MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition filed under Sec. 397, read with Sec. 401 of the Code Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Addl. Chief Judi. Magistrate (Fast Track), Abu Road whereby the learned trial Court framed charged against the petitioner.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an L.D.C. cannot at his own draw the amount allegedly embezzled by him and, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioner is erroneous. He further contended that in the charge the allegation is that the petitioner has shown payment to various employees but, in fact, has not made payment to them and has committed embezzlement, however, names of the persons whom alleged payment was to be made have not been shown in the charge. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of the charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. If the Court, on the basis of the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the offence has been committed and, prima facie, on the basis of police papers i.e., challan along with investigation report, it is the accused before the Court who may have committed the said offence, the Court would be fully justified at that stage to frame the charge and read it against the accused before the Court. Framing of the charge by itself does not pronounce either the offence or commission of the offence by the accused before the Court which shall, in all cases, be determined at the trial. In criminal jurisprudence, the stage of framing of the charge circumscribes the trial of the case and enables the Court as well as Prosecution to sift relevancy out of odds coming up before the Court at the time of trial by way of evidence and circumstances which would be appreciated by the Court. In the result of the trial, the accused may turn out to be guilty and may turn out to be not guilty of the offence. But, at the stage of framing of the charge, such meticulous appreciation of the material on record as to try to probe into the guilt or innocence of the accused is always hazardous and Court is neither required to go into it at the stage nor such course is advisable in law. Let us now turn to the Supreme Court judgment in Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 60 : JT 2001(9) SC 438 , wherein the Apex Court has, in clear terms, demarcated the ambit of the revisional power pronouncing the judgment, their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the revision power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. It has been laid down that while exercising such powers, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate Courts are required to do rather, the power should be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged.