B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated November 2, 1987, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioners.
(2.) RAGHUNATH Ram, on February 12, 1986, at about 7. 00 p. m. lodged a report against accused Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh at Police Station, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur. On the basis of this report, a case under Sections 364 and 365 I. P. C was registered against Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh. The Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the accused petitioner under Sections 365, 328 and 323 I. P. C. The police, also, submitted the challan against accused Jai Singh under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused, framed charges against accused Megh Singh, Gopal Singh and Jag Singh under Sections 365, 323 and 328 I. P. C. and against accused Jai Singh, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. and against accused Yasin under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. It is against this order framing the charges that the petitioners have filed this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the order framing the charges so far as the offences under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. are concerned, but he, however, submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 328 I. P. C. are not made out and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not correct in framing the charge against the accused-petitioners under Section 328 I. P. C. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge framing the charges under Section 328 I. P. C, also, against the accused-petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the order passed by the learned Court below as well as the record of the case. Section 328 I. P. C is merely an extension of the provisions of Section 324 I. P. C. while under Section 324 I. P. C, actual causing of hurt is essentiat but for the offence under Section 328 I. P. C. the offence is complete even if no hurt is actually caused to the person to whom the poison or any stuperfying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person is administered. The necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 328 I. P. C are: (i) that the substance in question is poison or any stuperfying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing etc. : (ii) that the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance: and, (iii) that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely the he would thereby cause hurt to such person or the accused intended to commit or to facilitate the commission of such an offence.
(3.) AFTER a careful perusal of the record of the case, I am of the opinion that so far as the ingredients of the offence under Sec 328 I. P. C. are concerned, they are wanting. Even from the unrebutted evidence, collected by the prosecu- tion on record, no case for framing the charge under Sec. 328 I. P. C. is made- out. Though the Court is not expected or justified in going into the meticulous consideration of the evidence and critically appreciate the evidence collected by the police, but if the facts, emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, do not I disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the offence then the charge should not have been framed. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 328 I. P. C. are wanting in the present case. The charge framed against the accused petitioners under Section 328 I. P. C. therefore, deserves to be quashed. Consequently, this revision petition, filed by the petitioners, is partly allowed. The order framing the charges against the accused petitioners under Sections 365 and 323 I. P. C. are, however, maintained, but the order framing the charge under Section 328 I. P. C. is quashed. .;