The court emphasized that the considerations at the time of framing charges and those at the conclusion of the trial are entirely different, and grave suspicion alone would not entitle the court to convict a person.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment of the learned additional Sessions Judge delivered on 21. 12. 2004 whereby the revision petition filed on behalf of the State against the order passed by the learned metropolitan Magistrate on 01. 05. 2004 was allowed, the result being that the trial court was directed to frame charges under Sections 379/411/34 IPC against both the petitioners and was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that on 19. 06. 1998, the complainant [shri N. P. Singh] lodged a complaint with the police that on the intervening night of 18th and 19th June, 1998, his car stereo of make "pioneer" was stolen from his car which was parked outside his house at J-3/4, Rajouri garden, Delhi. In the said complaint, it was further mentioned that one Shri ashok Kumar resident of C-55, Nangloi Extn. had told the complainant that his car stereo was also stolen. Mr Ashok Kumar's car number was given as HR 05 F-0018 and it was allegedly parked near Super Bazar. Thereafter, an FIR no. 419/1998 under Section 379 IPC was registered at police station Rajouri garden on the basis of the said complaint by Shri N. P. Singh. Apparently, during investigation, the petitioners (Smarty Machra and Manish Gandhi) were arrested on 23. 06. 1998. A car stereo with remote is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Smarty Machra. Another car stereo is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused Manish gandhi.

( 3 ) SEPARATE disclosure statements are alleged to have been made by both the accused wherein they have allegedly stated that they had been stealing stereos earlier. Furthermore, it is alleged that pointing out memos of the place of incident were also prepared at their instance. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 379/411/34 IPC was filed against both the accused.

( 4 ) BEFORE the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, had submitted that a single FIR had been registered by the police for two distinct offences. It was further submitted on behalf of the accused that the recovery memos in respect of the car stereos allegedly recovered from them do not bear their signatures. The alleged disclosure statements also do not bear the signatures of the accused. It was also submitted that a single charge-sheet was filed against the accused for two distinct offences and, according to the learned counsel for the accused, this was not permissible. Accordingly, a prayer for discharge of the accused persons was made.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that there is no bar to registering a single FIR in respect of two offences of a similar nature committed at the same time in the same locality. It was submitted that the FIR was merely a piece of information with regard to the commission of cognizable offences so as to put the police machinery into motion. It was submitted that the accused in their purported disclosure statements have stated that they had committed a number of offences jointly. With respect to the absence of signatures of the accused on the recovery memos, it was submitted that this was a mere omission on the part of the investigating officer for which the accused were not entitled to any benefit.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused and the state, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate observed that two car stereos were stolen from different cars belonging to different persons. The said car stereos were also allegedly recovered from the separate possession of each of the accused, i. e. , one from each of the accused. It is material to note that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had observed that the accused persons had allegedly disclosed a number of offences com