The trial court must evaluate the material against each accused individually to determine if a prima facie case exists for framing charges, and common charges against all accused persons without such individual evaluation are not permissible.

( 1 ) PETITIONER Imtiaz Ahmed, who is facing trial in S. T. No. 52/96, pending in the Court of IIIrd A. S. J. , Satna, has filed this revision petition against the order dated 15-4-96, whereby the trial Court had directed framing of charges, against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, for the offences under Sections 255, 258, 259, 261, 265, 489-D, 489-E and 420, of the IPC, and Section 13/50, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

( 2 ) POLICE Kotwali Satna, after completing the investigation of the case, registered at Crime No. 627/95, filed charge-sheet against eight accused persons, including the petitioner; for the alleged commission of offences (Sic) (under) Sections 255, 258, 259, 261, 263, 489-D, 489-E and 420, of the IPC, and Section 13/50, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

( 3 ) SHRI Hamid Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the trial Court has erred in framing 'common charges' against all the eight accused persons, though the material, contained in the charge-sheet, is not similar against all the accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on the basis of the material, available in the charge-sheet, charge under Section 263, IPC only could havebeen framed, against the petitioner.

( 4 ) THE exercise of framing of charges against the accused is an important step in a criminal trial. It is neither mere observing of a formality nor a mechanical process. Rather the order, directing framing of charges, is a pre-trial judicial pronouncement of the existence of a prima facie case against the accused for making him to face trial on a particular charge. It substantially affects his liberty. Though it is not always necessary that the order, directing framing of charges, should be a detailed one but the application of mind, by the trial Court, to the allegations and material against the accused should always be apparent from such an order. Nevertheless, the above does not mean that the trial Court is to undertake a roving enquiry at the stage of framing of charges. At this stage the enquiry has to be for a limited purpose only.

( 5 ) THE Apex Court, while considering the scope at the stage of framing of charges, in a recent decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 : (1996 Cri LJ 2448), observed in para 32 :-"32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of material on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequences, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. "( 6 ) AS the tendency of framing 'common charges', in a trial involving more than one accused, is on the increase, it is high time to check the above trend. An accused can be made to face trial on particular charge/charges only on the basis of the material available in the charge-sheet/complaint against that accused and not on the material available against his co-accused. It is, therefore, always incumbent on the trial Court, while considering the framing of charges against the accused persons in a trial, involving more than one accused, to evaluate the material, available against each and every accused, individually for ascertaining the culpability of each and every accused and then frame charge/charges against each and every accused accordingly.

( 7 ) IN this context, a reference may be made to the following observation of the Apex Court, in the case of Som Nath Thapa (1996 Cri LJ 2448) (supra) :-"35. The legal question having been examined, we may advert to the facts