Prima facie evidence is sufficient for the framing of charges, and the absence of abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice is crucial in dismissing a revision petition.

1. - This revision is directed against the order of the learned Special Judge for CB/SPE cases, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated August 12, 1982, whereby charges under Section 120B read with 204/217 and 204, 217 Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have been framed against the petitioner. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that from the evidence recorded by the prosecution no charge at all is proved against the petitioner for offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is submitted that the charge in this regard is groundless. It is further submitted that even according to the prosecution case, no act of signing recovery memo or taking any other pecuniary advantage by the petitioner has been alleged. It is therefore, submitted that so far the charge under Section 5(D)(d) read with Section 5(21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is Concerned, the petitioner should be discharged. It is further submitted that is far as the other offences are concerned, they are not triable by the Special Judge and are triable by any other Magistrate.

2. On the other hand, it was contended by Mr. Tyagi appearing for the CBI the it at this stage this Court has to only see whether any prima facie case is established against the petitioner. This Court should not comment upon the evidence meticulously in order to find out whether any guilt is proved or not. It is also submitted that no revision is maintainable against the framing of charge, as such order is only interlocutory held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, AIR 1980 SC 962 . It is further argued that it is not a case where there is any abuse of the process of court or necessary in order to do justice that this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner had accompanied the other Inspector Shri B.L. Sharma at the time of seizure. The recovery memo was prepared but subsequently the goods were not seized and thus the department was put to a loss of Excise Duty to the tune of Rs. 28,755.50. It is also submitted that there are variations over the recovery memo which clearly go to show that the name of Shri P.T. Sharma was mentioned in the recovery memo but it was subsequently erased. A portion of the recovery memo was also torn which according to the prosecution, contained the signature of P.T. Sharma over the recovery memo and all this shows that the petitioner was in conspiracy with the other accused B.L. Sharma. It is also argued by Mr. Tyagi that according to the departmental instruction, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to make an entry in the register that he was going to seize any articles or has any other work during office hours and in the present case no such entry was made by the petitioner and on the contrary he has shown his presence in the office.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. From a perusal of the record it cannot be said that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner or the charge framed against him is totally ground less. There is material on record to show that the petitioner had accompanied the other Inspector B.L. Sharma at the time of seizure and the evidence has yet to come as to in what manner he acted at the time of the siezure of the articles the preparation of the recovery memo. Learned Counsel for the accused petitioner has himself not argued the question of framing of charge against the petitioner so far as offences under Section 204 and 217 Indian Penal Code is concerned. As laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in V.C Shukla's case (supra) the framing of charge is an interlocutory order and no revision is maintainable against such order. So far as invoking the powers of this Court under Sec