GOKULCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed under Sec. 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dtd. 16/4/2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.l, Sri Ganganagar, whereby charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 436, 450, 147, 149 and 120-B IPC and Sec. 4 of The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (herein afterwards referred to as 'the Act of 1984').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as under: That on 25/8/2017, one Shri Bhairudan, Labour Supervisor submitted a written report stating therein that while he was posted in the office of Divisional Labour Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar, the followers of Dera Sachcha Sauda' entered into the office and set the property on fire by pouring petrol. As a result of which, the department suffered lots of loss.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner was present at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention of this Court to the statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. of witnesses namely Ravindra Kumar, Prabhu Dayal, Bherudan and Arun submits that presence of the petitioner has not been shown in the statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of statement of Prakash Gambhiri, Ashish and Ranjeet Singh, which are not sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner, since he was neither present at the spot at the time of incident nor there is any evidence on record to suggest that the petitioner made a planning to commit the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the stage of framing of charges, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents available on record with a view to find if the facts emerging there from are taken at their face value, discloses the existence of ingredients constituting alleged offences. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that learned trial court framed the charges without applying judicial mind. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the revision petition and discharge the petitioner from the offence under Ss. 147, 436, 450 read with Sec. 149 and 120-B IPC and Sec. 4 of the Act of 1984.