At the stage of framing charges, the probative value of the materials cannot be gone into and the materials brought on record by the prosecution have to be accepted as true.

JUDGMENT :

C482 No.1771 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant/accused Dinesh Kumar Saxena for quashing of order of framing of charge dated 04.08.2018 and the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the discharge application of the applicant/accused as well as the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.167/2018.

2. C482 No.1771 of 2023 has been filed by the applicant/accused Smt. Ankita Rohatgi for quashing of order of framing of charge dated 04.08.2018 and the order dated 04.08.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar on the discharge application of the applicant/accused as well as the order dated 24.07.2023 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Revision No.172/2018.

3. Since the controversy involved in these two petitions is same, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment/order.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the charge sheet was filed against the applicants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with 34 of IPC; that, the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur framed the charge against the applicants/accused under Sections 420 & 120B IPC; that, at the time of commission of offence the applicants/accused were Branch Manager and Joint Manager respectively; that, in the impugned order of framing the Charge by the trial court dated 04.08.2018 no reasons for framing the Charge are stipulated; that, aggrieved from the order of framing the Charge dated 04.08.2018, the applicants/accused filed two separate revisions; that, the revisional court by the impugned orders dated 24.07.2023 dismissed the revisions and affirmed the orders of Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur of framing of Charge against the applicants/accused.

They would further submit that at the most if any allegation can be there against the applicants/accused that may be of negligence in not discharging their duties as the Branch Manager and Joint Manager.

Counsel for the applicants would further submit that as per the pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545” the trial court should not act like a Post Office at the time of framing the charge, rather, it has a duty to judicially consider the question of doing so by adverting to the material available on the record and not to blindly adopt the decision of prosecution.

5. Per Contra, counsel for the State would submit that the present C482 applications are misconceived and against the record; that, at the time of framing the charge the trial court is not required to state the reasons for framing the charge.

He would further submit that reasons are necessarily to be stated by the trial court if the trial court decides not to frame the charge as alleged in the charge sheet but not vice versa.

He would admit at Bar that at the time of framing the Charge the trial court should look into the evidences collected and placed in the charge sheet, but it is not required to state minutely in the order of framing the charge as to what are the evidence on the basis of which the charges are being framed. He would further submit that at the time of framing the Charge the trial court is not required to weigh the evidence so as to look into the probative value of the evidence; that, at the time of framing the charge if the trial court is of the view that prima facie case is made out against the accused then charge can be framed.

6. In the light of respective submissions as stated above, the Court perused the impugned orders. The revisional court observed that there are prima facie evidence that after hatching the criminal conspiracy forgery was done, therefore, the order of framing the