IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 9635 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.4.2011 Hawa Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** ORDER Crl.Misc.No. 17670 of 2011 Crl.Misc.is allowed as prayed for. Crl.Misc.No. M- 9635 of 2011 This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 19.2.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Palwal vide which the revision filed by the petitioner against framing of charge under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without mentioning the reason as to how culpability of the petitioner has been proved. The petitioner was working in the office at the time of unearthing of the scam. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had tampered with Crl.Misc. No. M- 9635 of 2011 [2] the record but it has been proved from record that entries in the record were tampered by the peon. This is also not the case of the prosecution that connivance between petitioner and peon was there. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has already been exonerated in departmental proceedings and charge cannot be framed. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused charge -sheet dated 16.3.2009 as well as the order passed by the revisional Court. As per case of the prosecution, financial scam was unearthed in Karnal Estate Office of HBH. The allegation against the petitioner was that more amount was collected from the beneficiaries but in record less amount has been shown as entries had been forged and the amount was embezzled by the petitioner as well as by his co- accused. The petitioner was charge-sheeted by JMIC, Palwal on 16th March, 2009 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The petitioner filed criminal revision before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.2.2011. The only ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since he was exonerated in the department proceedings, charge should not have been framed against him and there was no specific role of the petitioner and it has not been proved on record that he committed any offence. Admittedly, the petitioner filed Crl.Misc.No.M-13955 of 2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 21st December, 2008 in order to assail all the allegations before the trial Court. Now, the Crl.Misc. No. M- 9635 of 2011 [3] present petition has been filed against the order passed by the revisional Court. It has also come on record that during investigation, police had also recorded statements of beneficiaries / allottees of the house in Board premises who have specifically stated that petitioners and other accused had accepted amount and less amount was shown to be deposited vide receipt/vouchers whereas much more amount was shown to be accepted. At the time of framing of the charge, only prima facie case is to be seen and evidence is not to be discussed. It is for the trial Court to see whether on the basis of allegations, a prima facie case is there against the accused person. It is not necessary that evidence is to be discussed at the time of framing of the charge. Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused. Court is not required to appreciate evidence for arriving at conclusion that materials produced on record are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into. Whether, in fact, the accused has committed the offence, can only be decided at the trial. This view has been held in judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. S.B.Johari [2000] 2 SCC 57, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharma Maharaj and others [1997] 4 SCC 393 and Soma Chakravarty v. State [2007] 5 SCC 403. Moreover, the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and earlier Crl.Misc.No.M-13955 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against framing of charge has also been dismissed. No ground is made out to interfere under Section 482 Crl.Misc. No. M- 9635 of 2011 [4] Cr.P.C. as it would amount to filing second revision which is not maintainable. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE April 04, 2011 raghav