Delhi District Court
Joginder And Anr vs Cbi on 8 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, (CBI-14)
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. : DLCT-11-000162-2025
Criminal Revision No. : 08/2025
Date of Institution : 27.02.2025
1. Dalbir
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
R/o Manak Majra (119),
PO-Ahulana, Tehsil-Gannur,
Haryana-131101.
...Revisionist No.1
2. Rajbir
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
R/o 644P, Village -Ahulana,
Tehsil-Gannur, Haryana.
...Revisionist No.2
Versus
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
New Building CGO Complex,
Lodhi Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110003
...Respondent
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI
AND
Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 1 of 21
AND
CNR No. : DLCT-11-000341-2025
Criminal Revision No. : 16/2025
Date of Institution : 22.04.2025
1. Joginder @ Jogiya
S/o Shri Harnam
R/o H.No. 119, Bhapra, Beholi Road, Bhapra
Tehsil-Samalkha, District- Panipat
Haryana-132101.
...Revisionist No.1
2. Subhash
S/o Sh. Dharampal
R/o H.No. 113, Block No.7, Village-Manana
Tehsil-Samalkha, District- Panipat
Haryana
...Revisionist No.2
Versus
1. Central Bureau of Investigation
New Building CGO Complex,
Lodhi Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110003
...Respondent
Date of reserving judgment : 22.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 08.08.2025
Decision : Both Revision Petitions Dismissed
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI
AND
Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 2 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. By way of this common order, I shall decide the two criminal revision petitions filed against the Orders to frame the Charge dated 24.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in the case titled as CBI vs. Joginder @ Jogia & Ors., bearing CC No. CBI/293/2019. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court has ordered for framing of charge against the accused persons namely Dalbir & Rajbir (revisionists in the Crl. Rev. No. 08/2025) and Joginder @ Jogiya and Subhash (revisionists in the Crl. Rev. No. 16/25) for the commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 51 read with Section 40, 49 & 49B of the wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Dibrugarh Rajdhani Express on 07.10.2016:-
2. On 07.10.2016, based on a secret informer's tip, CBI team, consisting of Inspector, Sub-Inspector, few constabulary staff, Regional Deputy Director, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), New Delhi and two independent witnesses reached at New Delhi Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate side at about 03:30 P.M. The secret informer also joined the C.B.I team.
The Dibrugarh Rajdhani Express (Train No. 12424) was to leave the platform No. 16 at the fixed scheduled departure time at 04:10 P.M. The CBI team took their strategic positions at the platform No.16. At 03:50 PM, Dibrugarh Rajdhani Express arrived at the platform No. 16 and the Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 3 of 21 passengers of this train started boarding the train. The CBI team was keeping the eyes at the A-4 coach of the train. They noticed four passengers with their baggage occupying the seats No. 1 to 4 in the A-4 coach with their baggage placed below their seats. The secret informer, accompanying the CBI, identified them and confirmed that they were the four persons, who were carrying the Pangolin Scales in their bags for its delivery to Guwahati to an unknown person. Thereafter, the CBI team alongwith the independent witnesses entered the A-4 coach and introduced themselves to the four suspect passengers. The four passengers became perplexed and disclosed their identities as:-
i) Joginder @ Jogia S/o Harnam R/o PS-Samalkha, Haryana;
ii) Dalbir S/o Phool Singh R/o Gannaur, Haryana;
iii) Rajbir R/o Gannaur, Haryana and
iv) Subhash R/o Samalkha, Haryana.
The print outs of E-tickets were shown by the suspect Joginder to the CBI.
Recovery of Pangolin Scales:-
3. The four suspects were asked to identify and show the contents of their bags for inspection in presence of the independent witnesses. All four identified their baggage before the team and opened them. The five bags were identified as one belonging to Rajbir, one to Dalbir, one to Joginder and two bags belonging to Subhash. All five bags contained pangolin skin and Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 4 of 21 the same was duly confirmed by Mr. Verma of W.C.C.B. Thereafter, the suspects were asked to get off the train with their baggage. As per the C.B.I, the platform was very crowded due to rush of the public, and there was no suitable space to carry out further proceedings. Further, the accused persons requested the CBI team not to carry out the further legal proceedings at the railway station, citing concerns for their reputation and social image.
