1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2008 ANANT S/o YASHWANT VOLVOIKAR, Indian National, R/o. House No.151, Near T.B. Hospital, Chincholem, Taleigao, Goa. .. APPLICANT Versus 1. The State of Goa, through Police Inspector, Calangute Police Station, Calangute, Goa. 2. SUNIL S/o BAIJNATH THUKAL, Indian National, R/o 7-A/F-1, Model State, Phase – III, Caranzalem, Goa, & 148, Anand Avenue, Amritsar, Punjab, 143001, (currently in Judicial Custody) (Deleted as per order dated 13.3.2008.) 3. ASHPAK BENGRE @ KHAN @ KHAN @ JACK @ SAMIR, Indian National, R/o. House No.134/7 Sonarbhat, Betim, Bardez, Goa. (Currently in Judicial Custody) (Deleted as per order dated 13.3.2008.) .. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.D.Lotlikar,Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms W. Coutinho, Public Prosecutor for the State, respondent No.1. Coram :- R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. Date : - 13th March, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard. Leave to amend to delete the respondent Nos. 2&3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith. Ms Winnie Coutinho, Public Prosecutor waives service on behalf of the respondent No.1. 3. The impugned order is sought to be challenged in this petition on the ground that there was totally non-application of mind in as much as while dealing with the objection on the part of the accused in framing of the charge on the ground that the material placed before the Court nowhere disclosed any offence having been committed by the accused, it was necessary for the Court to prima facie ascertain from the records whether the same disclose involvement of the accused in the alleged offence. However, the trial Court being fully aware of this requirement has failed to consider the material and by merely placing reliance in two decisions has rejected the objection raised by the petitioner. The Public Prosecutor on the other hand has fairly conceded that the impugned order nowhere discloses prima facie consideration of material which could reveal the involvement of the petitioner so as to justify the framing of charge against the petitioner. Indeed, para. 5 of the impugned judgment apparently discloses that the Trial Court was 3 fully aware of such requirement. Yet the Trial Court nowhere referred to any material which would disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial Court for consideration whether the materials placed on record prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. 4. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the objection raised by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J. SMA