Delhi District Court
Ram Kishan vs The State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi on 8 March, 2007
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.P. VAISH,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 121/06
Ram Kishan,
S/o Shri Bhoma Ram,
R/o H.No. 8355, Katra Gauri Shanker,
Near Filmstan,
Delhi - 110006 ...... Petitioner
Versus
The state (Govt of NCT) Delhi ..... Respondent
------------------------------
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.09.2006 passed by Ld Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi whereby charge for the offence under Section 120-B IPC was framed against the petitioner and a charge under Section 420/120-B was framed against co-accused Shiv Mohan Singh.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Shri Attar Singh, ATI made a complaint on 08.06.1996 that he was checking the tickets of the passengers of bus No. 8882, route No. 126 at Mundka Mod and Shri Shiv Mohan Saini produced identity Card issued by Delhi Transport Corporation bearing No. 91597. On enquiry, it was revealed that Identity Card was forged and on enquiry it was revealed that no person by the name of Shiv Mohan Saini was -: 2 :- employed in Delhi Transport Corporation and he had obtained the identity Card from Suraj Bhan Shukla. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 409/1996 under Section 420/468/471 IPC was registered. During investigation statement of Attar Singh was recorded and statement of Ram Kishan ATI and Dhyan Singh ATI were also recorded. After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC was filed. Ld. trial Court framed charge for the offence u/s 120-B IPC against the petitioner and charge under Section 420/120-B IPC against co-accused Shiv Mohan Saini vide impugned order dated 04.09.2006. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.
3. I have heard Shri L.S. Saini Adv for the petitioner and Shri N.S. Kadyan Ld Addl PP for the State. I have also carefully gone through material on record.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence regarding conspiracy against the petitioner, no incriminating article like printing press, printing material, die or stamps has been recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner has not been named in the complaint. On the other hand Ld. Addl PP submitted that during investigation statement of Attar Singh complainant was recorded on 10.06.96 and he has stated that Identity Card No. 91597 was delivered -: 3 :- to him by Suraj Bhan Shukla and the petitioner Ram Kishan. He also submitted that statement of ATI Ram Kishan and ATI Dhayan Singh were also recorded who have stated that on interrogation Shiv Mohan Saini disclosed that he was not employee of Delhi Transport Corporation and said Identity Card was given to him by Suraj Bhan Shukla and petitioner Ram Kishan.
5. It is settled law that at the stage of consideration on the point of charge, the Court is required to form a prima facie view and to point out if there appears strong suspicion pointing out the guilt of accused, the Court is not required to evaluate the evidence and probative value of the evidence. The Apex Court in case titled as State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported as AIR 1997 SC 2018 has observed that Court is not required to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. It was also held that at the initial stage if there is strong suspicion which leaves the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to see that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. In another case titled as Omwati Vs. State reported as AIR 2001 SC 1507 it was held that only in case where it is shown that -: 4 :- evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of accused, even if fully accepted after it is challenged in cross examination or liberty by defence cannot show that accused committed the crime, then and then alone the Court can discharge the accused. The Court is not required to enter into meticulous examination of the evidence in material placed before it at the time of charge.
7. The law regarding criminal conspiracy is that it is very difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence. However, there should be some material to show that there was conspiracy and the act was done pursuant to that conspiracy. In this regard reliance can be placed on a judgment in case titled as Vijayan @ Rajan Vs. State of Kerala reported as AIR 1999 SC 1087.
8. In the instant case the complainant Attar Singh ATI as well Ram Kumar ATI and Dhyan Singh ATI have made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stating that the Identity Car was handed over to Shiv Mohan Saini by the petitioner and Suraj Bhan Shukla. The submission made by Ld counsel for the petitioner that there was no criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and Shiv Mohan Saini, is a matter of trial. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
-: 5 :-
9. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition fails, same deserved to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Trial Court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back. File of revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (V.P. VAISH)
Dated 08.03.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
ROHINI: DELHI