SATISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this Revision Application, the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order dated 26.08.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagpur, refusing to discharge the Revision-applicant is under challenge. It is contended on behalf of the Revision-applicant that in the course of investigation, statement of one Manoj Pukhraj Jain recorded, only implicated the applicant-Satish, on the ground that he had entered into an altercation at the time of marriage and had snatched away wrist watches belonging to brother of the witness and one Kiran Agrawal and went away. It also appears that the said witness had made a reference to the marriage ceremony and demand for dowry made at the time of solemnizing the marriage and the incident of assault occurred as also robbery of wrist watches.

(3.) It appears that the learned trial Judge also made a reference to the ruling in Dilawar Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 Cr.LJ . 980 (SC ) in the impugned order. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the said ruling while advancing submissions in support of the Revision Application. It cannot be disputed that in the absence of prima facie case the accused need not be made to face the ordeal of the trial as chances of conviction are extremely remote. Reliance is also placed upon the ruling in Union Bank of India vs. Prafulla Samal and another reported in AIR 1979 SC 366, indicating the trial Judge has undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not prima facie case against the accused has been made out, whether the material disclosed against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down rule of universal application. The Apex Court also observed that Judge exercising jurisdiction u/s 227 of the Cr.P.C. is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or as mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.