JUDGMENT 1. - Initially 5 SB Cri. Revision Petition Nos. 886/2009, 887/2009, 767/2009, 623/2009, 622/2009 were listed in the court for final disposal but during the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention towards the fact that one of the co-accused Gajendra Kumar @ Pappu has also filed a criminal revision petition No.631/2009 against the same order dated 30.0409 passed in Sessions Case No.34/2006. 2. Since all these revision petitions have been filed against the order of the learned trial court dated 30.04.2009, passed in Sessions Case No.34/2006, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order . 3. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the above petitioners against the order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Nagaur in Sessions Case No.34/2006 ,by which the learned Addl.Sessions Judge has ordered to frame charges for offence under section 148, 302, 302/149, 307, 307/149, 325, 325/149, 324, 324/149, 323, 323/149 and 341 IPC against the accused petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present revision petition are that , on 05.02.2006 at 11.45 PM, SHO, Police Station, Deedwana recorded the statement of Ugama Ram s/o Pema Ram at Bangar Hospital, Deedwana wherein he stated that about four months back, his son Shahdev had purchased a mine in Khasra No.1148, Khatu-Badi. He, along with Sahdev, Ashok, Prahlad, Ram Karan, Babu Lal, Shankar, Jagdish and Om Prakash were doing the work at the mines. At about 06.00 PM Police officials came to the Mines and while they were talking Nasir, Basir, Lala, Karim, Suraj Bhan , Raju , Suraj, Madan and Ganpat came on the spot and started beating them, as a result of which, Madan Lal, Raju, Ganpat and Babu Lal received injuries and during treatment, Babu Lal succumbed to the injuries. 5. On the basis of this report, SHO, Police Station, Deedwana registered a case as C.R. Case No.07/2006 and started investigation and during the course of investigation police arrested the accused petitioners and other accused. After completion of the investigation police submitted the charge sheet against the accused petitioners in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal, for offence under section 147, 148, 149,341,323,324,325,307, 302 120-B IPC and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, who committed the case to the court of learned Addl. After completion of the investigation police submitted the charge sheet against the accused petitioners in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal, for offence under section 147, 148, 149,341,323,324,325,307, 302 120-B IPC and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, who committed the case to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge , Nagaur, from where the case was transferred to the court of learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur for trial. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur, vide order dated 30.04.2009 ordered to frame charges against the accused petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Nagaur the petitioners has preferred this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a very short question is involved in these revision petitions that is, in the absence of the specific evidence of conspiracy , accused petitioners Mehram, Hazi Nasir, Sakir (Sabir), Asir and Hariram have been charged for the offence under section 302/120B IPC and they further argued that from the evidence recorded during the course of investigation, charge under section 302 /120-B IPC or charge under section 302/149 IPC cannot be framed in the absence of evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention towards the fact that charge sheet was filed against 23 persons and the learned trial court did not take into consideration the entire evidence recorded during the course of investigation and ordered to frame charge against all the petitioners. Thus the order of the learned trial court suffers from illegality, irregularity and impropriety. 8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the order of the learned trial court dated 30.04.2009 does not suffer from illegality, irregularity and impropriety and as per section 228 Cr.P.C. when there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then the charge can be framed for that offence. 9. I have perused the record and considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. So far as the offence under section 302/120B IPC is concerned, the learned trial court observed that some of the accused petitioners had conversation on mobile phone for some period and the call details of those conversational were taken on record and on the basis of those conversations, the learned trial ordered to frame charge under section 302 /120B IPC against some of the accused persons . 11. 11. The powers sunder section 357/140(1) IPC can be exercised by the revisional court where a gross miscarriage of justice has been caused by the trial court or any manifest illegality had been committed by the trial court. This jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law or facts or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. The revisional powers of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercised in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of a particular. 12. In the present case, looking to the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that the order of the learned trial court, for framing the charges against the petitioners, suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 13. Therefore, the order dated 30.04.2009 is maintained and the revision petitions filed by the petitioners, Pukh Raj @ Ramswroop , Rajesh Kumar @ Raju, Meh Ram, Hazi Nasir, Hari Ram, Gajendra Kumar @ Pappu, are hereby dismissed at the admission stage.Revision petition dismissed. *******