Considering that, CBI decided to bring the accused persons and respective baggage to the CBI office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi for further proceedings.
Proceedings in the CBI Office:-
4. They reached the CBI office at approximately 05:30 P.M. The accused persons were asked to open their respective bags for a thorough inspection. The inspection revealed that each of the five bags contained Pangolin Scales, which were kept in polythene bags/white gunny bags.
Thereafter, each bag containing the Pangolin Scales was weighed on a weighing machine available at the CBI Office. The weights of the bags and their contents were as follows:-
i) The bag of the accused Rajbir containing pangolin scales was having a weight of 26.5 Kg, which was marked as 'A';
ii) The two bags of Subhash containing pangolin scales were heaving weight of 8.6 kg and 15.9 kg, which were marked as B-1 and B-2 respectively;
iii) The bag of Dalbir containing pangolin scales was having a weight of 25.2 kg, which was marked as C; and Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 5 of 21
iv) The bag of Joginder @ Jogia containing pangolin scales was having a weight of 9.7 kg, which was marked as D.
5. Thereafter, a white paper containing the signatures of the CBI team and the independent witnesses was pasted on each bag/pulandas with cello tape. Each bag was then wrapped with a white markin cloth, stitched and sealed with a brass seal bearing the impression "CBI SIU XI B". All the five pulindas were signed by all the members of the CBI team. The bags were respectively marked on their outer layer also with the same marking as mentioned above. The Facsimile of the brass seal used in the sealing proceedings was taken on a separate paper sheet and the brass seal, after its use, was handed over to Shri Abhey Kumar Anand, Senior Manager, for the safe custody with direction to produce the same before the court as and when directed to do so. The FIR was registered on 08.10.2016. Subsequently, all four accused persons were arrested through separate arrest memos at 11:00 P.M.
6. After investigation, the pangolin scales seized from the accused persons were forwarded to the Director of Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for scientific examination vide letter No. 8795 dated 13.10.2016.
The Wildlife Institute of India vide letter dated 15.11.2016 informed that the the scale sample marked as F-3262/1-5 to F-3262/5-5 were taken for DNA based analysis and the samples belonged to an Indian Pangolin. Based upon Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 6 of 21 the documentary evidence and the statements of the witnesses, a complaint was filed before Ld. Special Court, Tis Hazari Courts against the accused persons under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 51 r/w Section 40, 49 & 49-B of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.
Pre-Charge evidence:-
7. The Ld. Special Court summoned the accused persons, who subsequently appeared. Thereafter, pre-charge evidences were produced before the court. The C.B.I examined seven witnesses during pre-charge evidence. The accused persons did not cross-examine Inspector Satyabir Singh (CW-1) and Sh. Abhay Kumar (CW-2). CW-3, CW-4 and CW-5 were cross-examined. The CW-6 was not cross-examined despite opportunity given. The CW-7 was not cross-examined despite opportunity given. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused persons did not cross-examine the investigating officer and the independent witnesses during pre-charge evidence and reserved their right to cross-examine than at the post-charge stage. They did cross-examine the Nodal Officers from Bharati Airtel and Vodafone, and the e-ticketing agent of IRCTC.
8. After pre-charge evidence, vide order dated 24.01.2025, Ld. Trial Court ordered for framing of charges qua the four accused persons under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 51 r/w Section 40, 49 & 49-B of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972.
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 7 of 21 Submissions of Revisionists:-
9. Ld. counsel for the accused persons/revisionists submits that the impugned order dated 24.01.2025 is a non-speaking order passed in a mechanical manner; that the order to frame the charge must be a speaking order; that Ld. Trial Court did not record the submissions of defence counsels; that Ld. Trial Court relied upon the confession of the revisionists, which is not permissible in law; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the FIR dated 08.10.2016 was registered after the arrest and search and seizure of the alleged articles on 07.10.2016; that no specific time has been given as to when the recovery-cum-seizure memo was prepared; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that no reliance can be placed on the search and seizure proceedings, which were conducted prior to registration of FIR; that Ld. Trial Court ought not to have acted upon FIR and cognizance should not have been taken on the strength of the said FIR.
10. It is further submitted that the search and seizure proceedings are patently illegal and perverse; that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the alleged five bags in possession of the accused persons were brought to the CBI office without being were marked sealed and seized; that the defective search and seizure proceedings creates the possibility of tampering with the seized articles particularly when the alleged bags containing Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 8 of 21 Pangolin scales were neither marked nor sealed at the scene of occurrence.
11. Ld. counsel for the revisionists submits that Ld. Trial Court has failed to evaluate the material and documents to find out whether ingredients of alleged offence under Section 40, 49 & 49-B of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 are made out or not; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no malkhana report pertaining to the seized wildlife articles from the date of alleged recovery i.e. 07.10.2016 till 13.10.2016 when the alleged articles were forwarded to the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for forensic examination; that in absence of malkhana report, possibility of tampering can not be ruled out, and it creates serious doubt as to the credibility of the entire search and seizure proceedings; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the CBI acted in clear violence of the mandatory guidelines laid down in the Wildlife Crime Manual, thereby rendering the search and seizure proceedings illegal; that CBI failed to incorporate the detailed description of the physical characteristics of the seized articles including their colour, texture, size, which are mandatory as per the guidelines laid down in the manual; that the WCCB officer merely on visual inspection, classified the articles as a wildlife contraband without applying the necessary tools and procedure.
12. Ld. counsel for the revisionists submits that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the CBI had failed to make any efforts to join the Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 9 of 21 Railway Police Force at the time of seizure proceedings at the railway station; that CBI has failed to bring any evidence regarding sale/purchase of the alleged wildlife articles; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that offence under Section 49 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 does not fall under the Schedule-1 of the Act and therefore, no offence under Setion 49 can be committed in respect of pangolin scale; that Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is no evidence on record to suggest that the revisionists were engaged in the business of buying or selling pangolin scale;
that the revisionists do not fall within the definition of dealer under Section 2 (11) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; that the CBI has failed to establish the possession of the alleged wildlife articles on account of defective seizure memo.
Court's Observations:-
13. The Central Bureau of Investigation filed the complaint before the court of Ld. Magistrate under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 51 r/w Section 40, 49 & 49-B of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972. The offences mentioned in the complaint are triable by the court of magistrate as a warrant triable cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The procedure to deal with such cases has been given under Chapter XIX-B, consisting of Section 244 to Section 247 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, the Section 244 to Section 247 Cr.P.C are reproduced here as under:-
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 10 of 21 Section 244 :- Evidence for prosecution 1). When, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on a police
report the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
2). The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.
Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
245. When accused shall be discharged.
(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.
246. Procedure where accused is not discharged.
(1) If, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make.
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 11 of 21 (3) If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea,
and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
(4) If the accused refuses to plead, or does not plead or claims to be tried or if the accused is not convicted under sub-section (3), he shall be required to state, at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or, if the Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing so thinks fit, forthwith, whether he wishes to cross-examine any, and, if so, which, of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. (5) If he says he does so wish, the witnesses named by him shall be recalled and, after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall be discharged.
(6) The evidence of any remaining witnesses for the prosecution shall next be taken, and after cross-examination and re-examination (if any), they shall also be discharged.
Section 247 Cr.P.C (Evidence of Defence):-
14. Section 247 Cr.P.C reads as under:-
"The accused shall then be called upon to enter upon his defence and produce his evidence; and the provisions of section 243 shall apply to the case."
The afore-said Section 247 Cr.P.C talks about discharge of the accused. If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. However, if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, he shall frame in writing the charge against the accused.
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 12 of 21 "If Unrebutted":-
15. The expression 'if unrebutted' in the Section 245 Cr.P.C means that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined after appearance of the accused shall be taken on their face value without looking at the rebuttal done by the accused persons. The testimonies need to be read without being rebutted by the accused to find out a prima-facie case against the accused persons. 'If unrebutted' signifies that the unrebutted testimonies of the witnesses make out a "no case scenario" in favour of the accused persons.
16. It would thus be seen that the standard to see the prma-facie case is that no case is made out from the complainant evidence even without it being rebutted by the accused. Though, the accused may cross-examine the complainant witnesses during the pre-charge evidence, but the evidence is to be seen as unrebutted to find out the prima-facie case against the accused persons.
17. At the same time, Section 246 Cr.P.C says that if the magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame a charge against the accused.
18. As a result, twin aspects need to be seen before framing charge:-
i) Whether no case is made out against the accused with unrebutted Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 13 of 21 testimonies recorded at pre-charge stage and
ii) Whether there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence.
Testimonies of witnesses at pre-charge stage:-
19. The witnesses deposed that the CBI team reached the railway station at the source information. The team consisted of Inspector Satyabir, SI Meenakshi, few constables, independent witnesses namely Shri Rupesh Kumar Gupta and Shri Abhey Kumar Anand from the Punjab National Bank and Mr. Nishant Verma from the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB). The secret informer pointed out towards the accused persons. The accused persons were made to get off the train. Their bags were checked and the officer from the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) identified the material in the bags as prohibited items under the Wildlife Act. Thereafter, the bags were taken to the CBI office, where further proceedings were carried out.
20. During pre-charge evidence, the investigating officer was examined, and he corroborated the facts mentioned in the complaint. The independent witnesses from the Punjab National Bank also supported the complaint. Both the independent witnesses deposed that they reached New Delhi Railway Station, Ajmeri Gate at platform No. 16. They were taken to the AC-2 Tier coach by the IO. The CBI team identified the accused persons Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 14 of 21 who were sitting in the coach A-4 at seat No. 1 to 4. The accused persons were asked to reveal their identities. They revealed their identities as Rajbir, Subhash, Dalbir and Joginder @ Jogia.
21. The independent witnesses also deposed during pre-charge evidence that all the accused persons were made to de-board the train along with their luggage. Apparently, the accused persons did not cross-examine the independent witnesses during pre-charge evidence and reserved their right to cross-examine the witness to the post charge stage.
22. CW-7 Dy. SP namely H.S. Sachan also corroborated the statement of the Inspector Satyabir Singh.
Seizure memo before the F.I.R:-
23. It is contended by Ld. counsel for the revisionists that seizure of the property before registration of FIR makes the entire process illegal. The seizure of articles/goods/contraband prior to registration of FIR does not make the FIR illegal in every case. It needs to mention here that each case is to be decided on its own facts. The contradiction in their statements shall not bring the case in a 'No CASE' category. Sometimes, the seizure is made before registration of FIR, and the seizure memo becomes the very foundation of the registration of the FIR. The wildlife crime investigation manual also delineates that in wildlife crime cases, investigation may start Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 15 of 21 with lodging of seizure, apprehension report or the offence reported by an authorised person, who makes a seizure or arrest. What would be the effect of non-preparation of the seizure memo or search memo at the scene of crime needs to be seen at the final stage, after conclusion of trial. Preparation of seizure memo before the registration does not fundamentally make the proceedings illegal. It is not the case that there is no search memo or seizure memo. It is not the case that no recovery of incriminating evidence has been effected. It is a case where the complainant shows a chain of event starting from the railway station to the registration of F.I.R. Nevertheless, the lapses in the investigation, if any, and its effect thereon on the merits shall be seen lateron at the final stage.
No roving inquiry:-
24. It has been held in catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts that at the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case needs to be seen and whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. It is not required that detailed reasons must be recorded at the stage of charge. The possibility of the accused person's acquittal on account of lapses in investigation need not to be considered, rather it is to be seen whether prima-facie case is made our or not. In the matter of Ashish Chadha Vs Asha Kumar and Anr 2012 (1) SCC 680 and State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Charan Bansal 2020 (2) SCC 209, it has been observed that the court at the stage of framing of charge needs not Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 16 of 21 to take meticulous appreciation of facts or roving enquiry into the same. Only prima-facie case needs to be seen.
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Bhawna Bai vs. Ghanshyam And Others.,(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217 held as follows :-
16. After referring to Amit Kapoor, in Dinesh Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2014) 13 SCC 137, the Supreme Court held that for framing charge under Section 228 Crl.P., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing of parties, if the judge is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence triable by the Court of Session, he shall frame the charge against the accused for such offence.
17. ........For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen. As held in Knati Bhadra Shah and another v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722, while exercising power under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required record his reasons for framing the charges against the accused. Upon hearing the parties and based upon the allegations and taking note of the allegations in the charge sheet, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge was satisfied that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and framed the charges against the accused- respondent Nos.1 and 2. While so, the High Court was not right in interfering with the order of the trial court framing the charges against the accused-
respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and the High Court, in our view, erred in Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 17 of 21 quashing the charges framed against the accused. The impugned order cannot therefore be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Ashok Kumar Kashyap in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2021 (Arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 3194 of 2021) observed that :-
"...23.In the case of P. Vijayan (supra), this Court had an occasion to consider Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. What is required to be considered at the time of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application has been considered elaborately in the said decision. It is observed and held that at the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that in other words, the sufficiency of grounds would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. It is further observed that if the Judge comes to a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed, he will frame a charge under Section 228 Cr.P.C., if not, he will discharge the accused. It is further observed that while exercising its judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the function of the court, after the trial starts.
24. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of M.R. Hiremath (supra), one of us (Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) speaking for the Bench has observed and held in paragraph 25 as under:
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 18 of 21
25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State of T.N.v. N. Suresh Rajan [State of T.N.v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11 SCC 709, adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) "29. ... At this stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at this stage."
.................................................................................................... ......It was held that as observed hereinabove, the High Court was required to consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and whether the accused is required to be further tried or not. At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible."
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 19 of 21
27. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as noted above delineate the standard to frame the charge shall be same under Section 245 (1) Cr.P.C, Section 239 Cr.P.C and Section 227 Cr.P.C. The only difference under Section 245 Cr.P.C and Section 239/227 Cr.P.C is that in cases instituted otherwise than on police report, the court has an advantage of pre- charge evidence before it. However, the standard to find the prima-facie case is the same, be it a magistrate court or a sessions court. As noted above, mini trial of the case is not required at this stage. As a result, there is no requirement to test the credibility of the witnessess and to find out whether testimonies of the witnesses bring the case within the frame-work of Wildlife Act. Prima-facie, it shows that the accused persons were found in conscious possession of the seized articles. Similarly, effect of the break in the custody chain of seized material shall be examined at the final stage.
28. So far as Section 49 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is concerned, it is to be noted here that in the present case, the offence was committed in the year 2016. In the year 2016, the Section 49 of the Act was neither mentioned in the first schedule nor in the second schedule. The section 49 has been added in the second Schedule only by way of amendment in the year 2022. After amendment, the offence under the Section 49 of the Wildlife Protection Act is made out only in respect of the wildlife mentioned in the Schedule-2. Earlier, the Section 49 was not in either of the Schedules. Apparently, the Wildlife Act amendment 2022 Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI AND Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 20 of 21 applies with the prospective effect. This Section 49 falls in the Chapter-5 and is punishable under Section 51 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
29. In view of the aforesaid, there is no illegality or infirmity in framing of charge under Section 49 of the Wildlife Protection Act. As a result, there is prima-facie evidence that the accused persons committed the offence under Wildlife Acts read with Section 120-B IPC. Hence, no illegality or infirmity has been found in the order of Ld. Trial Court dated 24.01.2025. Both the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed.
30. TCR along with copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
31. Revision files be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH
RAJESH MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.08.08
Pronounced & Dictated 16:53:41
in the open Court on 8th August, 2025 +0530
(Rajesh Malik )
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-14,
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
Crl. Revision No. 08/2025 Dalbir & Anr. vs. CBI
AND
Crl. Revision No. 16/2025 Joginder @ Jogia & Anr. vs. CBI 21 of 21