GUPTA, J. - (1.) THESE two revision petitions u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. are directed against the order dt. 24. 3. 99 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he framed charges against the petitioners u/s. 120-B, 394 and 398 IPC.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case are that on 19. 5. 98 an attempt was made to loot the Pali Urban Cooperative Bank, Pali. THE F. I. R. was lodged by Ganpat Lal, Incharge Bank in which it was stated that at about 4. 30 PM. three persons having their faces covered entered the Bank precincts and after rolling up the channel gate, one of them threw red chill powder on the faces of two bank employees, and one miscreant at the dagger point, asked the employees to handover the entire cash to them. Hearing the shoutings, outsiders rushed there. THE miscreants tried to make good their escape, however, one of them who later disclosed his name as Umed Singh, was caught. Umed Singh told the persons collected there that his two other companions were Surendra Vyas and Chhotu. On this report a case u/s. 394 and 398 IPC was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan. THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned order framed charges u/s. 394, 398 and 120-B IPC against the petitioners. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that Hari Ram was the employee of the Bank and the chilli powder was thrown at him, contended that there would not be any occasion for him to have associated himself with the act of robbery. His further contention was that there is no material against Surendra Vyas on which charges could be framed. He pointed out that no test identification parade was held. He argued that the statement of co-accused Umed Singh could not be made basis for framing charges. Relying on the cases of Hari Charan vs. State of Bihar (1) and Suresh Budhram vs. State of Maharashtra (2), he canvassed that petitioner Surendra Vyas be discharged. Mr. Mehar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial court. His contention was that apart from the fact that co-accused Umed Singh had disclosed the name of Surendra Vyas as one of the perpetrators of the crime, there is evidence that Hari Ram co-accused was informed that Surendra was calling him at the hotel and that there is also evidence on record that Hari Ram and Surendra Vyas resided in the same area and that Hari Ram was the regular customer of Surendra Vyas. He pointed out that the conduct of Hari Ram at the time of occurrence was far from natural and it seems that just to show innocence of Hari Ram some amount of chilli powder was thrown at him also. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. First, we may see the principle which should be kept in view while framing the charge or discharging the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia (3) interpreting Section 227 Cr. P. C. laid down the principle in the following words- " Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the Judge, shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. " The ground in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial. It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into. "
(3.) IT is obvious that at the stage of the framing of the charge the court is not required to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. At that stage, the court is also not required to under take an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. The Court is only to see whether there is such material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. Keeping the above principle in mind, now 1 proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Against Hari Ram who was employee of the Bank, there is the statement of Shanker who was the owner of hotel. He states that at about 2. 30 and 3 p. m. three persons visited his hotel and one of them asked him to call Hari Ram from the Bank, informing him that Surendra was remembering him and thereafter he went to the Bank and gave message to Hari Ram who after some time came to his hotel and had a talk with three persons and after some time the occurrence took place. Shaker also states that when the occurrence took place and he rushed to the Bank, the miscreant who was caught by the persons, was the person who was sitting in his hotel alongwith two other persons and who had called Hariram. The circumstance, that Hari Ram went to the hotel on receiving the message that Surendra was remembering him and thereafter those very persons took part in looting of the Bank, prima-facie shows that Hari Ram was in league with those persons. ;