof of—For establishing commission of an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of demand of gratification and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non—Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of demand of gratification by accused and acceptance thereof—Complainant has not supported the case of prosecution—There are no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification—In the circumstances, the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) have not been established—Unless both demand and acceptance are established, offence of obtaining pecuniary advantage by corrupt means covered by clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) cannot be proved—Appeal acquitted.
[Para 12]