Crl. Misc. No.M-28498 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-28498 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.11.2010 Ramesh Chander .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.-09.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Gurdaspur. In terms of the impugned order, the learned Addiltional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the learned trial Magistrate regarding framing of charges. The only point raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the learned trial Court did not amend the charges according to the correct particulars. In the charge that has been framed it was mentioned that the sale deed was executed in favour of Nahar Singh and mutation was sanctioned thereafter. The State which was the revision petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had submitted that mutation was sanctioned before execution of the sale deed in favour of Nahar Singh etc. by an order of the Court. The factual position which was noticed was that the sale deed was executed on 07.08.2000 whereas the mutation had been sanctioned on 13.03.2000 by the accused. Accordingly, it was held that the dates regarding execution of the sale deed and mutation were required to be taken into consideration by the learned trial Magistrate. It was observed that the learned trial Magistrate did not appreciate the said facts. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside with the direction to the learned trial Magistrate to re-hear the matter and Crl. Misc. No.M-28498 of 2010 ::2:: take into consideration the relevant dates of the documents and modify the charge accordingly. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after setting aside the order of the trial Magistrate and remitting the case back, was not liable to issue directions to modify the charges accordingly. In other words, it is contended that in view of the said direction to modify the charges, the only option left before the trial Magistrate would be to modify the charge and the contentions raised by the petitioners would not be appreciated. During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to how mutation dated 13.03.2000 can be sanctioned on the basis of sale which was executed on 07.08.2000. Besides, the mutation sanctioned on 13.03.2000 has not been produced or shown so as to enable the Court to ascertain on what basis it was sanctioned. Be that as it may, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has only remitted the case back to the learned trial Magistrate to rehear the matter and by ordering the modification of the charge would mean to modify the charge on the basis of the documents and contentions as raised before him and not that the charges are indeed to be modified. Therefore, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of and learned trial Magistrate would consider the material and documents on record and frame charges on the basis of documents and material as produced before it uninfluenced by observations made herein or made in the order dated 16.09.2010. (S.S. SARON) November 17, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet