1. - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby he has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 135, 138 of the Indian Electricity Act ('the Act', for short).

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 29.01.2011 at 2:30 PM, an inspection party of the office of the Executive Engineer, JVVNL carried out a survey of meter No. 5917619 situated at Jatan ki Dhani, which belonged to the petitioner, According to the VCR Report, which was made at the spot in the presence of the petitioner, it was discovered that the meter had been tampered with. Subsequently, the meter was seized and sent for testing in the laboratory. Even according to the lab report, the meter was tampered with. Therefore, a complaint was filed for offences under Section 135, 138 of the Act. After hearing both the parties, vide order dated 01.10.2011, the learned Judge framed charges for offences under Sections 135, 138 of the Act. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. G.R. Gora, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that according to questionnaire carried out by the JVNNL, the lineman had admitted that he has carried out certain adjustments in the meter and for this purpose the meter was repaired. According to the learned counsel, this document clearly shows that the meter belonging to the petitioner was not tampered with, but was merely repaired.

4. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Soda, the learned counsel for the Electricity Company, has contended that both according to the VCR Report and according to the Lab report, the meter clearly showed signs of tampering. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in framing charges against the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order as well as the charge-sheet.

6. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles for framing of the charge. It would be beneficial to reproduce the said principles, which are as under:

(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case.

(ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence.

(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible.

(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cann