JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh (for short the 'Revisional Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 12/2001, whereby the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the C.J.M. No. 1 Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred as "the Trial Court") has been dismissed. The Trial Court vide Order dated 19.2.2014 has ordered for framing charges against the petitioner along with some other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the PDPP Act') and Section 15(2) of Petroleum Pipe Line Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2009, the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chittorgarh submitted an F.I.R. while alleging that at about 3.00 A.M. in the night, they received information in the control room relating to the fact that the pressure of the petroleum pipe line is being decreased. On inquiry, they found that near Badoliya village in the agriculture field of Panna Lal S/o Amar Chand Mali, petroleum pipe line was damaged and diesel was oozing ut and some persons have stolen the diesel from it. On the basis of the implaint, the police has registered F.I.R. and started investigation. During course of investigation, the police has found involvement of petitioner along with other co-accused namely, Pokhar Khatik, Ratan Lal Suthar, Udai Lal Mali and larayan Bheel. 3. As per the information furnished by the accused persons Pokhar Khatik, Jatan Lal Sutahr, Udai Lal Mali and Narayan Bheel under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the police has recovered a motor cycle and other equipments used in breaking the petroleum pipe line. The co-accused persons as well as the other witnesses have given statements to the effect that petroleum pipe line was damaged and the diesel was stolen at the instance of the petitioner. The police, after infestigation, has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner along with other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. ad with Section 3 PDPP Act as well as Section 15(2) of the Public Pipe Line Act. 4. The police, after infestigation, has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner along with other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. ad with Section 3 PDPP Act as well as Section 15(2) of the Public Pipe Line Act. 4. The Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences and after hearing the learned Counsel for the accused-persons, framed the charges against the petitioner and lie other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences vide Order dated 19.2.2014. 5. Being aggrieved with the Order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Trial Court, lie petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Court, which has been dismissed vide Order dated 4.7.2014. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that except the information given by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, no other evidence exists against the petitioner and the Trial Court has erred in ordering for framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 15(2) of the Petroleum Pipe Line Act. It is also contended that the statements of :he witnesses, namely, Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bal are of no significance and on the basis of the said statements, the petitioner cannot be convicted, therefore, the Orders dated 19.2.2014 and 4.7.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court are liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and prayed that prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the incident is proved from the material collected by the police during the course of the investigation and the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 15(2) of the Petroleum Pipe Line Act. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 9. It is true that the Trial Court has placed reliance on the information supplied by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein they have named the petitioner. However, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, namely Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bai. 9. It is true that the Trial Court has placed reliance on the information supplied by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein they have named the petitioner. However, the Trial Court has also taken into consideration the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police, namely Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bai. In their statements the said witnesses have clearly stated that three days before the incident, they saw the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons going towards the agriculture field of Amar Chand Mali where the petroleum pipe line was found damaged. The Trial Court has taken into consideration the argument made on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid witnesses have named the petitioner due to enmity on account of i some dispute relating to the agricultural land. However, the Trial Court has observed that whether Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bai have named the petitioner due to enmity or not, is a matter, which can be taken into consideration during the course of trial only. The Trial Court has also held that from the material collected by the police, prima facie case for commission of crime is made out. 10. The revisional Court has also taken into consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner relating to enmity with the witnesses, namely Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bai and has held that the question regarding enmity of the petitioner with the aforesaid witnesses can only be taken into consideration during the course of the trial. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Govind Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 (3) Cr.LR, (Raj.) 1459 , wherein this Court has taken into consideration the fact that except the information given by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, no other evidence was available against the petitioner and, therefore, the co-ordinate Bench has held that on the basis of the said evidence only, the Trial Court has erred in framing the charge against the accused. In the present case apart from the information provided by the co-accused person under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Other evidence is also available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. In the present case apart from the information provided by the co-accused person under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Other evidence is also available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. It is noticed that two witnesses have specifically named the petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the I Trial Court has committed any illegality in framing the charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 15(2) of the Petroleum Pipe Line Act without there being any evidence on record. 12. Hence the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from the facts of Govind Kumar's case (supra). Therefore, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner.In view of above discussions this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******