At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the material produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Shrivastava, J. - This revision petition has been filed on 18.2.2019 under section 397/401 of CrPC by petitioner Rishabh Mishra S/o Dinesh Mishra, who is an accused in Sessions Trial No.578/2018 pending before the 22nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal, against the order dated 24.11.2018 framing of charges under sections 468/34, 420/34, 120-B, 471/34 and 409 of IPC against the petitioner.

2. The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner on 24.11.2018 as under:-

3. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that the FIR dated 18.03.2018 was lodged only against 2 accused named Pooran Pandey and Navneet Singh Arora. During the course of investigation, upon the basis of memorandum of Pooran Pandey under section 27 of Evidence Act, the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case along with other co-accused. No complaint was made against the petitioner. No specific and general allegations were made against the petitioner. The ATM in which such misappropriation of cash is reported were never under the domain or control of the petitioner. The petitioner had never been allotted the said route of ATM during his service to the company as an employee. No any ingredients have been found in the entire evidence submitted along with the charge-sheet related to the offence alleged. It is also argued that even if it is presumed that the petitioner received some money from the main accused, then he may be prosecuted only for the offence under section 411 of IPC. The petitioner was terminated by the company in July, 2017. Therefore, it is requested to set aside the order dated 24.11.2018 related to framing of the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner placed reliance upon the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 .

4. On the other side, the counsel for State strongly opposed the revision. It is submitted by the State that challan has been filed and as per the evidence collected, sufficient material is available against the present petitioner. He was entered into conspiracy with two main accused. All accused persons are involved in the same type of crime. They helped each other by giving the money, therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake by framing the charges against the petitioner.

5. The law regarding "framing of charges" and the power of Revisional Court in the "revision against the charge" is well settled by Catina of decisions.

6. XXX XXX XXX

7. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) AIR SC 2018 it has been said that at that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. The Apex court said :-

"Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the Judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction".

8. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 the court said at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The Court has to see while consid