SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amit vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 13 May, 2019

$~49
*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI
%Reservedon:1stMay,2019
DateofDecision:13thMay,2019

+CRL.REV.P.513/2019CRL.M.A.9286/2019
AMIT…..Petitioner
Through:Mr.SaurabhJhamband
Mr.C.M.Arif,Advs.
versus
THESTATE(GOVT.OFNCTOFDELHI)…..Respondent
Through:Mr.PannaLalSharma,APP
withSIHukamChand,PS
Mehrauli,Delhi
CORAM:
HON’BLEMR.JUSTICECHANDERSHEKHAR

CHANDERSHEKHAR,J.

1.Thiscriminalrevisionpetitionassailstheorderdated
31.01.2019(hereinaftertobereferredasthe„impugnedorder‟)passed
bytheSpecialJudge-NDPS/ASJ(South),SaketCourts,NewDelhi
(hereinaftertobereferredas„theTrialCourt‟)inFIRNo.429/2018,
registeredatPoliceStation:Mehrauli,SouthDelhi,wherebycharge
wasframedagainstthepetitionerunderSections186/Section353/Section307/Section482/Section34
oftheIndianPenalCode,1860(hereinaftertobereferredas„theSectionIPC‟)
andSections27oftheArmsAct,1959(hereinaftertobereferredas
„theSectionArmsAct‟)and34oftheSectionIPC.Aprayerhasbeenmadetoset
asidethesaidimpugnedorder.

2.Brieflystated,thecaseoftheprosecutionisthaton11.07.2018,
atabout8:00AM,atMainRoad,ChattarpurMandirtoCDRChowk,

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page1of22
nearHanumanMandir,Chattarpur,Delhi,thetwoaccusedpersons
wereridingamotorcycleNo.DL5SAT1320andtheywere
interceptedbythepoliceofficers.Itisallegedthat,ASIJitenderand
Ct.Naveenhadhitthemotorcycleoftheaccusedpersonsdueto
whichtheyfelldownandsubsequently,thetwoaccusedpersonstook
offtheirhelmetsandthrewthemonthepoliceofficers.Further,itis
allegedthatthepillionriderhadfiredonASIJitenderwithhispistol
andthebulletpassedneartheleftshoulderofASIJitender.Thereafter,
theotherpoliceofficersalsoproceededtowardstheaccusedpersons
anduponseeingthem,thepersonwhowasdrivingthemotorcyclealso
tookoutapistolandfiredtworoundstowardsthepolice.Thereafter,
hejumpedtheroaddividerandrantowardsthecolony.Consequently,
SIRakesh,Ct.Kamaldeep,HCAshokandCt.Narenderchasedhim.
ThepillionriderwasoverpoweredbyASIJitenderandCt.Naveen
andtheyfurthersnatchedthepistolfromhishand.Theaccused
disclosedhisnameasVineetVerma,sonofShriSureshChand
Verma.Thereafter,HCAshokandothersreturnedandinformedthat
theassociateoftheaccusedVineetVerma,hadsnatchedthe
motorcyclefromapersonandhadfledtowardsLadoSarai.On
checkingthepistolofVineetVerma,twolivecartridgeswerefound
andonefiredroundwasalsofoundneartheirmotorcycle.Thereafter,
thepoliceconductedpersonalsearchofVineetVermaandrecovered
abrokenchainofyellowmetal.Theaccuseddisclosedthathehad
snatchedthechainatSainikFarms,soonbeforebeingapprehended.
Oninquiry,theaccusedalsodisclosedthatthemotorcyclebeingused
byhimandhisassociatewasastolenmotorcyclewhichhehad

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page2of22
purchasedfromathief.Further,itwasdiscoveredbythepolicethat
theoriginalnumberofthemotorcyclewasDL5SAZ7241andthe
accusedpersonswereusingafakenumberplateofDL5SAT1320.
ThenameoftheassociateoftheaccusedVineetVermawasdisclosed
asAmit,sonofShriKalyan.(„thepetitioner‟,herein).

3.Thereafter,theafore-saidFIRNo.429/2018,wasregisteredat
PoliceStation:Mehrauli,SouthDelhi,underSections186,Section353,Section307,
Section482andSection34oftheIPCandSections25,Section27andSection59oftheArmsAct
againsttheaccusedpersons.

4.Subsequently,investigationwascarriedoutandtheaccused
Vineetwasarrested.Whilstsearchinghishousethepolicerecovered
sixyellowmetalchainsandtheaccuseddisclosedthathehadsnatched
thosechainswiththehelpofthepetitioner.Aperusaloftheimpugned
orderalsorevealsthatapistolcontainingtwolivecartridgeswas
recoveredfromthehouseofthepetitioner.

5.Thereafter,on27.07.2018,thepetitionerhadsurrenderedbefore
theTrialCourtandhisPCremandwasobtained.

