“(la HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT. BILASPUR CR.M.P: No. 38/2011 Mahesh Yadav, Son of late Bhagoli Ram Yadav, aged about 47 years, R/o Village Bortara, Tahsil and P.S. Gumr, District Durg (C.G.). RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Balod, District Durg (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) PETITINER VERSUS x resent:— MsrHamida Siddique, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Jha, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondent. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 31/01/201 1) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) petitioner has challenged the legality and ‘ propriety of the order dated 29/9/2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Balod District Durg (C.G.) in criminal revision No. 09/2010 affirming the order framing charge dated 8/3/2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balod District Durg’in Criminal case N0. 609/2009. ‘2. As per copy of the charge sheet filed on behalf of the petitioner and both the order impugned, present petitioner was Incharge of empty bags kept 1n one godown at Jhalmala in half part of the godown was used for getting manure. As per claim of the petitioner one B.L. Verma Incharge of that manure. 778 bags of manure of 38.900 tone valued at Rs. 1,96,056/— was found missing. Inquiry was condoned and Auditorihas also conducted inquiry. Finally charge sheet‘uagainst the present petitioner and one B.L. Verma was filed for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petitioner was not having good relation with B.L. Verma. Petitioner was Incharge of empty bags kept in half part in godown and B.L. Verma was Incharge P r of manure kept in half part of godown. 778 bags manure was found . missing for which only B.L. Verma is responsible. t the stage of framing charge although meticulous scrutiny of the evidence is not required but prosecution is required to show prima facie material for proceeding against the petitioner and for framing of the charge punishable under Section '4’09 of the Indian Penal Code but in the present case, prosecution has not collected sufficient material for framing charge against the present petitioner therefore, any order of framing charge punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code would be groundless. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitsthat accused is not under obligation to offer any explanation how bags were missing manure were not entrusted to the petitioner therefore‘even he is not liable for commission of any offence of criminal breach of trust. Petitioner himself has intimated to his superior authority about non— cooperation and misconduct of B.L. Ve‘rma on 3/4/2007 much prior to the date of commission of offence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondent opposed the petition and submits that godown was in possession of present petitioner and B.L. Verma, both were having key of the godown. 778 bags of manure costing about Rs. 1,96,056/- was found missing. Virtually aforesaid manure was entrusted to both the persons and they failed to account for. Prosecution has collected sufficient material and if material collected on. behalf of the prosecution is admitted in its face value then same would be sufficient for framing of the charge against petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. While passing the order framing charge and dismissing revision‘both the Courts below have not committed any illegality warranting any interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. As per copy of the charge-sheet and order impugned alleged godown was in possession of present petitioner and B.L. Verma; one or two bags of manure was not found missing but 778 bags of manure considerable quantity was found missing. Enquiry has been 1 conducted and as per detail inquiry report present petitioner and B.L. A Verma are found responsible for cbmmission of aforesaid incident. At the stage of framing of charge Court‘is not required to evaluate in its evidencary value, no meticulous scrutiny is required at this stage. Material collected on behalf of the prosecution specially the report and the fact that petitioner was also Incharge Of the godown is if admitted in its face value then same would be sufficient for conviction of the petitioner. While framing charge for the offence punishable under Section 409' of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Court below has not committed any, illegality requiring any interference in exercise of extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Other interim applications are also dismissed. Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge