Criminal Revision No. 1509 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 1509 of 2000 Date of Decision: 04.02.2008 Raja and Another. …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed impugning the order framing charge, whereby the petitioners have been charged for an offence under Section 436 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. I have heard Mr. Rakesh Mehra, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Manmohan Sikka, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State and perused the record. Two grievances have been made before me. Firstly that from the entire challan and the evidence gathered, offence will be made under Section 435 and not under Section 436 IPC. Second grievance of Mr. Nehra is that in this case while the challan was in the custody of the Court, the same was Criminal Revision No. 1509 of 2000 2 tampered and interpolation was made and the offence was converted by the Investigating Officer under Section 436 IPC instead of Section 435 IPC. Mr. Nehra further states that interpolation was only made in the head note of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Considering both the arguments advanced by Mr. Nehra, this Court is prima facie of the view that to conclude whether offence under Section 435 or 436 IPC is made out or for which the petitioners are to be tried is matter of evidence. This Court in a revision against framing of charge will be hesitant to formulate its own opinion regarding the offence. Truth and veracity of the allegations are to be determined from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned defence counsel during cross-examination always can demolish that no offence is made out or if any offence is made out, same is for lesser offence. Regarding the second argument of Mr. Nehra that the Investigating Officer, when the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was in the custody of the Court, has made interpolation in the head note of the report, the matter is to be considered by the trial Court who is seized of the case. In case the application is filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Court, the Court will formulate its own opinion whether tampering has been made or not. Needless to say, right to appeal also vests in the petitioners under Section 341 Cr.P.C. In case any application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. With these observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 4, 2008 “DK