6.Subsequently,on31.1.2019,theTrialCourtafterhearingboth
thepartiesandafterperusingthematerialonrecord,passedthe
aforesaidimpugnedorderonthepointofchargeandchargewas
framedagainstboththeaccusedpersonsunderSections
186/Section353/Section307/Section482/Section34oftheIPCr/wSections27oftheArmsActand
34oftheSectionIPC.

7.Aggrieved,thepetitionerhaspreferredthepresentcriminal
revisionpetitionagainsttheafore-saidorderonchargepassedbythe
TrialCourt.

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page3of22

8.Ihaveheardthelearnedcounselfortheparties,perusedthe
recordandhavealsogonethroughthedocumentsfiledbythem.

9.Learnedcounselforthepetitionervehementlycontendedthat
thereisnomaterialonrecordtojustifytheframingofchargeagainst
thepetitionerbytheTrialCourtandhencetheorderonchargeis
liabletobesetaside.

10.Learnedcounselforthepetitionerfurthercontendedthatthe
TrialCourthasfailedtoappreciatethefactthattheprosecutionhas
notrecordedthestatementofanypoliceofficialthataftersurrender
andarrestofthepetitionerintheCourt,hewasidentifiedbythemas
thepersonwhohadfiredonthemandhadfledfromthespotleaving
theco-accusedVineetVermabehind.

11.Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmittedthatasperthe
allegationsandmaterialonrecord,atmost,thechargeunderSection
25oftheArmsActisonlymadeoutagainstthepetitionerforthe
allegedrecoveryofthepistolandtwolivecartridges.

12.Ontheotherhand,learnedAPPfortheStatesubmittedthat
thereisprima-faciecaseagainstthearraignedaccusedpersonsforthe
offencesunderSections186/Section353/Section307/Section482/Section34oftheIPCandSections
27oftheArmsActand34oftheSectionIPC.

13.Atthisjuncture,Iwouldliketoreproducecertainparagraphsof
theimpugnedorderwhichreadsasunder:

“6.IhaveconsideredtheargumentsandIhave
perusedtherecord.Itisnotmandatorytorecord
supplementarystatementorthestatementsu/s161
SectionCr.P.C.TheIOSIRajivaswellasASIJitenderwere
presentbeforetheCourtofLd.MMwhenthe

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page4of22
accusedAmit@SonuwastakenonPC.Ld.Counsel
fortheaccusedhassubmittedthattheystatedthey
didnotrequiretheirTIP.Theyalreadyseenhimat
thespot,theco-accuseddisclosedhisnameand
addressandalsoidentifiedhimforthedossier.
Therefore,thefailureoftheIOtospecificallywrite
thatthepoliceofficersidentifiedtheaccusedAmit
@Sonuasthesamepersonwhohadfledfromthe
spoton11.07.2018isnotmaterialatthisstage.At
thestageofframingofcharge,onlyprimafacieview
istobetaken.

7.Bythrowingtheirhelmetsonthepolice
officers,firinguponthemandresistingthe
apprehension,bothaccusedpersonscommitted
offenceu/s186SectionIPC.Bothofthemthrewtheir
helmetsonthepoliceofficersandfiredonthem
frompistols.Theassaultwascommittedtodeterthe
publicservant(Policeofficers)fromdischarging
theirduty.Therebybothaccusedpersonscommitted
offenceu/s353SectionIPC.TheaccusedVineetVerma
firedonASIJitenderonbeingexhortedbytheco-
accusedAmittokillthem.ThebulletmissedASI
Jitender.TheaccusedAmit@Sonualsofiredtwo
roundstowardsthepoliceofficers.Hehadalready
exhortedtheco-accusedtokillthepoliceofficers.
TherebytheaccusedAmit@Sonualsocommitted
offenceu/s307SectionIPC.Bothaccusedwereusingstolen
motorcyclewithafakenumberplate.Inthecharge
sheetSectionsection411IPChasnotbeenmentionedfor
possessionanduseofthestolenmotorcyclewhich
wasrecoveredatthespotwithafakenumberplat.
Ld.Counselforboththeaccusedsubmitthatin
respectoftheftofthemotorcycle,FIRwas

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page5of22
registeredinPS-GakalPuriandthesamehasbeen
compoundedbytheaccusedVineetVerma.Police
hasalsonotrecordedthestatementoftheownerof
themotorcycleinthiscasewhichmayjustify
framingofthechargeu/s411SectionIPCinthiscase.
However,byusingthefakenumberplate,both
accusedpersonscommittedoffenceu/s482SectionIPC.On
11.07.2018,bothofthemusedfirearmswithout
licenseandtherebytheycommittedoffence
punishableu/s27SectionArmsAct.Forframingthecharge
u/s27SectionArmsActwhichinvolvesviolationofSection
7oftheArmsAct,sanctionu/s39SectionArmsActisnot
required.Therefore,chargeisliabletobeframed
againstbothofthemu/s27SectionArmsActalso.TheFSL
reportandthesanctionu/s39SectionArmsActforthe
offenceu/s25SectionArmsActarestillawaitedand
therefore,chargecannotbeframedagainstthe
accusedu/s25SectionArmsAct.Alltheseoffenceswere
committedbytheminfurtheranceoftheircommon
intentionandthereforeSectionsection34IPCwillalso
apply.

8.Inviewoftheabovediscussion,chargeis
framedagainstbothaccusedpersonsu/s
186/353/307/482/34SectionIPCr/wSectionsection27ArmsAct
and34SectionIPCtowhichtheypleadnotguiltyandclaim
trial.”

14.Itwouldbenowappropriatetorefertothejudgmentsofthe
ApexCourtandthedifferentHighCourts,whereintheprinciplesof
framingofchargeanddischargehasbeenlaiddown.

15.TheSupremeCourthasrecentlyinthecasetitledSectionDipakbhai
JagdishchandraPatelvsStateofGujaratandAnother,decidedon

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page6of22
24.4.2019inCriminalAppealNo.714of2019madeobservations
regardingthelawrelatingtoframingofchargeanddischargeandhas
heldthatallthatisrequiredis,thattheCourtmustbesatisfiedthat
withthematerialavailable,acaseismadeoutfortheaccusedtostand
trial.Astrongsuspicionsuffices.However,astrongsuspicionmustbe
foundedonsomematerial.Thematerialmustbesuchascanbe
translatedintoevidenceatthestageoftrial.Relevantparagraphsof
thesaidjudgmentisreproducedbelow:

“13.Wemayprofitably,inthisregard,refertothe
judgmentofthisCourtinSectionStateofBiharv.RameshSingh,
AIR1977SC2018whereinthisCourthaslaiddownthe
principlesrelatingtoframingofchargeanddischargeas
follows:

ReadingSections227andSection228togetherinjuxtaposition,
astheyhavegottobe,itwouldbeclearthatatthe
beginningandinitialstageofthetrialthetruth,veracity
andeffectoftheevidencewhichtheprosecutorproposes
toadducearenottobemeticulouslyjudged.Norisany
weighttobeattachedtotheprobabledefenceofthe
Accused.ItisnotobligatoryfortheJudgeatthatstageof
thetrialtoconsiderinanydetailandweighinasensitive
balancewhetherthefacts,ifproved,wouldbe
incompatiblewiththeinnocenceoftheAccusedornot.
Thestandardoftestandjudgmentwhichistobefinally
appliedbeforerecordingafindingregardingtheguiltor
otherwiseoftheAccusedisnotexactlytobeappliedat
thestageofdecidingthematterUnderSection227or
Section228oftheCode.AtthatstagetheCourtisnotto
seewhetherthereissufficientgroundforconvictionof
theAccusedorwhetherthetrialissuretoendinhis
conviction.

StrongsuspicionagainsttheAccused,ifthematter

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page7of22
remainsintheregionofsuspicion,cannottaketheplace
ofproofofhisguiltattheconclusionofthetrial.Butat
theinitialstageifthereisastrongsuspicionwhichleads
theCourttothinkthatthereisgroundforpresumingthat
theAccusedhascommittedanoffencethenitisnotopen
totheCourttosaythatthereisnosufficientgroundfor
proceedingagainsttheAccused.Thepresumptionofthe
guiltoftheAccusedwhichistobedrawnattheinitial
stageisnotinthesenseofthelawgoverningthetrialof
criminalcasesinFrancewheretheAccusedispresumed
tobeguiltyunlessthecontraryisproved.Butitisonlyfor
thepurposeofdecidingprimafaciewhetherthecourt
shouldproceedwiththetrialornot.

Iftheevidencewhichtheprosecutorproposestoadduce
toprovetheguiltoftheAccusedeveniffullyaccepted
beforeitischallengedincross-examinationorrebuttedby
thedefenceevidence,ifany,cannotshowthatthe
Accusedcommittedtheoffence,thentherewillbeno
sufficientgroundforproceedingwiththetrial.

Ifthescalesofpanastotheguiltorinnocenceofthe
Accusedaresomethinglikeevenattheconclusionofthe
trial,then,onthetheoryofbenefitofdoubtthecaseisto
endinhisacquittal.Butif,ontheotherhand,itissoatthe
initialstageofmakinganorderUnderSection227or
Section228,theninsuchasituationordinarilyand
generallytheorderwhichwillhavetobemadewillbe
oneUnderSection228andnotUnderSection227.

21.Atthestageofframingthechargeinaccordancewith
theprincipleswhichhavebeenlaiddownbythisCourt,
whattheCourtisexpectedtodois,itdoesnotactasa
merepostoffice.TheCourtmustindeedsiftthematerial
beforeit.Thematerialtobesiftedwouldbethematerial
whichisproducedandrelieduponbytheprosecution.
Thesiftingisnottobemeticulousinthesensethatthe
CourtdonsthemantleoftheTrialJudgehearing

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page8of22
argumentsaftertheentireevidencehasbeenadducedafter
afull-fledgedtrialandthequestionisnotwhetherthe
prosecutionhasmadeoutthecasefortheconvictionof
theAccused.Allthatisrequiredis,theCourtmustbe
satisfiedthatwiththematerialsavailable,acaseismade
outfortheAccusedtostandtrial.Astrongsuspicion
suffices.However,astrongsuspicionmustbefoundedon
somematerial.Thematerialmustbesuchascanbe
translatedintoevidenceatthestageoftrial.Thestrong
suspicioncannotbethepuresubjectivesatisfactionbased
onthemoralnotionsoftheJudgethathereisacasewhere
itispossiblethatAccusedhascommittedtheoffence.
Strongsuspicionmustbethesuspicionwhichispremised
onsomematerialwhichcommendsitselftothecourtas
sufficienttoentertaintheprimafacieviewthatthe
Accusedhascommittedtheoffence.”

16.TheApexCourtinthematterofSectionUnionofIndiavs.Prafulla
KumarSamalandOrs.,AIR1979SC366hasheldthattheCourthas
thepowertosiftandweightheevidenceforthelimitedpurposeof
findingoutwhetheraprima-faciecaseagainsttheaccusedismadeout
ornot.Ithasbeenfurtherheldthatwherethematerialsplacedbefore
theCourtdisclosedagravesuspicionagainsttheaccused,whichhas
notbeenproperlyexplained,theCourtwillbefullyjustifiedin
framingachargeandproceedingwiththetrial.Byandlarge,however,
iftwoviewsareequallypossibleandtheJudgeissatisfiedthatthe
evidenceproducedbeforehimgivesrisetosomesuspicion,butnot
gravesuspicionagainsttheaccused,hewillbefullywithinhisrightto
dischargetheaccused.Itisasettledlawthatthepresumption
howsoeverstrongcannottakeplaceofproof.Relevantportionofthe
afore-mentionedjudgmentisreproducedhere-under:

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page9of22

“10.Thus,onaconsiderationoftheauthorities
mentionedabove,thefollowingprinciplesemerge:

(1)ThattheJudgewhileconsideringthequestion
offramingthechargesunderSection227ofthe
Codehastheundoubtedpowertosiftandweigh
theevidenceforthelimitedpurposeoffindingout
whetherornotaprimafaciecaseagainstthe
accusedhasbeenmadeout:

(2)WherethematerialsplacedbeforetheCourt
disclosegravesuspicionagainsttheaccusedwhich
hasnotbeenproperlyexplainedtheCourtwillbe
fullyjustifiedinframingachargeandproceeding
withthetrial.

(3)Thetesttodetermineaprimafaciecasewould
naturallydependuponthefactsofeachcaseandit
isdifficulttolaydownaruleofuniversal
application.Byandlargehoweveriftwoviewsare
equallypossibleandtheJudgeissatisfiedthatthe
evidenceproducedbeforehimwhilegivingriseto
somesuspicionbutnotgravesuspicionagainstthe
accused,hewillbefullywithinhisrightto
dischargetheaccused.

(4)Thatinexercisinghisjurisdictionunder
Section227oftheCodetheJudgewhichunderthe
presentCodeisaseniorandexperiencedJudge
cannotactmerelyasaPostOfficeoramouth-
pieceoftheprosecution,buthastoconsiderthe
broadprobabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffectof
theevidenceandthedocumentsproducedbefore
theCourt,anybasicinfirmitiesappearinginthe
caseandsoon.Thishoweverdoesnotmeanthat
theJudgeshouldmakearovingenquiryintothe
prosandconsofthematterandweightheevidence
asifhewasconductingatrial.”

17.Further,theSupremeCourtinthecasetitledChitreshKumar

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page10of22
Choprav.State(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi),AIR2010SC1446hasheld
asunder:

“18……Itistritethatatthestageofframingof
charge,thecourtisrequiredtoevaluatethematerial
anddocumentsonrecordwithaviewtofindingout
ifthefactsemergingtherefrom,takenattheirface
value,disclosetheexistenceofalltheingredients
constitutingtheallegedoffenceoroffences.Forthis
limitedpurpose,thecourtmaysifttheevidenceasit
cannotbeexpectedevenattheinitialstagetoaccept
asgospeltruthallthattheprosecutionstates.Atthis
stage,thecourthastoconsiderthematerialonly
withaviewtofindoutifthereisgroundfor
“presuming”thattheaccusedhascommittedan
offenceandnotforthepurposeofarrivingatthe
conclusionthatitisnotlikelytoleadtoa
conviction.”

18.Discussingthelawonconsiderationofcharge,aCo-ordinate
BenchofthisCourtinSectionC.P.MalikandOrs.vs.State,(1999)81DLT
92hasheldasunder:

“5.Atthestageofframingchargetheallegations
madeinthecomplaint/FIRandothermaterialrelied
bythepoliceinreportunderSection173Cr.P.C.
onlyhastobetakenintoconsiderationtakingthe
evidencecollectedonitsfacevalue.Atthisstagethe
Courtisnotexpectedtoscreenevidenceortoapply
thestandardastowhethertheprosecutionwillbe
abletoprovethecaseagainsttheaccusedontrial.”

19.SectionInKantiBhadraShahandOrs.vs.TheStateofWestBengal,
AIR2005SC522,ithasbeenobservedbytheSupremeCourtthatif
theTrialCourtdecidestoframeacharge,thereisnolegalrequirement

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page11of22
thatheshouldpassanorderspecifyingthereasonsastowhyheopts
todoso.FramingofchargeitselfisprimafacieorderthattheTrial
Judgehasformedtheopinion,uponconsideringthepolicereportand
otherdocumentsandafterhearingbothsides,thatthereisgroundfor
presumingthattheaccusedhascommittedtheoffenceconcerned.It
hasbeenfurtherobservedbytheApexCourtthatSection239ofthe
Cr.PC.,requiresaMagistratetorecordhisreasonsfordischargingthe
accusedbutthereisnosuchrequirementifheformstheopinionthat
thereisgroundforpresumingthattheaccusedhadcommittedthe
offencewhichheiscompetenttotry.Insuchasituation,heisonly
requiredtoframeachargeinwritingagainsttheaccused.Relevant
paragraphsofthesaidjudgmentreadasunder:

“8.WewishtopointoutthatifthetrialCourtdecides
toframeachargethereisnolegalrequirementthathe
shouldpassanorderspecifyingthereasonsastowhy
heoptstodoso.Framingofchargeitselfisprima
facieorderthatthetrialJudgehasformedtheopinion,
uponconsideringthepolicereportandother
documentsandafterhearingbothsides,thatthereis
groundforpresumingthattheaccusedhascommitted
theoffenceconcerned.

ChapterXIXdealswithprovisionsfortrialofwarrant
casesinstitutedonpolicereport.Section239reads
thus:

239.Whenaccusedshallbedischarged.-(1)
If,uponconsideringthepolicereportandthe
documentssentwithitunderSection173and
makingsuchexamination,ifany,ofthe
accusedastheMagistratethinksnecessary
andaftergivingtheprosecutionandthe
accusedanopportunityofbeingheard,the

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page12of22
Magistrateconsidersthechargeagainstthe
accusedtobegroundless,heshalldischarge
theaccused,andrecordhisreasonsforso
doing.

9.ThesaidSectionshowsthattheMagistrateis
obligedtorecordhisreasonsifhedecidesto
dischargethe,accused.Thenextsection(Section240)
readsthus:

240.Framingofcharge.-(1)If,uponsuch
consideration,examination,ifany,and
hearing,theMagistrateisofopinionthatthere
isgroundforpresumingthattheaccusedhas
committedanoffencetriableunderthis
Chapter,whichsuchMagistrateiscompetent
totryandwhich,inhisopinion,couldbe
adequatelypunishedbyhim,heshallframein
writingachargeagainsttheaccused.
(2)Thechargeshallthenbereadand
explainedtotheaccused,andheshallbe
askedwhetherhepleadsguiltyoftheoffence
chargedorclaimstobetried.

10.Itispertinenttonotethatthissectionrequireda
Magistratetorecordhisreasonsfordischargingthe
accusedbutthereisnosuchrequirementifheforms
theopinionthatthereisgroundforpresumingthatthe
accusedhadcommittedtheoffencewhichheis
competenttotryinsuchasituationheisonlyrequired
toframeachargeinwritingagainsttheaccused.”

20.InRamKishorevs.StateandOrs.,RLW2008(3)Raj2440,it
hasbeenheldthatatthestageofframingofcharge,theCourtis
merelyrequiredtoevaluatethematerialsanddocumentsonrecord
withaviewtofindingoutifthefactsemergingthere-fromtakenat
theirfacevalue,disclosetheexistenceofalltheingredients

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page13of22
constitutingtheallegedoffence.Relevantparagraphofthesaid
judgmentisreproducedbelow:

“5…..TheSupremeCourtinNiranjanSingh,supra
hadlaiddowntheguidelinestobefollowedbythe
trialCourtatthetimeofframingofthecharge.The
SupremeCourtintheaforesaidcaseclearlyheldthat
Section227oftheCodeofCriminalProcedurecastsa
dutyontheCourttoapplyitsmindtothematerialon
recordandifonexaminationoftherecord,theCourt
doesnotfindsufficientgroundforproceedingagainst
theaccused,itmustdischargehim.Ontheotherhand
ifaftersuchconsiderationandhearingthe/Courtis
satisfiedthataprimafaciecaseismadeoutagainst
theaccused,itmustproceedtoframeachargeas
requiredbySection228oftheCode.Atthestageof
framingofcharge,theCourtismerelyrequiredto
evaluatethematerialanddocumentsonrecordwitha
viewtofindingoutifthefactsemergingtherefrom
takenattheirfacevalue,disclosetheexistenceofall
theingredientsconstitutingtheallegedoffence.The
Courtmayforthislimitedpurposesifttheevidence,
butatthatstageitisnotrequiredtomarshalthe
evidencewithaviewtoseparatingthegrainfromthe
chaff.TheSupremeCourtinanearlierjudgmentin
SectionUnionofIndiav.PrafullaKumarSamal,1979CriLJ
154,thatunderSection227oftheCode,theJudge
cannotactmerelyasapostofficeoramouthpieceof
theprosecution,buthastoconsiderthebroad
probabilitiesofthecase,thetotaleffectofthe
evidenceandthedocumentsproducedbeforehim,any
basicinfirmitiesappearinginthecaseandsoon.This
howeverdoesnotmeanthattheJudgeshouldmakea
rovingenquiryintotheprosandconsofthematter
andweightheevidenceasifhewasconductingatrial.
TheSupremeCourtinSectionSuperintendent
RemembrancerofLegalAffairs,WestBengalv.Anil
KumarBhunja,1979CriLJ1390madesomewhat

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page14of22
similarobservationswhenitheldthatthestandardof
test,proofandjudgmenttobeappliedfinallybefore
findingtheaccusedguiltyorotherwise,isnotexactly
tobeappliedatthestageofSection227andSection228of
theCodeofCriminalProcedure.Atthatstage,evena
verystrongsuspicionfoundeduponmaterialsbefore
theMagistrate,whichleadshimtoforma
presumptiveopinionastotheexistenceofthefactual
ingredientsconstitutingtheoffencealleged,may
justifytheframingofchargeagainsttheaccusedin
respectofthecommissionofthatoffence.”

21.Further,inthecasetitledSectionPrashantBhaskarv.State(Govt.of
NCTofDelhi)inCrl.Rev.P.No.385/2009decidedon22.09.2009
thisCourtheldasunder:

“17.Itneedsnoelaborationthatatthestageof
framingofcharge,thecourtisrequiredtoevaluatethe
materialsanddocumentswhichhavebeenplacedon
recordbytheprosecutionandtakenatthefacevalue,
whetherexistenceoftheingredientsconstitutingthe
allegedoffenceoroffencesaredisclosed.Itisforthis
limitedpurposealonethatthecourtispermittedtosift
theevidence…”

22.InthematterofAnoopSinghvs.State,anotherCo-ordinate
BenchofthisCourtinCrl.Rev.No.262/2016decidedon12.05.2017,
aftergoingthroughtheconspectusofdecisionontheissuehas
summedupthefollowingparameterstobetakenintoaccountatthe
timeofframingofchargeandtherevisionaljurisdictionoftheHigh
Court;andthepowersexercisablebytheHighCourtinrevisional
jurisdictionwhilstdealingwithanorderonchargeasunder:

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page15of22

“88….(i)ThejurisdictionoftheTrialCourtwhilst
exercisingpowerunderSection227oftheCrPCis
limited.

(ii)Atthestageofcharge,theTrialCourthasto
merelyperusetheevidenceinordertofindout
whetherthereisasufficientgroundforproceeding
againsttheaccusedornot.

iii)Ifuponconsiderationofthematerialplaced
beforeit,theTrialCourtissatisfiedthataprima
faciecaseismadeoutagainsttheaccused,itmust
proceedtoframechargeintermsofSection228of
theCrPC.

(iv)TheTrialCourtcannotconductarovingand
fishinginquiryintotheevidenceorameticulous
considerationthereofatthisstage.Marshallingand
appreciationofevidence,andgoingintothe
probativevalueofthematerialonrecord,isnotin
thedomainoftheCourtatthetimeofframingof
charges.

(v)Inotherwords,atthebeginningandtheinitial
stageofthetrial,thetruth,veracityandeffectofthe
evidencewhichtheprosecutionproposestoadduce
arenottobemeticulouslyjudged,andnorisany
weighttobeattachedtotheprobabledefenceofthe
accused.Thus,a„minitrial‟isnottobeconducted.

(vi)ItisnotobligatoryfortheTrialCourtatthe
timeofframingofcharges,toconsiderinanydetail
andweighinasensitivebalancewhetherthefacts,if
proved,wouldbeincompatiblewiththeinnocence
oftheaccusedornot.Thestandardoftestand
judgmentwhichistobefinallyappliedbefore
recordingafindingregardingtheguiltorotherwise
oftheaccusedisnotexactlytobeappliedatthe
stageofdecidingthematterunderSection227or
Section228oftheCrPC.

(vii)Thus,itisaxiomaticthatattheinitialstageif
thereisastrong/gravesuspicionwhichleadsthe
Courttothinkthatthereisgroundforpresuming

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page16of22
thattheaccusedhascommittedanoffence,thenitis
notopentothecourttosaythatthereisnosufficient
groundforproceedingagainsttheaccused.

(viii)TheTrialCourtmaysifttheevidenceto
determinewhetherthefactsemergingtherefrom
takenattheirfacevaluedisclosetheexistenceofall
theingredientsconstitutingtheallegedoffenceor
not.

(ix)Detailedordersarenotnecessarywhilst
framingchargesandcontentiousissuesarenot
requiredtobeansweredbytheTrialCourtatthe
stageofframingofcharges.

(x)Onlyinacasewhereitisshownthatthe
evidencewhichtheprosecutionproposestoadduce
toprovetheguiltoftheaccused,eveniffully
acceptedbeforeitischallengedincross-examination
orrebuttedbydefenceevidencecannotshowthat
theaccusedcommittedthecrime,thenandthen
alonetheCourtcandischargetheaccused.

(xi)Further,ifthescalesofpanastotheguiltor
innocenceoftheaccusedaresomethinglikeevenat
theinitialstageofmakinganorderunderSection
227orSection228,then,insuchasituation,
ordinarilyandgenerally,theorderwhichwillhave
tobemadewillbeoneunderSection228andnot
underSection227oftheCrPC.

(xii)TheprovisionsofSectionsection397oftheCrPC
empowertheHighCourtwithsupervisory
jurisdictiontoconsiderthecorrectness,legalityor
proprietyofanyfinding,sentenceororderandasto
theregularityoftheproceedingsofanyinferior
court.

(xiii)Revisionaljurisdictionisseverelyrestricted,
andoughtnottobeexercisedinaroutineandcasual
manner.Ithastobeexercised,normally,without
dwellingatlengthuponthefactsandappraisingthe
evidenceofthecase.

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page17of22

(xiv)Further,theCourtinrevisionoughttorefrain
fromsubstitutingitsownconclusiononanelaborate
considerationofevidence.

(xv)Whilstinrevisionaljurisdiction,theHigh
Courtcannotenterintotherealmofappreciationof
evidenceatthestageoftheframingofthecharges
itself.

(xvi)TheHighCourt,understatutoryobligation,
oughttobeloathininterferingatthestageof
framingthechargesagainsttheaccused,merelyon
hypothesis,imaginationandfar-fetchedreasons
whichinlawamounttointerdictingthetrialagainst
theaccusedperson.Thus,self-restraintonthepart
oftheHighCourtshouldbetheruleunlessthereisa
glaringinjusticestaringtheCourtintheface.
(xvii)Revisionalpowerscouldbeexercisedonly
whenitisshownthat,(a)thereisalegalbaragainst
thecontinuanceofthecriminalproceedings;(b)the
framingofchargeorthefactsasstatedinthefirst
informationreporteveniftheyaretakenattheface
valueandacceptedintheirentiretydonotconstitute
theoffenceforwhichtheaccusedhasbeencharged;

(c)Wheretheexerciseofrevisionalpoweris
absolutelyessentialtopreventpatentmiscarriageof
justiceandforcorrectingsomegraveerrorthat
mightbecommittedbythesubordinatecourts.
(xviii)Quashingofachargeisanexceptiontothe
ruleofcontinuousprosecution.Wheretheoffenceis
evenbroadlysatisfied,theCourtshouldbemore
inclinedtopermitcontinuationofprosecutionrather
thanitsquashingatthatinitialstage.TheCourtis
notexpectedtomarshaltherecordswithaviewto
decideadmissibilityandreliabilityofthedocuments
orrecordsbutisanopinionformedprimafacie.

23.SectionInMunnaDevivs.StateofRajasthanandOrs.,AIR2002SC
107,ithasbeenheldbytheSupremeCourtasunder:

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page18of22

“3….TherevisionpowerunderSectiontheCodeofCriminal
Procedurecannotbeexercisedinaroutineandcasual
manner.WhileexercisingsuchpowerstheHighCourt
hasnoauthoritytoappreciatetheevidenceinthe
mannerasthetrialandtheappellatecourtsare
requiredtodo.Revisionalpowerscouldbeexercised
onlywhenitisshownthatthereisalegalbaragainst
thecontinuanceofthecriminalproceedingsorthe
framingofchargeorthefactsasstatedintheFirst
InformationReporteveniftheyaretakenattheface
valueandacceptedintheirentiretydonotconstitute
theoffenceforwhichtheaccusedhasbeencharged.
ThisCourtinSectionKantiBhadraShaAnr.v.Stateof
WestBengal,2000CriLJ746hasheldthatthereisno
legalrequirementforthetrialcourttowritea
reasonedorlengthyorderforframingthecharges.

4.IntheinstantcasethelearnedJudgeignoredthe
basicprincipleswhichconferredthejurisdictionupon
theHighCourtforexerciseofrevisionalpowers.It
wasprematurefortheHighCourttosaythatthe
materialplacedbeforethetrialcourtwasinsufficient
forframingthechargeorthatthestatementofthe
prosecutrixherselfwasnotsufficienttoproceed
furtheragainsttheaccused-respondent.”

24.SectionInStateofMaharashtravs.SalmanSalimKhanandOrs.,
AIR2004SC1189,theSupremeCourthasheldasunder:

“13.Weareoftheopinionthatthoughitisopentoa
HighCourtentertainingapetitionunderSection482
oftheCodetoquashchargesframedbythetrialcourt,
samecannotbedonebyweighingthecorrectnessor
sufficiencyofevidence.Inacaseprayingfor
quashingofthecharge,theprincipletobeadoptedby
theHighCourtshouldbethatiftheentireevidence
producedbytheprosecutionistobebelieved,would
itconstituteanoffenceornot.Thetruthfulness,the
sufficiencyandacceptabilityofthematerialproduced

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page19of22
atthetimeofframingofchargecanbedoneonlyat
thestageoftrial.”

25.TheCourtatthestageofframingofchargeisnotrequiredto
meticulouslyweightheevidenceandtheprima-facieviewofthe
matteristobetakenintoconsideration.IfthecriminalCourt,on
considerationofthematerialonrecordfindsthataprima-faciecaseis
madeoutand/orgravesuspicionexistsabouttheinvolvementofthe
accusedinthecrimealleged,itisexpectedtoframethechargeandput
theaccusedontrial.Atsuchainitialstageofthetrial,thetruth,
veracityandeffectoftheevidencewhichtheprosecutorproposesto
adducearenotrequiredtobemeticulouslyjudged,allthatisrequired
is,thattheCourtmustbesatisfiedthatwiththematerialavailable,a
prima-faciecaseismadeoutfortheaccusedtostandtrial.The
materialmustbesuchascanbetranslatedintoevidenceatthestageof
trialandthegraveorstrongsuspicionmustbepremisedonsome
materialwhichcommendsitselftotheCourtassufficienttoentertain
theprima-facieviewthattheaccusedhascommittedtheoffenceandif
theCourtissatisfiedthataprima-faciecaseismadeoutagainstthe
accused,itmustproceedtoframeachargeintermsofSection228of
theCr.P.C.

26.Revertingbacktothesubmissionofthelearnedcounselforthe
petitioner,Idonotfindanysubstanceinhiscontentionthatthecharge
oughtnottohavebeenframedagainstthepetitionersincethe
prosecutionhasfailedtorecordthestatementofanypoliceofficial
thataftersurrenderandarrestofthepetitionerintheCourt,hewas
identifiedbythemasthepersonwhohadfiredonthemandhadfled

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page20of22
fromthespotleavingtheco-accusedVineetVermabehindsincethe
TrialCourthasalreadydealtwiththecontentionregardingTest
IdentificationParadeinitsimpugnedorderandIdonotfindanyflaw
therein.

27.Ialsodonotfindanysubstanceinthesubmissionofthelearned
counselforthepetitionerthatprima-faciethereisnomaterialon
recordtojustifytheframingofthechargeagainstthepetitionerbythe
TrialCourtandhencetheorderonchargeisliabletobesetaside.

28.ThisCourtisoftheopinionthattheTrialCourthasrightly
takenintoconsiderationtheprima-facieviewofthematterandhas
undoubtedlyapplieditsjudicialmindwhilepassingtheimpugned
order,takingintoconsideration,thematerialonrecord,whilecoming
totheconclusionofframingthechargeagainstthepetitioner.

29.Itcannotbesaidatthisstagethattheconclusionarrivedatby
theTrialCourtisunreasonableorunjustifiedcallingforthe
interferenceofthisCourtinexerciseofrevisionaljurisdiction.

30.Thematerialontherecorddemonstratesthatprima-facie
offenceinthiscase,underSections186/Section353/Section307/Section482/Section34oftheIPC
andSections27oftheArmsActand34oftheSectionIPC,standsmadeout
againstthepetitioner.

31.Idonotfindanyinfirmityorflawintheimpugnedorderpassed
bytheTrialCourt.Accordingly,thepetitionisdismissed.Pending
applicationisalsodismissed.

32.ItisclarifiedthatthisCourthasnotexpressedanyopinionon
themeritsofthecaseandwhateverisobservedandstatedhereinabove
issolelyforthepurposeofthedisposalofthepresentpetitionand

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page21of22
shallnottantamounttoanyexpressiononthemeritsofthecase.

CHANDERSHEKHAR,J

MAY13,2019/rk

Crl.Rev.P.513/2019Page22of22

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation