Delhi District Court
Ravi Kumar Verma vs The State on 20 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR1
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CR No.56311/2016
Ravi Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Pratap Chand Verma,
R/o 4697/4, 21, Daryaganj,
New Delhi - 110002. .....Revisionist.
Versus
The State .....Respondent.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.06.2016 passed by Ld. MM (West)/Delhi in a case bearing FIR No.50/2010 PS Nangloi U/s 408 IPC titled as State Vs. Ravi Kumar Verma, whereby Ld. Trial Court had directed to frame charge against the accused (revisionist herein) U/s 408 IPC and subsequently charge was framed on 05.08.2016, the revisionist has preferred the present revision petition on 23.09.2016 interalia praying for setting aside the impugned order, thereby discharging him from the instant case.
2. Notice of the petition was accepted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State on behalf of respondent. TCR was requisitioned and perused. I have heard both the sides in details. I have also perused the entire material placed on record particularly, the impugned order, record summoned from the Trial Court, contents of the revision petitions specially the grounds taken therein.
3. Brief facts of the case (as recorded by Ld. Trial Court) are that on (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 1 of pages 7 29.11.2014, a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs was entrusted to the accused for depositing the same with Allahabad Bank, Bhehra Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi in the account of proprietorship concern of the complainant but the accused (revisionist herein) did not deposit the said amount with the said bank and fled away with the money. After the closure of investigation, charge sheet was filed and after considering arguments of the parties, vide the impugned order, charge was ordered to be framed against the accused (revisionist herein), which is being assailed by the revisionist on the various grounds as mentioned in the petition itself.
4. According to Ld. Counsel for revisionists, order of Ld. Trial Court is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the revisionist herein was employed for the collection and disbursement of the payment to various customers with M/s Tagala Plastics at 879, Swaran Park, Udyog Nagar, Mundka, Delhi, whose proprietors is one Sh. Jafar Hussain Tagla. On 29.11.2014, petitioner was entrusted with an amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs for the payment to various customers by the proprietor of said firm. Out of the said amount, petitioner made the payment of Rs.1.5 Lakhs to customers and a sum of Rs.2 Lakh were kept in the dicky of motorcycle. When the petitioner was passing through Tilak Bazar (Chandni Chowk area) at about 5.00 PM, and was going to deliver the payment, there was a crowd in the street and some persons had stolen the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs from the dicky of motorcycle and when the petitioner noticed the same in the side mirror of motorcycle that the dicky was opened, he accordingly informed the police man posted at near the chowk. Said police, called one SI from the police station, who enquired from the petitioner. The petitioner informed his employer, however, no (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 2 of pages 7 FIR was lodged by the concerned police. The petitioner made the complaint to the higher authorities of the police on the next date i.e. 30.11.2014. The proprietor of the firm threatened him for the deposit of money, regarding which petitioner made complaint to the authorities on 03.12.2004. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that from the perusal of the legal notice and its reply, no prima facie case under Section 408 IPC is made out against the revisionist.
Per contra according to Ld. Addl. PP for the State, there is no illegality or patent error in the impugned order. There is sufficient prima facie material available on record for framing of charge U/s 408 IPC against the revisionist herein. Ld. Trial court has passed the impugned order after considering all the aspects of the case and as such, the instant revision petition as preferred by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed.
5. Law in respect of the question of framing of charge is well settled. At this preliminary stage of trial, the Court is not required to see and evaluate the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution meticulously with an idea to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. At this stage, the Court is required to see only prima facie evidence and even the charge can be framed on the basis of grave suspicion. At the same time it is also well established that the Court cannot act merely as a PostOffice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.
In the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1979 SC 366 titled as Union of India Vs. Prafulla (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 3 of pages 7 Kumar Samal and Another it was held that, "the Judge while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused had been made out. In para 10 of the judgment, the Court further observed:
(i). That the Judge while considering the question of framing of charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;
(ii). Whether materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with trial.
(iii). The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(iv). That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a PostOffice or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the document produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
In 1994 (1) C.C. Cases 578 (HC) titled as Bhim Singh Vs. State, it was held that, "The stage of framing of charges is an important (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 4 of pages 7 stage in the criminal trial and the Judge concerned has to carefully evaluate and consider the entire available material on record and he must judiciously apply his mind. Framing of charges erroneously would mean futile criminal prosecution for several year. The responsibility of the Judge concerned is particularly far greater in our country because of long delay in criminal trials and final disposal of criminal cases." In 2001 (1) C.C. Cases (HC) 398 titled as Sh. Sukh Ram Vs. C.B.I. it was held that, "While sifting the material put up for the purposes of framing of charges, the Courts, should desist from approaching the subject with suspicion and with a negative attitude. A Court is required to examine the material without any preconceived notion, positively and objectively. The material placed before it must speak for itself giving rise to grave suspicion. No presumption can be drawn unless there is cause to do so based on the material being examined....... A Court is bound by the material placed before it and not what is in the mind of the prosecution.
6. Having heard the aforesaid rival submissions of both the sides and perusing the entire material by calling the Trial Court record, I have come to the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 28.06.2016 as Ld. Trial Court has considered each and every aspect of the case while passing the said orders and has taken into account all the aspects of the case and I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of the same. Further I find myself in complete agreement with the observations recorded in the order dated 28.06.2016 that "there is material on record which discloses grave suspicion against the accused and which has not been properly explained". The facts and circumstances explained or narrated by the (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 5 of pages 7 petitioner in support of his claim are the matter of trial and they can not be looked into at this initial stage of trial.
Further it is well settled that an FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire events and can not contain the minutes details of the events. The question is whether a person was impleaded by way of afterthought or not must be judged having regard to the entire factual scenario in each case and at this preliminary stage of trial, the Court is not required to see and evaluate the evidence proposed to be led by the prosecution meticulously with an idea to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. At this stage, the Court is required to see only prima facie evidence and even the charge can be framed on the basis of grave suspicion. It has been held in Bharat Parikh Vs. CBI and Anr., [2008] INSC 1109 (14 July 2008) by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that: "at the stage of framing charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible and a mini trial cannot be conducted at such stage. The the stage of framing of charge the submissions on behalf of accused has to be confined to the material produced by the investigating agency."
In Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI, JTY 2010 (10) SC 413, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that : "while framing of charge, magistrate cannot make roving enquiry nor the judge or Magistrate can analyse all material, including pros and cons, reliability or acceptability."
7. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any reason to interfere in the (Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 6 of pages 7 impugned order. As such the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
8. Revisionist/accused is directed to appear before Ld. Trial Court on 17.11.2016.
9. TCR along with a copy of judgment be sent back to Ld. Trial Court for information and proceeding further in the matter as per law.
10. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in open Court (RAKESH KUMAR1)
on 20th October, 2016) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (NDPS) (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(Ravi Kumar Verma Vs. State) (CR No.56311/2016) Page No. 7 of pages 7