Uttarakhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Rana vs State Of Uttarakhand on 27 March, 2026
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2026:UHC:2170
Judgment reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar Rana. .......Revisionist.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and another. .......Respondents.
and
Criminal Revision No. 914 of 2025
Basant Kumar Joshi. .......Revisionist.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. S.S. Mehra and Mr. P.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the revisionist.
Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State
/ respondents.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Both the revisions have been preferred by the revisionists
Dinesh Kumar Rana and Basant Kumar Joshi challenging the
order passed by the Special Judge, P.C. Act, Haldwani, in
Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2025 (State Vs. Dinesh Singh
Ra1na and another) whereby charges have been framed against
both the revisionists to face the trial for the offence punishable
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
arising out of first information report dated 09.05.2025 bearing
1
2026:UHC:2170
FIR No. 4 of 2025, Police Station – Vigilance Sector, Nainital,
Haldwani.
2. Mr. U. K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate for the revisionists
argued that impugned order of framing charges suffered from
gross illegality impropriety, since the trial court has failed to
consider that no case is made out against the revisionists under
Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He argued that in order to bring the
case within the ambit of Section 7 of the P.C. Act, it is essential
that prosecution ought to have proved that revisionist either
“accepts” or “attempts” or “obtain undue advantage” from the
complainant in performing his duty or “reward” offer is made
by the complainant. He submits that for constituting the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, there should be
demand by public servant beyond reasonable doubt which
needs to be proved by the prosecution and only in that
eventuality, a presumption can be drawn for obtaining illegal
gratification. He submits that the main genesis for implicating
the revisionists in the criminal case was that the revisionist
Dinesh Kumar Rana Chief Treasury Officer has not signed the
file relating to grant of benefit of ACP, though revisionist being
the Chief Treasury Officer, has performed his duties diligently
and as a matter of fact, complainant filed the complaint due to
his personal grudge targeted the revisionists though there was
no demand.
3. Apart from this, he submits that SOP for trap was
completely ignored and even the voice recording does not
contain any demand made by the revisionists, which is an
indispensable ingredient of Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He further
submits that the complainant himself admitted that shadow
witness B. D. Joshi did not accompany Dinesh Singh Rana
2
2026:UHC:2170
where the bribe was allegedly exchanged. This witness alleges
that he kept the envelope containing the bribe money on file
and even he does not alleged any specific demand of bribe or
even money, whatsoever. He also submits that even there is no
allegation of acceptance and as such, there is no attribution of
either demand or acceptance, at the time of trap. He also
argued that discharge application of both the revisionists i.e.
paper no. 74 Kha and 75 Kha have been rejected on 01.12.2025
by the trial court in a very cursory and causal manner without
application of mind.
4. On the other side, Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Addl.
Advocate General for the State, has vehemently opposed the
submissions of Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate for the
revisionist and submits that there are sufficient material to
establish the demand and acceptance and both the revisionists
were trapped by vigilance team, therefore, all the arguments as
advanced by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate are in fact
the subject matter of trial and have no relevance at this stage.
5. Mr. Sandhu further argued that all the submissions
advanced by Mr. U. K. Uniyal, learned Sr. Advocate are
thoroughly misconceived, at this stage, since under revisional
jurisdiction the Court can only examine the jurisdictional error,
correctness , illegality or procedural impropriety or irregularity
in the procedure and it focuses on legality or propriety rather
than re-appreciating the evidence. He further submits that
revisional jurisdiction mandates to check the correctness,
legality and propriety of the sentence or order. In addition to
this, he submits that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction,
the Court at the most can examine whether there is proper
compliance of the procedure, as laid down under the Rules.
3
2026:UHC:2170
6. This Court is fully convinced with the arguments as
advanced by Mr. Sandhu, that all the arguments as advanced
by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, are subject matter of the trial, hence,
arguments, as advanced by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, to this extent are
outrightly rejected.
