The Court at the stage of framing charges under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can sift and weigh the evidence to find out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out, but cannot make a roving enquiry or weigh the evidence as if conducting a trial.

JUDGMENT :

G.B. Patnaik, J. - The two Petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput dated 21-1-1984 by which order the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore dated 17-8-1983 and directed to frame charges against the Petitioners under Sections 379/411, I.P.C. and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.

2. According to the prosecution case, the Officer-in charge, Jeypore town P.S. directed the Sub-Inspector Sri D.K. Deo to proceed to Baminigam Check-gate on 4-10-1982. The said Sri Deo while was checking at the check-gate, a jeep bearing registration No. ORH 2216 came from Malkangiri side with a high speed at 10.45 p.m. The Sub-Inspector gave signal to the driver of the vehicle to stop the same. But instead of stopping the vehicle, the driver speeded up and, therefore, the Sub-Inspector of Police with his staff followed the jeep and intercepted the same. On searching the jeep, the present accused persons were found inside the vehicle and gunny bags containing tin metals were also recovered. The S.I. of Police came to the conclusion that the tin metals belonged to the Government of Orissa in the Mining and Geology Department and the same were being dishonestly removed from the possession of the owner and, therefore, an F.I.R. was lodged at the town P.S. to that effect. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons u/s 379/411/34, I.P.C. and u/s 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 as well as under Sections 113/115/116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Before the charges were framed by the learned Magistrate, the accused persons contended that they were entitled to be discharged as the prosecution had not brought out a prima facie case against them. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials before him, came to the conclusion that in the absence of a written complaint by the person authorised in that behalf by the State Government, no Court would take cognisance for the offence u/s 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and, therefore, the accused persons must be discharged from the said offence. Then coming to the other charges, the learned Magistrate also came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case that any movable property was taken out of the possession of a person dishonestly without his consent and, therefore, the offence u/s 379, I.P.C. was not established. The learned Magistrate also came to the conclusion that there were no prima facie materials to frame charge against the accused persons u/s 411, I.P.C. also. Accordingly he discharged the accused persons of the charges under Sections 379/411/34, I.P.C. So far as the offences under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, he found that the evidence collected during investigation prima facie established the offence u/s 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act against accused Jugal Kishore Sahu, but there was no materials to frame the charges under Sections 115/116 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Accordingly, excepting framing charge against accused Jugal Kishore Sahu u/s 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act rest of the accused persons were discharged from the offences alleged against them in the charge-sheet.

4. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge started a criminal revision in exercise of his suo-motu jurisdiction being Criminal Revision No. 76/83 and the State also preferred a revision being numbered as Criminal Revision No. 80/83 and both these revisions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge came to t he conclusion that there was no basis for the Magistrate to arrive at the conclusion that the properties in question were not the stolen properties and according to him the materials on record were