1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 814 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 *** Inderjit Singh & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR. Present:- Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab Mr. PPS Duggal, Advocate for the complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioners are aggrieved with order dated 21.2.2007 vide which the cancellation report submitted by the police in case FIR No. 95 of 2003, Police Station “C” Division, Amritsar, under Sections 379, 342, 506 IPC and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act has not been accepted by the learned trial Court and the petitioners have been ordered to be charge sheeted under Sections 342, 379, 506 IPC and under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the officer of the rank of ADGP( Crimes) has conducted enquiry into the matter and has found the petitioners innocent and recommended the cancellation report in the matter, which ought to have been accepted by the Court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been contended by learned counsel that when two different views are available, then the view favouring the accused has to be taken. He has further contended that by a totally non-speaking order the petitioners have been charge-sheeted. 2 Firstly, we have to revert to the background of the case in brief. The aforesaid FIR was registered pursuant to the directions given by this court on a petition filed by Ashwani Kumar complaining that the petitioners and other police officials of CIA Staff illegally picked him and detained illegally from 7.5.2003 to 12.5.2003 and also took Rs.25000/-, one colour television and wrist watch while he was in illegal custody. This Court directed the SSP, Amritsar to look into the matter and consequently, the aforesaid FIR came into existence. The case was investigated by SP(D), who found the petitioners innocent and recommended cancellation of the case. However, dis-agreeing with the said recommendation, the SSP ordered re-enquiry in the matter. It is apt to mention here that during the hearing of the bail application of one of the petitioner, this court was apprised of filing of challan in the matter within one month and consequently, the challan was also filed. However, during the proceedings before the Court, an application for further enquiry was filed and the said request of the prosecution was allowed and after that the cancellation report was filed in the matter, which has not been accepted by the Court below by dint of the impugned order. In the instant case the complainant has protested the cancellation report tooth and nail and has specifically raised the objection that the senior police officers are biased and in order to accommodate the petitioners, who are also police officials, have recommended cancellation report. Although, initially cancellation report in the matter was recommended, but it cannot be forgotten that the same was not accepted by the SSP, Amritsar. It has also come on record that even the competent authority accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners and the challan was also filed for their trial. The Court after applying the judicial mind to the material placed on record in the shape of statement of complainant and witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as to the order granting sanction for the prosecution, rightly not accepted the cancellation report. Even otherwise the Court is not bound to accept the view taken by the investigating agency and has to take judicial notice of the substance/ proof placed on record, which has been done in the present case while rejecting the cancellation report. So far as question of framing of charges against the petitioners are concerned, the tenor of the impugned order reveals that the Court after 3 satisfying itself as to the prima commission of offence by the petitioners under Sections 379, 342, 506 IPC and under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has ordered for framing of charges against them. The Court at the stage of framing of charges does not evaluate evidence to determine its correctness, credibility or worth its legality or validity. It merely sifts and weigh evidence for a limited purpose namely whether there is sufficient evidence on record to warrant framing charges. It cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court suffers from any infirmity. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 6,2009 Jiten