Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2369 (RAJ)

Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. The State of Rajasthan

2007-12-11

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 12.06.1997 , passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, District, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 742/1995 State of Rajasthan v. Sunil Kumar and Ors. Whereby the charge had been framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 407 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. In this case, the petitioner has prayed that the Misc. Petition be accepted and the order dated 12.6.1997 passed by the Court below, be quashed and set aside. Further, it has been prayed that the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, Distt. Jaipur in the Criminal Case No. 742 /1995 State of Rajasthan v. Sunil Kumar and Ors. may also be quashed and set-aside. 3. Broadly speaking, the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered owner of the Truck No. UP-11-A 6995 and engaged the transport business. The petitioner had engaged for the said purpose, one Ilias son of Kamaruddin as 'Driver' and Vaseem Mohammad as 'Khalasi' of the Truck. 4. In the aforesaid Truck, 191 bags of 'Tara Meera' were loaded for delivery of the same at Saharanpur through one Prakash Goods Career at Jaipur. The said goods were belonging to M/s. Raj Kumar Anil Kumar, Dudu. When the goods were not delivered at the destination, then a complaint came to to be lodged on 4.5.1995 by one Gambhir Mal Jain on behalf of M/s. Raj Kumar Anil Kumar, Dudu. The said complaint was registered as First Information Report No. 174/1995 on 5.5.1995 for offence under Section 407 read with Section 34 IPC. The police after conclusion of the investigation, filed a charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate, for offence under Section 407 IPC. Thereafter, the concerning Magistrate, framed the charge against the petitioner by his aforesaid order and under the said offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. He has further submitted that the petitioner, though the owner of the truck, did not know about the loading of 191 bags of 'Tara Meera'. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner, as such, the order of framing of the charge has wrongly been passed against the petitioner. 6. He has further submitted that the petitioner, though the owner of the truck, did not know about the loading of 191 bags of 'Tara Meera'. Therefore, he has submitted that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner, as such, the order of framing of the charge has wrongly been passed against the petitioner. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order passed by the Court-below and has submitted that there is ample evidence against the petitioner for the purpose of framing of the charge. Therefore, he has submitted that the Court below has not committed any error and has rightly framed the charge against the petitioner. 7. At the out-set, it may be stated that in the instant case, the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 12.6.1997 whereby the order of framing of charge has been passed by the learned Magistrate. The said order of framing of charge is a final order, as such, the same is revisable before the appropriate revisional Court. Suffice it to say, an order of framing of charge is an order of moment as held by the Larger Bench of this Court in the Case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Raj. 1991 (1) RLR 1 . Further it has been held that such an order is not an interlocutory order and, as such, the order is amenable to the the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions. In other words, a revision petition, under Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lies before a Court of Sessions, against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, District, Jaipur. In such view of the matter, the Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioner is wholly mis-conceived. 8. Besides, a perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate, goes to show that he had taken into consideration the material facts as well as the evidence on record so as to assess the sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused, which is only the relevant consideration at the stage of framing the charge. Adequacy of the material on record for conviction being rendered, is not the consideration at this stage. In the instant case, the charge framed against the petitioner is for offence under section 407 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 9. Adequacy of the material on record for conviction being rendered, is not the consideration at this stage. In the instant case, the charge framed against the petitioner is for offence under section 407 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 9. In this matter, the learned trial Court had taken into consideration the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as for instance Ashok Kumar Surana, Gambhir Mal Jain etc. To say that the evidence on record is inadequate, would be a premature assessment at the stage of framing of charge. The learned trial Court has, therefore, judiciously applied his mind while passing the order of framing of charge and it cannot be said that any illegality or abuse of the process of the Court has been committed by it so as to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, the order impugned dated 12.6.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) cum Judicial Magistrate, Dudu, is very much in accordance with the provisions of Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same does not call for any interference. 11. The Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. *******