Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 S. 7, 13(2) – CrPC S. 464 – Omission to frame a proper charge is not fatal unless it leads to a failure of justice – Charges must be framed meticulously by Trial Courts – For Section 7 to apply, the prosecution must prove a demand for ‘gratification’ beyond a reasonable doubt. [2023 CrLT 0054, 2023 PLRonline 0116]

Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Criminal Procedure Code PC S. 464

• Omission to frame a proper charge is not fatal unless it leads to a failure of justice.
• The accused understood the case against him; no prejudice was caused to his right to defend.
• The charge was defective, but the omission was not fatal in this specific case.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1974, S. 464

• Charges must be framed meticulously by Trial Courts.
• Errors or omissions in framing charges could lead to acquittal or long delays in trial.
• Public prosecutors also have the duty to ensure appropriate charges are framed.

Section 7 and Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

• For Section 7 to apply, the prosecution must prove a demand for ‘gratification’ beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Presumption under Section 20 can be invoked if demand and acceptance of gratification are proven.
• Offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) were not established in this case due to lack of evidence for demand for gratification.

2023 CrLT 0054, 2023 PLRonline 0116.

Full text open automatically for subscribers