JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar dated 17.5.83 whereby he framed a charge under section 366, I. P. C. against the petitioner. 2. On 16.2.83 a report was lodged at P.S. Sikar by Prithi Singh father of Sushila. He has reported that his daughter Sushila was found missing from the house in the morning of 16.2.83. In the night between 15th and 16th of February, 1983 where charge is to be framed. she had slept in her room and was there upto 10 P.M., hut in the morning on 16.2.83 like was found missing. He had suspected that the petitioner and one Richpal Singh who had developed illicit relations with Sushila might have taken her away. On this report, a case under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. was registered. 3. I would like to mention some facts to understand this case better. 4. The petitioner is serving in the Police Department as Constable and he was posted at Sikar in the office of the Superintendent of Police. On a report by Prithvi Raj father of Sushila that the petitioner had illicit relations with his daughter (he Additional Inspector General of Police after investigating this complaint transferred the petitioner from Sikar to Udaipur. The petitioner on this transfer joined at Udaipur on 14.2.83 and while he was on duty there he was taken into custody by the police on 17.2.83. While bringing this fact to my notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the F.I.R. Sushila was found missing on 16.2.83 in morning hours. Therefore, when it is alleged that she was abducted or kidnapped in between the night of 15.2.83 and 16.2.83, the petitioner was in service and on duty at Udaipur, which is a far distant place from Sikar. The argument, therefore, is that it is not correct to allege that the petitioner had kidnapped or abducted Sushila. 5. The whole case is based on the statement of Sushila recorded by the police under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. on 23.2.83 when she was recovered at Jaipur. I have , gone through her statement, and from this statement the fact comes out that on 1 13.2.83 in the night at 9.30 P.M. the petitioner came to the wall in between the Bara of Prithvi Raj and the petitioner. P. C. on 23.2.83 when she was recovered at Jaipur. I have , gone through her statement, and from this statement the fact comes out that on 1 13.2.83 in the night at 9.30 P.M. the petitioner came to the wall in between the Bara of Prithvi Raj and the petitioner. Both are neighbours, and there is a common wall between the two Baras. It is said that Habib petitioner gave her a letter and Rs. 25/- and told her that he w ill leave his wife and children and will take her. She has also stated that the petitioner Habib threatened her that if she did not come on 15.2.83, she will be murdered. In the letter the place has been mentioned where she was to come. That letter after reading was torn out by Sushila. Therefore, there is no such letter on record. There is only her statement about this fact. She has further said that on 15.2.83 in the night she was in her room, and from her statement it is clear that she was Waiting for the opportunity to leave the house. Then she hid herself in one of the rooms and left the house. She came to the spot where she was asked to come. She waited there for one and a half hours, but Habib did not come. Then she came to Babaji-Ki-Bagichi where she waited for Habib for two to three hours but he did not turned up. Thereafter, she in spite of coming back to her house proceeded towards the Station to catch the train, but she remained in one hut in a s field and remained there for the whole night and day, and then on the next day in night she left that hut, came to Sikar station on foot and from there she boarded the train and arrived at Jaipur in the morning at 10 A,M. She waited at the Railway Station, Jaipur for one hour and than she came to Chopar in the market. As two boys were following her, she reported this matter to a lady, who took her to her house. She narrated the whole story to that lady, who took her to the house of one Seth, where she used to work. In the night of 17.2.83, she again went to house of that old lady. As two boys were following her, she reported this matter to a lady, who took her to her house. She narrated the whole story to that lady, who took her to the house of one Seth, where she used to work. In the night of 17.2.83, she again went to house of that old lady. Next day, the Seth informed the father of the girl, who on 20.2.83 came to Jaipur with some other persons, and Sushila was taken away by them. Similar is the statement recorded under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. Thus, from the statement of Sushila it is clear that she came from Sikar all alone, and the petitioner was not with her. She remained at the hut in her village for one night and one day of her own accord without coming into contact with the petitioner or his man, Then she of her own accord came to Jaipur and remained at the house of an old lady and also at the house of a Seth. As such, whatever evidence on the record is against the petitioner is the solitary statement of Sushila. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that before framing charge it was the duty of the court to see, whether on the material on record there was any remotest possibility of conviction. If there was slightest chance or remotest possibility, the trial court was justified in framing the charge. On the contrary, if there was no such possibility, then there was no case to frame charge against the petitioner. In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 S.C. 366 . there lordships have laid down certain principles while considering the case at the stage of framing charge. They are as follows : 1. That the judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 2. Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. 3. 2. Whether the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. 3. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application, By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 4. That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post-Office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad possibilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and soon. This however does not mean that the judge should ; make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial, 7. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that while framing charge, the Court is to apply its judicial mind and consider, whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. The Court is not to accept the prosecution case as it is. If no substantial ground for proceeding in the case is found, the Magistrate or the trial Court is justified in discharging the person. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and others, 1977 S.C. 1489 . their lordships have discussed two rulings, Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 S.C. 545 and Vadilal Panchal v. D. D. Chadigaonkar, AIR 1960 S.C. 1113 . In both these cases, it has been observed that it is wrong to say that at the stage of framing charge the Court cannot apply its judicial mind. It is for the court to see and take into consideration whether there is sufficient ground for believing that the accused has committed an offence or not. In both these cases, it has been observed that it is wrong to say that at the stage of framing charge the Court cannot apply its judicial mind. It is for the court to see and take into consideration whether there is sufficient ground for believing that the accused has committed an offence or not. Their lordships have observed as under:- "As observed in the latter case, the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and there fore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked to face a trial, In Vadilal Panchals case Section 203 of the old Code was under consideration, which provided that the Magistrate could dismiss a complaint if after considering certain matter mentioned in the section there was in hit judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. To an extent S. 227 of the now Code contains an analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court It was held by this Court, while considering the true scope of S. 203 of the old Code that the Magistrate w as not bound to accept the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must apply his judicial mind to the material on which he had to form his judgment. These decisions show that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient: ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if un-rebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible." 8. The learned P. P. on the other hand has argued that at the stage of piling charge it is not necessary to go into the details of the case and to scrutinise it in the same manner as if the case is being finally disposed of. Simply, a prima facis case is to be seen and the statement of Sushila is sufficient to show that there is prima facis case against the petitioner. There are letters written by the petitioner prior to this incident, and these letters corroborate the intention of the petitioner. Simply, a prima facis case is to be seen and the statement of Sushila is sufficient to show that there is prima facis case against the petitioner. There are letters written by the petitioner prior to this incident, and these letters corroborate the intention of the petitioner. Therefore, it is sufficient to frame a charge on the basis of those letters to Sushila the statement of Sushila under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. 9. I have considered the arguments of both the sides and have perused the relevant law. Before framing charge, the prosecution has to show that there is a prima facis case material on the record to proceed against the accused person. If that material remains un-rebutted, and on the basis of that record conviction can be based certainly it is a case where charge is to be framed. In the present case, there is the only solitary statement of Sushila and two letters which were sent by the petitioner. The letter which was given to her, as staled by her in her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. has been torn out by her. The other two letters, which were sent prior to this incident, in ray opinion, are not so relevant so far as framing of charge in this case is concerned, it may be possible that these letters might have been written by the petitioner, but after writing these letters it cannot be presumed that on 16.2.83 the petitioner instigated her, and on his instigation she left the house. From the 'statement of Sushila, I find-that she of her own accord left her house. When she did not find the petitioner at the place which was mentioned by the petitioner in his letter, she should have come back. But she proceeded further, remained in the field for one day and night, went to the railway station and then came to Jaipur. I do not understand how the petitioner came in her way. At Jaipur also, she was with an old lady for some days. During that period she had no contact with the petitioner. I fail to understand how the petitioner who was on duty at Udaipur on 14th, 15th and 16th of February, 83 and who was taken into custody on 17.2.83, instigated her or persuaded her through some body to leave her house and remain at Jaipur. During that period she had no contact with the petitioner. I fail to understand how the petitioner who was on duty at Udaipur on 14th, 15th and 16th of February, 83 and who was taken into custody on 17.2.83, instigated her or persuaded her through some body to leave her house and remain at Jaipur. Hence, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge has not judged the matter judicially and simply on the record submitted by the prosecution found that the case is made out and framed the charge against the petitioner. The order of framing charge is, therefore, not correct. 10. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar by his order dated 17.5.83 is quashed. *******