1. - This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 4.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh (for short the 'Revisional Court' hereinafter) in Criminal Revision No. 12/2001, whereby the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the C.J.M. No. 1 Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred as "the Trial Court") has been dismissed. The Trial Court vide Order dated 19.2.2014 has ordered for framing charges against the petitioner along with some other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short 'the PDPP Act') and Section 15(2) of Petroleum Pipe Line Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.2009, the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chittorgarh submitted an F.I.R. while alleging that at about 3.00 A.M. in the night, they received information in the control room relating to the fact that the pressure of the petroleum pipe line is being decreased. On inquiry, they found that near Badoliya village in the agriculture field of Panna Lal S/o Amar Chand Mali, petroleum pipe line was damaged and diesel was oozing ut and some persons have stolen the diesel from it. On the basis of the implaint, the police has registered F.I.R. and started investigation. During course of investigation, the police has found involvement of petitioner along with other co-accused namely, Pokhar Khatik, Ratan Lal Suthar, Udai Lal Mali and larayan Bheel.

3. As per the information furnished by the accused persons Pokhar Khatik, Jatan Lal Sutahr, Udai Lal Mali and Narayan Bheel under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the police has recovered a motor cycle and other equipments used in breaking the petroleum pipe line. The co-accused persons as well as the other witnesses have given statements to the effect that petroleum pipe line was damaged and the diesel was stolen at the instance of the petitioner. The police, after infestigation, has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner along with other persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. ad with Section 3 PDPP Act as well as Section 15(2) of the Public Pipe Line Act.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences and after hearing the learned Counsel for the accused-persons, framed the charges against the petitioner and lie other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences vide Order dated 19.2.2014.

5. Being aggrieved with the Order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Trial Court, lie petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the Revisional Court, which has been dismissed vide Order dated 4.7.2014. Hence this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that except the information given by the co-accused persons under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, no other evidence exists against the petitioner and the Trial Court has erred in ordering for framing charges against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 285 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3 PDPP Act and Section 15(2) of the Petroleum Pipe Line Act. It is also contended that the statements of :he witnesses, namely, Rameshwar Lal and Pemi Bal are of no significance and on the basis of the said statements, the petitioner cannot be convicted, therefore, the Orders dated 19.2.2014 and 4.7.2014 passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court are liable to be quashed and set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and prayed that prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the incident is proved from the material collected by the police during the course of the investigation and the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in framing the charge against the petition