STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AMNTLAL & SOHANLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby he has discharged the accused persons of the offence under S. 302 or 328 and 201, IPC. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) In between 2nd and 4th July, 1979 seven persons after having consumed Thinner (Mathia) at Mt. Abu breathed their last and many persons were injured and were admitted in the hospital. A case No. 25/70 was registered at Mt. Abu Police Station on the report of Lalsingh, Dy. S. P. Abu Road. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents and the the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged them under S. 227 Cr. P. C

(3.) It is contended by the learned P. P. that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have only discharged the accused respondents if he could form an opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. According to him, on the material on record, there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy of selling methyl alcohol or methia or thinner or French polish for the purpose of consumption by human being. Methyl alcohol is, a poison and, therefore, if any body sells poison knowing it fully well that it is likely to be consumed by those who purchase it then the act of the accused persons is immensely dangerous and is an offence of murder falling under clause fourthly of S. 300, IPC. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material on record, which prima facie goes to show that a case is made out under S. 201, IPC, as after having come to know that certain deaths have taken place as a result of consumption of methia sold by the agents of the accused persons to various persons, persons have died and have also received injuries. It may be stated here that while considering the case under S. 227 or 228, Crimial P.C., it is not the stage where it is expected of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to analyse the evidence, as if dealing with the case finally, and all that is required of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that he should have gone through the documents furnished under S. 173, Crimial P.C., should have heard the learned P. P. and the learned Advocate, and if, thereafter, he could reach the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, only then he could discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. If, after considering the documents aforesaid, and after hearing the Advocate, he could form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by him. then he is bound to frame a charge against the accused. In Superintendent Remembrances-Legal Affairs West Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that at the stage of framing charges the prosecution evidence does not commence and the Magistrate, therefore, has to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the material placed before him by the Police Officer. The standard test, brief and judgement, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is exactly not to be applied at the stage of S. 227 or 228, Crimial P.C. at this stage, even a strong suspicion found on the material before the learned Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against accused in respect of the submission of that offence. Therefore, if there is strong suspicion, a court has to frame a charge, and it is not expected of the Court at this stage to appreciate the evidence and discharge the accused.