Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 440 (RAJ)

Sansar Chand v. State Of Rajasthan

2004-03-23

SHIV KUMAR SHARMA

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated February 23, 2004 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Ajmer whereby charges under Sections 9/51, 44, 48, 49, 49(b) and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 have been framed against the petitioner. 2. Contextual facts depict that on January 6, 2003 while one Balwan (co-accused) was travelling in Train No. 9616 Dn., Constables of Railway Police boarded the train at 10.30 PM. When the train got halted at station Mandel, the Constables found Balwan sitting in toilet gallery keeping a square carton of Cardboard under the right elbow. Seeing the police men Balwan felt uneasy. The constables became suspicious and asked Balwan to open the Carton which contained two skins of leopard. When the train reached Vijay Nagar around 1.00 AM, Balwan made to detrain alongwith leopard skins. FIR was lodged at Police Station Bhilwara. In the course of investigation Balwan disclosed that he has carrying leopard skin for the petitioner. After usual investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Ajmer against Balwan and eight other accused persons including the petitioner. 3. Calling in question the impugned order it is urged by learned Senior Counsel that course adopted by the learned Magistrate in dealing with the case of the petitioner on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused is inconsistent with the consensus of judicial opinion in regard to the true scope and effect of section 30 of the Evidence Act, which provides that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons as well as against the person who makes such confession. Learned Senior Counsel took me to various judicial decisions and canvassed that the learned Magistrate committed serious illegality in framing the charges. 4. Having brooded over the submissions and scanned the material on record, I find that basis of prima facie satisfaction of learned Magistrate for framing the charges was the disclosure statement of co-accused Balwan. It also appears that the petitioner was the accused in several other cases under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pending in various courts in Delhi, Rajasthan and other states. It also appears that the petitioner was the accused in several other cases under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pending in various courts in Delhi, Rajasthan and other states. Since there was a strong suspicion at the initial stage leading the learned Magistrate to think that there was a ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed an offence, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial. 5. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh AIR 1977 SC 2018 indicated that at the stage of framing the charge the court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, can not take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial, but at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. 6. Ratio indicated in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Chand (supra) was reiterated in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja ( AIR 1980 SC 52 ). 7. In my opinion provisions of Section 397/401 Cr.RC. are not to be invoked to meticulously judge the truth and veracity of the material on record. In exercising revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations against the accused are likely to be established by evidence or not. It is not the province of the High Court to enter into merits and demerits of the case. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. In exercising revisional jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations against the accused are likely to be established by evidence or not. It is not the province of the High Court to enter into merits and demerits of the case. That is the function of the trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him. In the present case where the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses and closed the evidence on March 15, 2004 and the case has been posted for recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interference in regard to the truthfulness, the sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing charge is uncalled for. 8. For these reasons, the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Record be sent back forthwith.Revision Dismissed. *******