Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Krishna Kanhaiya Borana vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12977]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 793/2021
Krishna Kanhaiya Borana S/o Paras Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
B/c Ganchi, R/o 3A, Santoshi Sadan, Opp. Barf Factory, Sabzi
Mandi, Jodhpur At Present Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Chhitar Mal S/o Madan Lal Soni, Borawar Makrana, Distt.
Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 12/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 12/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/03/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been instituted by
the petitioner under Sections 397 r.w. 401 of the Cr.P.C., assailing
the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge,
ACB Cases, Ajmer in Sessions ACB Case No.17/2017, whereby
the learned Judge framed charges against the present petitioner
for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with
Section 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12977] (2 of 6) [CRLR-793/2021]
said order of framing of charge, has invoked the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court seeking its quashment.
2. Succinctly stated, the prosecution case emanates from a
written complaint submitted by the complainant, Shri Chhitar Mal
S/o Madan Lal Soni, resident of Borawar, before the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagaur. In the
complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was running a
furniture and electronics shop situated on Makrana Bypass Road,
Borawar.
2.1. On 25.01.2011, in the afternoon hours, two officials, namely
Shri K.K. Borana and Shri Jitendra Kumar, serving as ACTOs,
visited the shop of the complainant in a सरकारी vehicle and
conducted a survey. During the course of such inspection, they
allegedly took possession of certain records pertaining to the
business of the complainant under the pretext of verification.
2.2. It was further alleged that later in the evening, when the
complainant approached the said officials at their office, he was
informed that discrepancies had been found in his stock and that a
substantial penalty, running into several lakhs of rupees, would be
imposed upon him. Despite the complainant’s assertion that the
electronic goods were duly VAT-paid, the officials allegedly
demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/- to suppress the
matter, failing which they threatened to raise a demand of Rs. 4-5
lakhs. Eventually, upon persistent requests by the complainant,
the amount was negotiated and settled at Rs. 60,000/-, with
instructions to deliver the same on 27.01.2011.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12977] (3 of 6) [CRLR-793/2021]
2.3. Acting upon the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau
initiated preliminary verification proceedings. On 27.01.2011,
Constable Surendra Singh, equipped with a digital tape recorder,
was deputed to accompany the complainant for the purpose of
verifying the allegations. Upon returning to the ACB office, it was
reported that during the course of interaction, the complainant, at
the instance of the accused persons, handed over an amount of
Rs. 40,000/- to an unidentified shopkeeper in the Makrana
market, with an assurance that the remaining amount would be
paid subsequently. Although a formal trap was thereafter planned
in accordance with standard ACB procedures, the same could not
be successfully executed, and it was concluded that the possibility
of effectuating a trap was remote.
2.4. Subsequently, on the basis of the material collected, FIR No.
104/2011 came to be registered at Police Station CPS, Jaipur for
offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 along with Section 120-B IPC. Upon
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the
competent court at Ajmer.
2.5. During the course of proceedings before the trial court, the
petitioner, along with co-accused, moved an application seeking
discharge on the ground that no prima facie case was made out
against them and that the material on record did not disclose the
commission of any offence. However, the learned trial court, upon
consideration of the material and after hearing arguments,
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12977] (4 of 6) [CRLR-793/2021]
rejected the said plea and proceeded to frame charges against the
petitioner vide order dated 16.04.2021.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and have
carefully perused the material available on record.
4. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and having meticulously examined the record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does
not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in revisional
jurisdiction.
4.1. At the outset, it is apposite to underscore that the stage of
framing of charge is not one wherein the Court is required to
conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence or to adjudicate
upon the probative value of the material collected during
investigation. The jurisdiction at this stage is limited to
ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists, based on the
material placed on record, giving rise to a grave suspicion
regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the
alleged offences.
4.2. In the present case, the material collected during
investigation, including the complaint, verification proceedings,
and attendant circumstances, prima facie disclose the demand of
illegal gratification and the existence of a concerted arrangement
involving the accused persons. The allegations are neither
inherently improbable nor devoid of substance at this preliminary
stage.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12977] (5 of 6) [CRLR-793/2021]
4.3. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, seeking
a roving and exhaustive evaluation of the evidentiary material, is
clearly misplaced. Such an exercise would be antithetical to the
settled principles governing the stage of charge, where the Court
is only required to form a tentative opinion based on broad
probabilities and not to render a definitive adjudication on guilt or
innocence.
4.4. The learned trial court, in passing the impugned order, has
demonstrated due application of mind and has judiciously
evaluated the material available before it. The order reflects a
proper appreciation of the legal threshold required for framing of
charge and cannot be said to be either perverse, arbitrary, or
suffering from any jurisdictional error.
4.5. It is trite that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is
supervisory and not appellate in nature. Interference is warranted
only where there is a manifest illegality, gross miscarriage of
justice, or palpable perversity. No such infirmity is discernible in
the present case.
4.6. On the contrary, the order impugned appears to be well-
founded, legally tenable, and in consonance with the established
principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned trial court has
rightly exercised its jurisdiction in framing charges against the
petitioner, thereby paving the way for a full-fledged trial wherein
the parties shall have ample opportunity to adduce evidence in
support of their respective stands.
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12977] (6 of 6) [CRLR-793/2021]
5. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in
the present revision petition. The impugned order dated
16.04.2021 does not call for any interference and thus, the
Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed.
6. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
199-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 25/03/2026 at 03:13:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/03/2026 at 08:42:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
