KALLU ARAK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Kamal Krishna, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) THE instant criminal revision preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 22.7.1997 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Session Trial No. 260 of 1996 whereby the charges have been framed against the revisionist for an offence punishable under Section 120B Indian Penal Code.

(3.) IN such circumstances it cannot be said that the applicant/revisionist was not involved. On the basis of the material collected by the Investigating officer during the investigation the charge sheet was submitted and the court below had framed the charges against the accused/applicant under Section 120B I.P.C. The case of Satish Mehra as relied upon by the revisionist's counsel has been dealt with in the subsequent decision of State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padi reported in , LI (2005) ACC 209 wherein it was held that Satish Mehra's case has not been correctly decided that accused may also produce evidence at the stage of 227 Code of Criminal Procedure and has held that at the time of framing of charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material or have any say. Satish Mehra's case has also been referred in the case of Palwinder Singh v. Balvinder Singh reported in , LXI (2009) ACC 399 and held that charge can also be framed on the strong suspension marshalling and appreciation of the evidence is not within the domain of the court. Thus for framing of charge even a strong suspicion is sufficient. It is settled law that at the time of framing of charge the court is not expected to go into the deep on the material on record. If upon consideration the court is satisfied that prima facie a case is made out against the accused the court must proceed to frame charge in terms of Section 228 of the Code. The revisionist in the instant case has tried to protract the trial by moving an application claiming discharge, which he could move under law only after framing of the charge and not before that. The Code itself does not provide that accused can file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge and that right is granted only at the stage of trial. It cannot be said that for framing of charge the evidence of co -accused cannot be looked into, therefore, the court below on the basis of the material collected by the Investigating Officer proceeded against the applicant by framing the charge under Section 120B I.P.C. suffers from no error much less of any error of law, therefore, this revision has no merit and as such it is hereby dismissed and the interim order dated 2.9.1997 whereby the proceedings of session trial were stayed is hereby vacated. It is expected that the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The office is directed to communicate this order to the court below.