CRLR 447/07 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.447/2007 Ramswaroop Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date Of Order :: 30.11.2007 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, for accused petitioner. Mr. S.N. Gupta, Public Prosecutor for State. ...... By the Court :- This revision petition under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused petitioner Ramswaroop against the order dated 15/2/2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Decoity Affected Area, Dholpur in Sessions Case No.77/2006 whereby charges for the offences under sections 395, 396, 397, 302 & 460 IPC were framed against the accused petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor for the State CRLR 447/07 (2) and perused the charge-sheet papers placed during the course of arguments. 3. It was inter alia contended that there is no iota of evidence against the accused petitioner and police filed the charge-sheet only on the basis of the manufactured statement of co-accused Rajkumar which alone cannot be made the basis of conviction of the accused petitioner. Reliance was placed on Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 1998(6) SC 371. It was then contended that trial court at the time of framing of the charge has not taken into consideration any material available on the record nor indicated in the impugned order as to what is the material against the accused petitioner for framing the charge. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that keeping in view the evidence collected by the investigating agency the trial court has rightly framed the charges. 5. I have considered the rival submissions CRLR 447/07 (3) made at the bar. It is true that at the time of framing of the charge, it is not required for the trial court to minutely evaluate the material and evidence collected by the investigating agency but simultaneously it is also the duty of the court to take into consideration the material for arriving at the conclusion that there is grave suspicion and prima facie case is made out against the accused. The trial court while framing the charges, passed non-speaking order which reads as under : '' ǒवशेष लोक अिभयोजक उप0। अिभयुÈ तगण राज कुमार व राम ः वǾप वर जमानत मय वकȧल उप. बहस चाज[ सुनी गयी। ूथम Ǻं टया धारा 395,396,397,302 एवं 460 भा.द.स. के अपराध का आरोप ǒवरिचत Ǒकये जाने का आधार ूकट होता है। अत: उÈ त आरोप ǒवरिचत कर अिभयुÈ तगण को शुमार व अपǑठत तलब हो, अिभयुÈ तगण ने अपराध अः वीकार कर अÛ वी¢ा चाहȣ। गवाह 11,12,13 Ǒद. 17.5.07 के िलए तथा सा¢ीगण सं. 15 व 19 के Ǒद. 18.5.07 के िलए सà मन से तलब Ǒकये जावे। पऽावली वाः ते साआ य अिभयोजन Ǒद. 16.5.07 को पेश हो।'' CRLR 447/07 (4) 6. From the impugned order, it does not appear that what material and evidence inspired the court to frame the charges against the accused petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of framing the charges qua accused petitioner Ramswaroop is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order in regard to framing of the charges against him in accordance to law. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr.P.A.