7. So far as the order impugned framing charge is concerned
Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
corresponding Chapter XVIII of BNSS, 2023 deals with the
charge. Section 234 of BNSS (corresponding Section 211 of
Cr.P.C.) relates to contents of the charge, which reads as under:
“234. (1) Every charge under this Sanhita shall state the
offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law
which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the
offence may be described in the charge by that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it
any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence
must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter
with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the
law against which the offence is said to have been
committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact
that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that
every legal condition required by law to constitute the
offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6)
The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of
any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous
conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of
a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is
intended to prove such previous conviction for the
purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court
may think fit, to award for the subsequent offence, the4
2026:UHC:2170
fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be
stated in the charge; and if such statement has been
omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence
is passed.”
8. Section 235 of BNSS (corresponding Section 212 of
Cr.P.C.) deals with particulars of time, place and person, which
read as under:
“235. (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to
the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person
(if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of
which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to
give the accused notice of the matter with which he is
charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal
breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or
other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the
gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable
property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have
been committed, and the dates between which the offence
is alleged to have been committed, without specifying
particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed
shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the
meaning of section 242: Provided that the time included
between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed
one year.”
9. Section 237 of BNSS (corresponding Section 213 of
Cr.P.C.) deals with the words in charge taken in sense of law
under which offence is punishable, which reads as under:
“237. In every charge words used in describing an
offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense5
2026:UHC:2170
attached to them respectively by the law under which
such offence is punishable.”
10. Section 238 of BNSS (corresponding Section 213 of
Cr.P.C.) relates to effect of errors, which reads as under:
“238. No error in stating either the offence or the
particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no
omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be
regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the
accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and
it has occasioned a failure of justice.”
11. On plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear
that no doubt framing of charge is critical stage and charge
must clearly state the offence with specific provisions of details
of time, place and person and separate charge must be framed
for each distinct offence and where there are more than one
accused person against whom the charge has to be framed, then
the charge for each of the accused should be framed by creating
written accusation for each distinct offence and not only this,
even while framing the charge the Court must read and explain
these charges to each of the accused to ensure fair trial. If the
two accused persons acted jointly, then in such an eventuality
the charge has to be framed in term of Section 246 BNSS
(corresponding Section 223 of Cr.P.C).
12. The purpose of framing of charge is to formally inform
the accused the precise nature of the allegations against him in
order to ensure fair trial by allowing them to prepare adequate
defence.
13. The order of framing of charge is the foundation of the
trial, it’s scope is to streamline the proceeding by focusing on
6
2026:UHC:2170
specific accusation. The purpose of framing of charge is to
provide accused clear written details of offence adhering to
principles of natural justice and it allows the accused to prepare
his defence effectively and in fact, the order of framing charge
is commencement of the trial and not only this, Section 237 of
the BNSS (corresponding Section 214 Cr.P.C.) clearly stipulates
that the words used in the charge are to be interpreted
according to the specific legal meaning so that accused person,
who face trial understand the language of the charge defend
himself properly during trial.
14. In both the revisions, order under challenge is of dated
08.12.2025 whereby the Special Judge, PC Act, Haldwani
framed the charges by composite order against both the
accused persons.
15. Prima facie, the order impugned of framing of charge
reveals that learned Special Judge, (P.C. Act), completely
overlooked the mandate of law while framing the charge. The
charge in respect of each of the accused persons should be
specific with their names, place, time and role, therefore, on
perusal of the impugned order it reveals that learned Special
Judge, P.C. Act, has not applied its judicial mind while framing
charge.
16. Accordingly, both the revisions are allowed by setting
aside order impugned by remitting the matter to the concerned
Special Judge, (P.C. Act), to pass order afresh strictly as per
mandate of Chapter XVIII of BNSS, 2023. Since the matter
relates to the corruption, learned Special Judge, (P.C. Act), shall
pass the order afresh, within one month positively from the
date of receipt of the order. Registry is directed to send the
7
2026:UHC:2170
copy of this judgment to the concerned court for necessary
compliance.
17. In addition to this, Registry is directed to circulate this
judgment to all the subordinate courts through District and
Sessions Judge for their perusal.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
27.03.2026
SKS
8