PANWAR, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 22. 4. 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 67/1997 whereby the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26. 8. 1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Original Case No. 555/1994 whereby the learned trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the orders impugned and relevant material available on file. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court fell in error in framing the charges against the petitioner without there being any sufficient material. It was further contended that the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are arbitrary and based on insufficient material. It was further contended that the trial Court as well as the revisional court failed to scrutinise the material placed on record before framing the charge against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has already availed the remedy of revision by filing criminal revision petition under Section 397 (1) Cr. P. C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar and as such the second revision is specifically barred by the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 397 Cr. P. C. The petitioner by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. cannot be permitted to maintain the second revision. The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned revisional Court on the ground that he was not afforded proper opportunity of hearing before framing of the charges against him for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. In the instant case a first information report was lodged on 12. 10. 1993 at Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar by Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420, 467 and 468 of the I. P. C. The police registered a crime report No. 463/1993 and proceeded with the investigation. After the thorough investigation, police filed charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. P. C. against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. vide order dated 26. 8. 1996, the learned trial Court after discussing the material on record, reached to the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the petitioner for the offences noticed above. Against the order of the learned trial Court, a revision petition was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by the learned revisional court on 22. 4. 1998 by a reasoned order. Though, for framing of the charges reasons are not required to be stated by the trial Court.
(3.) IN Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal (1) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "if the trial Court decided to frame a charge there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial Judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. " In Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "it is well settled that at the stage of framing charge the Court is not expected to go deep into the probation value of the materials on record. if on the basis of materials on record the Court could come to the conclusion that the accused would have committed the offence the Court is obliged to frame the charge and proceed to the trial. " In State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. (3) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "if on the basis of materials on record a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. " ;