Intezar @ Sonu vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr

Lok Pal Singh, J

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 19.05.2018 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in

S.T. No.289 of 2017 (FIR No.90/2017) P.S. ITI Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the court below has framed charges against the revisionist for the

offences punishable under Sections 342/34, 395/34, 397/34 and 412 of IPC.

Case, in brief, is that an F.I.R. was lodged by respondent no.2 at P.S. I.T.I. , Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar, on 8.5.2017, stating therein that five

unknown persons, disclosing their identity, entered in the company and on gun point committed a loot of Rs.2,67,097/-,mobile phones, purse, etc. of the

complainant and other staff of the finance company. While going, they confined the persons present in the company. On lodging of the FIR,

investigation of the case was carried out and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present revisionist and six others

under Sections 395, 397, 342, 412, 34 of IPC and u/s 3/25 of Arms Act. After receiving the charge-sheet, learned Magistrate took cognizance in the

matter and the same was committed to the court of Sessions and was registered as S.T. No.289/2017. On 05.05.2018, the revisionist moved an

application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., for discharge. Trial court, vide order dated 05.05.2018, dismissed the said application and fixed the date

19.05.2018, for framing of charges. On 19.05.2018, 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, framed charges against the

revisionist under Sections 342/34, 395/34, 397/34 and 412 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would contend that the revisionist is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He would

further contend that the recovery shown against the revisionist is fake and planted one.

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that the revisionist along with co-accused persons was arrested on

16.05.2017 with his Xylo Car and on their search, looted articles and country made pistols with cartridges have been recovered. It is also stated that

the revisionist as well as other co-accused persons were fully involved in the crime.

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on file, this Court finds that the

order dated 05.05.2018 whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, was dismissed, is not under

challenge in the present revision; rather the order of framing of charge is challenged.

While passing an order of framing of charge, the Court has to see as to whether prima-facie case is made out or not on the basis of documentary as

well as oral evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court appears to have satisfied itself on the basis of evidence collected before framing

charges against the revisionist.

Unlike the powers of the appellate court, in exercise of power under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not required to re-appreciate the evidence

on record. Rather, what is required to be seen is the illegality, if any, committed by the trial court.

In view of the above, I do not find illegality or material irregularity in the order impugned. Criminal revision is devoid of merit and the same is hereby

dismissed.