IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No.45 of 2009 Gulbahar S/o Riyaz Ahmed … Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another … Respondents Dated: March 19, 2009 Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred by the revisionist under Sections 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the order dated 06.03.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar in Special Sessions Trial No.54 of 2007, State Vs. Gulabahar. 2. Heard Sri Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the entire material in file. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 18.11.2006 between 1:10 to 3:20 P.M., on the information of theft of electricity, Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, Assistant Engineer along with Sri S.C. Tyagi and Lineman Kunwar Singh; members of the Vigilance Team Sri S.Sharma, Assistant Engineer Vigilance, Sri I.B. Nautiyal, Inspector Vigilance along with the security employees had raided the shop and construction house of the people where the theft was being committed. It was found in the newly constructed house of the revisionist-Gulbahar that he was committing theft of the electricity directly from the L.T. Line by putting a wire. The theft items were also recovered on the spot and the recovery memo was prepared and the FIR was lodged at Kotwali Roorkee, Distt. Hardwar on 18.11.2006 at 9:30 P.M. by Sri Vijay Kumar Jain, Assistant Engineer. The investigation of this case was conducted by the I.O. and after the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. before the court. The revisionist moved an application for his discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the entire documents available on record, the said application was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Hardwar vide order dated 6.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the present revision has been preferred. 4. The application moved by the revisionist has been moved on the ground that the said raid was conducted on 18.11.2006 and before that date, the revisionist had sold the house in question on 3.11.2006 to one Sri Subhash Damodar. 5. Vide order dated 6.3.2009, learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application of the revisionist and has given a specific finding that it is a question of evidence as to when the possession was handed over. Learned Sessions Judge has also rightly held that at that stage, there was no evidence as to when the electric connection was got transferred in the name of purchaser or not. The findings recorded by learned Sessions Judge are correct and justified as without recording the evidence of the prosecution, it cannot be decided as to whether the physical possession of the property in question as well as the electric connection was got transferred on or before 18.11.2006 to Sri Subhash Damodar or not. The evidence produced before the trial court was sufficient to proceed to frame the charge and only on this very ground, the revisionist is not entitled for his discharge. If the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent at the stage of framing a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. 6. Thus, from the discussion made about, I do not find any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order dated 6.3.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Hardwar. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the revision is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) March 19, 2009 Rajeev Dang