HARI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. are directed against the order dt. 24. 3. 99 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he framed charges against the petitioners u/s. 120-B, 394 and 398 IPC.

(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that on 19. 5. 98 an attempt was made to loot the Pali Urban Cooperative Bank, Pali. THE F. I. R. was lodged by Ganpat Lal, Incharge Bank in which it was stated that at about 4. 30 PM. three persons having their faces covered entered the Bank precincts and after rolling up the channel gate, one of them threw red chill powder on the faces of two bank employees, and one miscreant at the dagger point, asked the employees to handover the entire cash to them. Hearing the shoutings, outsiders rushed there. THE miscreants tried to make good their escape, however, one of them who later disclosed his name as Umed Singh, was caught. Umed Singh told the persons collected there that his two other companions were Surendra Vyas and Chhotu. On this report a case u/s. 394 and 398 IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order framed charges u/s. 394, 398 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners.

(3.) IT is obvious that at the stage of the framing of the charge the court is not required to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. At that stage, the court is also not required to under take an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. The Court is only to see whether there is such material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime.