- (1.) R. K. Saxsena, J. A crime was registered at police Station Deeg, district Bharatpur. State of Rajasthan, on the foot of allegations that three persons including Raja Man Singh, a candidate in general election, had been murdered and some had suffered wounds at the hands of police party on 21-2-1985 at about 12 or 12. 30 noon on the eve of general election. The crime was thoroughly investigated under the orders of the Central Government by a senior officer of the C. B, C. I. D. , New Delhi, who submitted a charge sheet against some police officers posted in that district including the petitioner, Ravi Shanker Misra, who was then posted as Sub-Inspector at the said police station. Shortly put, the accusations are that while Raja Man Singh was going on a vehicle along-with some of his associates in connection with election campaign the police party surrounded his vehicle and persons constituting the party, indiscriminately fired shots. Yet another allegation is that Raja Man Singh, and his associates were empty-handed, but the petitioner in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by the police personnel prepared a forged seizure memo to show that fire-arms were recovered from the persons who were the occupants of the vehicle at the relevant time. The criminal case wag finally transferred by the Supreme Court of India to the Sessions Judge, Mathura for disposal. The Sessions Judge, Mathura commenced the hearing of the trial and after the case had been opened on behalf of the prosecution, it was pressed by the defence that the case calls for an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The learned trial Judge has, by a well reasoned order dated 30-4-1990, rejected the contentions of this defence almost in its entirety except on the point that no case for proceeding against the driver of the police vehicle was made out and, further that a charge under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code could not be framed in vie-v of the bar created by the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Judge, thus fixed a date for framing charges. The correctness and the propriety of this order has been assailed, by one of the accused of this trial by means of this revision.
(2.) IT was urged on behalf of the revisionist that there was no evidence to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. In this continuation it wag pointed out that the petitioner was neither named in the first information report of the occurrence nor he was put up for identification. The contention is devoid of merit. The prosecution appears to be placing reliance on some entries made in the general diary of the police station which shows that the applicant was also in that police party and that he had deposited his revolver which was examined by the Ballistic Expert who had found that it had been used. IT is, therefore, not a case of no evidence against the applicant. The next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that in view of the provisions of Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, the subordinate officer, namly the revisionist who complied with the directions of the superior officer for firing had committed no offence. The question as to whether there was a direction from the superior Officer and. if so, whether it was justified, cap be effectively answered after the evidence is adduced before the trial In a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1917 -State of West Bengal v. Sheo mangal sing and others it was held on facts that the Junior officer had compiled with the directions of the superior officer and that the order of the Superior officer in the circumstances of the case, was justified. As pointed out above, the matter can be concluded after the entire material comes before the trial court. As this stage, the accused can be discharged only when there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against them. The underline portion appears under Section 227 of the Code, which means that no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is ground, whatsoever, to the charge against the accused. It is well settled that at the stage on of charge, meticulous consideration " as not required. What consideration at this stage is only the sufficiency of ground for proceeding the accused and rot whether materials on record are sufficient and conviction to be recorded it is for the prosecution to substance the accusations at a later stage Suffice it to refer to Mr. Dhanalaxmi's case, reported in AIR 1990 SC '
(3.) YET another contention of the learned counsel for revisionist was that under Section 2 8 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed. The point way pressed before the learned trial court also which has repelled 'he contention giving sound reasons; they need no repetition. In the end, it was submitted on behaif of the revistenist that the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the cans. I have already shown above that the Sessions Judge received the record of the case under the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which gave a direction to the Sessions Judge, Mathura to dispose of the case. The competence of the Supreme Court in passing an order of this nature cannot be challenged. The learned trial court has, after giving necessary and sound reasons, directed that it was a fit case for framing charges. The impugned order, in my opinion, dose not suffer from any infirmity. The revison is dismissed in limine. Revision dismissed. .;