PARMIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in each of these petitions challenge the framing of the charges by the learned Special Judge. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have taken me through the orders passed by the learned trial Court framing charges. They submit that prima facie from the reading of the material on record, no criminal case is made out and at best, they are only unsubstantiated allegations. They submit that this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can always adjudicate on the point of law that the trial Court is not merely a mouth piece of the prosecution and that some exercise has to be undertaken by the Court in order to ascertain as to whether prima facie an offence has been made out or not. This exercise according to the learned Counsel does not consist of a detailed examination of the evidence but some scrutiny of the material on record.

(2.) THIS proposition of law cannot be doubted as it is settled by long line of decisions See: Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr. : AIR 1979 SC 366, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Ors. : 1990 Cri.L.J. 1869, State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Ors. : (1977) 2 SCC 699, State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors. : (2000) 2 SCC 57 and Dilwar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra : (2002) 2 SCC 135.

(3.) IT is by now well settled that in criminal law, no two sets of facts are the same so as to attract the application of a particular precedent. However, considering the facts and circumstances in each of these cases, it would be in the fitness of things in case no orders are passed by this Court at this stage. Considering the law in Lalu Prasad Yadav's case (supra), holding: