1 S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 4/2008 Gulamuddin Vs. State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 17.1.2008 HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. N.K. Bohra, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor. **** By this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. a challenge is given to the order dated 3.12.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur framing charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 328 and 379 IPC. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the order aforesaid is that no material is available on record to opine and presume that the accused has committed any act warranting trial for an offence punishable under Section 328 IPC. In brief the facts of the case are that on 28.8.2007 one Sh. Dhanraj lodged a first information report at Police Station – Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur alleging that on 29.7.2007 when he was going to Pali alongwith accused Gulamuddin for the purpose of video recording the accused offered him a cold drink and after consuming that he became unconscious, and the accused, thereafter, made a theft of digital camera, charger, battery, video light, mobile, wallet and a gold chain. A police report was filed seeking trial of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 379 and 328 IPC, however, 2 learned trial court discharged the petitioner from the charge of Section 420 IPC but framed the charge s for the offnece punishable under Sections 328 and 379 IPC. While assailing framing of charge under Section 328 IPC it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from entire police report and the documents annexed thereto there is no evidence on basis of that it can be said that the petitioner administered or caused any hurt by means of poison or stupefying, intoxicating or by unwholesome drug. I have examined the record available. From the record I found that the informant Dhanraj lodged first information report after a lapse of about one month from the date of alleged incident. No medical examination, therefore, was conducted. There is no material available on record on basis of which any thing can be said that the petitioner in any manner intended to hurt the informant by using poison or stupefying, intoxicating or otherwise. The ingredients to constitute an offence as per the provisions of Section 328 IPC are apparently absent in the present case. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court erred while framing a charge under Section 328 IPC. This revision petition, therefore, is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.12.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur is quashed which relates to framing of charge for the offence punishable under Section 328 IPC. (GOVIND MATHUR),J. Jgoyal