Revisional jurisdiction is purely supervisory, not appellate. Reversal of a discharge order requires proof of perversity or patent illegality. Framing of charges necessitates a judicial application of mind to determine whether tangible material establishes 'grave suspicion', distinguishing it from mere conjecture.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

BY THE COURT:-

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been instituted under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, laying a challenge to the order dated 24.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Revision No. 27/2015. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned revisional Court allowed the revision preferred by the State, set aside the order dated 18.03.2015 rendered by the learned trial Court in Criminal Original Case No. 709/2013, and directed that the present petitioners be proceeded against for offences under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 201 IPC, including issuance of warrants of arrest.

2. The factual matrix, when delineated in its essential contours, reveals that on 25.10.2012, seed godowns belonging to the petitioners were subjected to inspection by the competent authorities, culminating in their seizure under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, particularly under Section 3 /7 read with Section 6(A).

2.1. Subsequently, by order dated 12.11.2012, the District Collector directed auction of the seized seeds. In furtherance thereof, the process of “Drumikaran” was undertaken on 08.01.2013 under the supervision of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, in the presence of responsible officials.

2.2. However, during a subsequent inspection of the sealed godowns, it was alleged that the seals had been tampered with and certain goods were found missing. This discovery gave rise to suspicion of offences relating to house-breaking, theft, and destruction of evidence, culminating in registration of an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 454, 457, 380 and 201 IPC.

2.3. Upon culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. The learned trial Court, upon a conscientious evaluation of the material on record, vide order dated 18.03.2015, discharged the petitioners, holding that no prima facie case warranting framing of charges was made out.

2.4. Aggrieved thereby, the State preferred a revision petition, which came to be allowed by the learned revisional Court on 24.03.2018. The said order not only reversed the discharge but also directed coercive process against the petitioners. The same is under assailment before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order as being legally unsustainable, contending that the learned revisional Court has transgressed the well-defined limits of revisional jurisdiction by substituting its own view in the absence of perversity or patent illegality in the order of discharge. It is urged that the order of the trial Court was founded upon a judicious appreciation of the material and did not warrant interference.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order, submitting that the material collected during investigation discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioners.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that the controversy raised herein stands squarely governed by the principles enunciated in Reema v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 581/2025, decided on 22.01.2026), wherein it was held that although a detailed order is not obligatory at the stage of framing of charge, the order must nonetheless reflect conscious application of judicial mind and cannot be cryptic or mechanical. In Reema (supra), this Court, while relying upon an earlier decision rendered in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1675/2025 involving analogous circumstances, ela