- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. Counterfeit stamps and stamp papers worth more than half a million were recovered from five persons in Ghaziabad. They were arrested and their interrogation revealed that a factory prepares counterfeit stamp and stamp papers was being run by the applicant and his brother co-accused Vinod. The police raided the premises on the pointing out of two co-accused Smt. Manju Sharma and Kishan at Agra and various implements and appliances for preparing counterfeit stamps and stamp papers were found there and it was revealed by the aforesaid two co-accused Smt. Manju and Kishan that the applicant and his brother co-accused Vinod were engaged in the preparation of counterfeit stamp and stamp papers in his premises. The applicant and his brother co-accused Vinod were arrested and against them and charge against them has been framed by the Trial Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. IV Ghaziabad.
(2.) THE contention of the applicant is that the charge framed is erroneous on the following counts and the order framing charge be quashed in these proceedings (in S. T. No. 1722 of 2000) under Section 482 Cr. P. C. : (I) That the charge mentions that applicant ran away, while the applicant was actually not present on the spot, when police arrived at the premises. (II) That nothing was recovered from the applicant was while the charge so stated. (III) That taking the worst scenario, the only charge which could be framed against the applicant under Section 120-B I. P. C. This Court is at a loss to comprehend as to why, the applicant has come to this Court for changes or modifications in the charge. This could have been done and should be done at the level of the Trial Court under Section 216 Cr. P. C. If some wrong facts have been mentioned in the charge the attention of the Trial Court should have been invited to the same and the Trial Court could amend the charge if so required. No application was given to the Trial Court pointing out any factual defects in the charge and the applicant has come straight to this Court. He should seek relief in the Trial Court. It may in passing be mentioned that the mere framing of a charge cannot lead to conviction and is not a very significant feature. It is true that a charge should be framed in accordance with the prima facie evidence available on record but if there is some superfluous element in the charge, it will not make any substantial difference to the Trial because the result of the Trial will depend upon the evidence adduced in the case and not on the words of the charge. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Supreme Court said that charge can be framed even on the basis of a strong suspicion vide Ramesh Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 2018 and Rajbir Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. , JT 2006 (3) SC 372. This is however, not to say that a charge should not be framed correctly accordingly with the evidence, but it is not only to emphasise the not so significant role of the charge, which may cause prejudice or subvert the Trial. It is only after evidence has been adduced in the case that the Court will decide under what provision of law, if any the accused is guilty. Application dismissed. Application dismissed. .;