r ,,\,-: 01. 26.04.2007 ife±). ,`=r \.##ir`, lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM OF}DEF` SHEET i Hasan Cr Ansari & ..„ ........... No. 2 of 200 -;edtiNONedrmditfitHred Others Versus ....a.t.ate...Q£..t$1kthm........Respondent Order with Signature Heard Mr. Amit Bose, learned Counsel assisted by Ms. Manita Pradhan, learned Counsel and Ms. Bhawna Darnal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused/Petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. a. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Karma Thinlay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State -Respondent. The order dated 26.02.2007 passed by the :::::,##::,:,ga,oT:::s:r,a:set:seoustuhbj:cyejt:tt:tr under chaHenge in this Revision Petition. The facts of the case in a short compass are that, the learned Magistrate framed the charges u/S.120-B/420/477-A/406/34, lpc read with Sec/4/5/6, Pr.ize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act against the accused Dil Hasan Ansari and lrfan Ansari and in case of accused Benazir Ansari and Shamina Gurung, the charges undersec. 420,/34 IPC Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken on Order I!e A1\' a DateOfofrOrder `1-Orderwitllsignaluieta°ck#:Cne(#Oat;y:;±\tQ, was framed against them and under Sec. 5(e) of Priz a en on Order Ae\ Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Ac t i.,::..,:,. l::, a i `, `J inCulwh)oLe£*) against accused Shahj.ana Ansari. Bei.ng aggrieved by the impugned order, the Accused/Petjtjoners filed thjsRevisjonPetjtjonbycontendinginteralia,thattheir written argument was not considered by the learned Magistrate at the time of framing of charges, and, as such, their legal rights as guaranteed under the Constitution of India have been deprived of. On perusal of the available materials on record, it is seen that the learned Counsel Shri Amit Bose was present. He was heard at a length at the time of framing of charges. According to me, the findings of the learned Court below is a reasoned finding, inasmuch as, it is well settled law of the land that at the time of framing of charges Court is to see the prima facie case and the court is not required to screen evidence and to apply the standard of it where..the prosecution would be able to prove the case against the accused in the course of the trial. For better appreciation in the matter, the relevant findings of the Court below made in the impugn,ed order is quoted below :- _r-u -A,\v, ;A Serjat b;te Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of oL, action (it any) Order Order taken on Order -, "For the sake of brevity, the entire contention o I _ ___ng the defence is not discussed herein. The derailed written contention of the del:ence is placed on record. I have perused the case records. Prima facie, I find sufficient materials on record to proceed agains the accused persons as per charges alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution case cannot be rejected at this stage, before giving them an opportunity to lead evidence, merely upon cin interference that the charge cannot sustain. lt is pertinent to refer to a decision rendered in C. P. Malik v. State,1999 Crl.I.J. 4525 (Del.) where i was held that at the time of framing charge, the Cou is not required to screen evidence ot'to apply th standard whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused at the trial. Charge under Sec. 120-B/420/477-A/406/34, lpc read with Sec. 4/5/6, Prize Chits and Mone Circulcition Schemes (Banning) Act was framed against accused Dil Hasan Ansari and lrfan Ansari. Charges : under Sec. 420/34, lpc was framed against accused Benazir Ansari and Shamina Gurung and under Sec. 5(e) of the Prize Chit and Mone Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act against accused Shahjana Ansari." For the reasons stated above, the RevisionPetitionisdevoidofmeritandaccordingly,itis dismissedA#s affirming the impugned order of the Court belowTWTth a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twent thousand) only, which shall be paid by the Accused/Petitioners herein within three weeks from today. It is made clear by this Court that half of the costs will go to the fund of the Bar Association -- ' t` ,' (,.-- Serial Date Order with Signature <OfficeNoteds to.` No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order AT /I - eel. pb ,0.DOG I.L!-u`tLouAulJ6tyaLkelul,9.rtyS/a4haJbcnLT1~£'K,ha"`~i'-a-®7trtreJ-4L3bkq Sikkim and half of it will go to Sikkim Spastics Society. It is further made clear that the Accused/Petitioners shall deposit the.said cost in the Registry of this High Court, and thereafter, the same will be disbursed to the Bar Association of Sikkim as well as to the SikkimSpasticsSociety.,~-,- t.]LdJ}rf u) i~ the,lL,I,...[`u.+-:=-i,::I:::.3`,l,C]®--.I:::...9Jj,:.-,i)i/''```O`4*6`T~o~4 (N.:u#onisiniT)-