1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R ASLAM ALI Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.877/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge , Deedwana ins Sessions CaseNo.09/2010. ............... Date of Judgment: 15th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.M.K.Garg, for the petitioner. Ms. Chandra Lekha , Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Aslam Ali s/o Muneer Ali, b/c Sai Mohammedan, r/o Singrawat Kallan, Tehsil Deedwana , District Nagaur against the judgment and order dated 2 16.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No.09/2010 for the offence under section 302/120B and 380/120B IPC. The brief facts of the case are that a FIR was lodged on 14.12.2009 by Mohammed Hameed Pathan, interalia stating that he was having a shop of 'Kirana' at Baliya Road (Salt Road), Deedwana and his house is situated near the shop. On 13.12.2009 at about 02.45AM, his brother-in-law informed him that somebody has broken open his shop. He then informed his elder brother- in- law Yusuf Khan, and all of them then reached the shop and saw that the goods were all scattered. They also saw that Doongar Bahadur, Chowkidar, was lying near the shop. They informed the police about the incident and the police took Doongar Bahadur to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. Police registered a case under section 457, 380 and 302 IPC and started investigation and arrested the co-accused Birbal, Jagidsh and Manoj @ Munna and during interrogation, they informed the police that after the incident they called the present petitioner and he came with a Jeep and helped them to escape from the place of occurrence. On 3 this information, with the aid of Section 120B IPC, the present petitioner was arrested and after thorough investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, Deedwana by his order dated 26.10.2010 framed charges against the petitioner for the offence under section 302/120B, 380/120B IPC. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge , Deedwana dated 26.10.2010, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence on record regarding the conspiracy against the petitioner Aslam Ali except to this effect that just after and before the incident there was a conversation on mobile phone between Manoj and Aslam Ali. Further, 7 packets of toothpaste were recovered at the instance of the petitioner in pursuance of the information under 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that there was a conversion on mobile phones of Manoj and present petitioner Aslam Ali and further just after the 4 incident all the accused ran away from the place of the occurrence in the jeep driven by the petitioner Aslam Ali, therefore, element of conspiracy was there and, therefore, the order dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Deedwana does not suffer from any infirmity because under section 228 Cr.P.C. if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is sufficient material for the trial court to frame the charge. The call details between Manoj and Aslam Ali and further recovery is sufficient to presume that the present petitioner Aslam Ali has committed the offence of conspiracy to commit murder. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record as also the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Deedana. Interference in exercise of the powers under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. is limited only to exceptional cases, when it is found that order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the 5 trial court has illegally passed the order. At the stage of the charge the court need not weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution. The finding of the trial court may be revised if there has been an error in framing of charge. In revision the court can scan the validity of the order of the trial court framing charge when there is no material to frame the charge. The Court would not interfere if there is material available for presuming that the accused has committed an offence of which he is charge with. The Court of revision steps in only to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. In view of the above principles of law , there is sufficient evidence on record that just after the commission of the offence and before the commission of offence, there was a conversion on mobile phones of Manoj and Aslam Ali and further recovery of some articles were made in pursuance to the information of the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage this cannot be said that there is no material on record to frame charge against the petitioner. Rather, the order of framing the 6 charge against the petitioner appears to be legal and proper. Accordingly, the order dated 26.20.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge , Deedwana in Sessions Case No.09/2010 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and the revision petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george