1 IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI In re: CASE NO.137/1 UNIQUE ID NO.02401R0619802009 STATE/WILDLIFE COMPLAINANT THROUGH R.S.TYAGI, WILDLIFE INSPECTOR, DELHI. Versus SONU S/O SH. GHASITA R/O VILLAGE CHUKHAPUR, P.S.NAJIBABAD, DISTRICT BIJNORE, UTTAR PRADESH ACCUSED DATE OF INSTITUTION OF CASE: 03.09.09 DATE OF RESERVATION OF ORDER: 20.08.2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER: 20.08.2010 U/[SECTION] R/W [SECTION], [SECTION] OF [ACT] ORDER ON CHARGE 20.08.2010 Present : Ld. APP Sh. [ENTITY] for the State with WLI [ENTITY]. Accused [ENTITY] on bail with counsel Mr. [ENTITY], Adv. Arguments on charge heard. 1.
Ld. Counsel for the accused claims that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. Whether the accused has been falsely implicated or not, is a matter of trial, which cannot be prejudged without taking complete evidence and the defence of the accused.
Page 1 of 5 /e
2. The present complaint was filed against the accused by the Wildlife Inspector in terms of [SECTION] of the [ACT], for offence u/[SECTION]/W [SECTION] of the said Act.
3. Allegedly, from the possession of the accused following articles were recovered: Nails of Owls12 Pieces (Prohibited under ScheduleIV) Nails of the Lion01 Piece (Prohibited under ScheduleI) Bara Singha Horns03 Pieces (Prohibited under ScheduleIII) Musk Deer Hair A polythin Bag (Prohibited under ScheduleI).
4. PW1 [ENTITY], PW2 WLI [ENTITY] and PW3 Retired SI [ENTITY] examined in precharge evidence, supported the case of complainant and they were not cross examined by the accused, leaving the testimony of these witnesses as unrebutted and uncontroverted.
5. Law regarding consideration at the stage of framing charge is well settled now. The court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against accused has been made out. It is held that when the material placed before the court discloses great suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be justified in framing charge. The judge should not make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence is if he was conducting a trial. If on the basis of materials on record a court could come to the conclusion that Page 2 of 5 /e commission of the offence is a provable consequence, a case of framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the courts were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame a charge , though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. At the stage of framing of a charge probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into, the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 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 this stage of deciding the matter under [SECTION] or [SECTION] 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. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. While deciding the question of framing of charge in a criminal case, the Page 3 of 5 /e court is not to apply exactly the standard and test which it finally applies for determining the Guilt or otherwise. This being the initial stage of the trial, the court is not supposed to decide whether the materials collected by the investigating agency provides sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to culminate in n his conviction. What is required to be seen is whether there is strong suspicion which may lead to the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. Reliance placed on the cases of [PRECEDENT] : [PRECEDENT] State of ;
[PRECEDENT] ;
[PRECEDENT] ;
[PRECEDENT].
6. Accordingly, there are prima facie sufficient material against the accused for the offence punishable U/[SECTION] of the [ACT] r/w 49, [SECTION] of the said Act.
7. Let charges be framed. Charges framed separately to which accused pleads not guilty and claim trial. Put up for PE on 02.12.2010. Let the accused inform this court, in writing, within one week, as to which of the three witnesses examined in the pre charge evidence, the accused wants to cross examine in terms of [SECTION] of [ACT], and only those Page 4 of 5 /e witnesses would be summoned. Besides those witnesses complainant can summon, other witnesses also, if any. Put up for PE on 02.12.2010.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20th August, 2010 ([ENTITY]) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SPECIAL ACTS, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Page 5 of 5 /e