IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 209 of 2011 with Stay Application No. 980 of 2011 Harshvardhan Jyala S/o Narendra Singh R/o Village Mushgaun P.S.Thal, District Pithoragarh .....................Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Affairs ………....….......Respondent Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate, present for the revisionist Shri S.S.Adhikari, A.G.A., present for the State. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against framing of charge by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2011 State vs. Nasir Mohammad and others, relating to offences 2 punishable under section 366, 506, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Pithoragarh. (3) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the victim (Priyanka Bora) was admittedly major on the day of the incident. It is further stated that she had gone on her own volition with co accused Nasir, as such none of the offences are made out against the present revisionist, on the basis of which charge could be framed against the revisionist. However, having gone through the papers on record, this courts finds that the learned Sessions Judge has satisfied itself that there was sufficient material collected by the Investigating Officer to frame the charge against the revisionist. (4) It is true that the revisionist might be an innocent person. But the correctness of the evidence collected against the revisionist by the Investigating Officer can not be examined at the stage of the framing of the charge. The trial court appears to have framed charge after satisfying that there was material on the basis of which it 3 could be said the ingredients of the offences for which the revisionist is charged, are made out. But it is open for the revisionist after the prosecution leads its evidence, and witnesses are cross examined to show that the prosecution story as alleged is not true or that the same is doubtful. (5) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this court is not inclined to interfere with the trial of the case. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with the observation that the revisionist may raise his pleas of innocence before the trial court. (Stay Application No. 980 of 2011 also stands disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.20.08.2011 N.P