1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.REVISION PETITION NO.1158/2010 Ram Kishore @ Pintu Vs. State Date of order : 1/11/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Anil Upman for the petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar, P.P. for the State. ****** This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order framing charge u/s.411, 412 and 120B of IPC dated 6.9.2010. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that charge cannot be framed only on the basis of suspicion and even if there is a suspicion giving rise to two views, than benefit of doubt has to go to the accused. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Dilwar Balu Kurane vs. State of Maharashtra-2002(2) SRJ 475. It is argued that unless there were five accused, the charge u/s.395 could be sustained and since that charge has been framed against only two accused, the charge for the alleged offence could not be framed. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence except the information given by Manoj Kumar u/s.27 of Evidence Act and that evidence would not be admissible. There is no evidence that the looted diesel was sold to the petitioner. What is recovered is 2 currency notes, which were shown to have been received as sale proceeds of the looted diesel. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court also erred in law in framing charge u/s.411 and 412 of IPC simultaneously, whereas there can be only one charge. Learned PP opposed the revision petition and submitted that there is enough evidence on record to justify framing of charge. What is required is that a prima facie case would be made out for framing charge and that the standard of proof that is envisaged at the time of conviction, cannot be applied without framing the charge. Learned counsel submitted that there is enough evidence to show that the looted diesel was sold at two places; one at the petrol pump owned by the petitioner and another at Kisan Kendra. The call details of the accused have been collected indicating his presence and which connects him with the offence. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the learned trial court has passed the detailed order wherein it has analysed the evidence for the registered offence on finding out whether or not there is prima facie case for framing charge against accused petitioner. Not only that the recovery was made pursuant to the information given by the co-accused Manoj Kumar u/s.27. In so far as recovery of 3 diesel is concerned, once the diesel which is looted was purchased and mixed up with the other diesel and was sold out, it is difficult to identify as to which part of the diesel out of the total, would be stolen. In view of the nature of looted articles, its exact identification may not be possible, but then that cannot be a ground to disregard the evidence completely at the stage of framing charge. On the question that petitioner could be either convicted for offence u/s.411 or 412 of IPC, even when the learned trial court has framed both the charges, that does not mean that those charges cannot be framed simultaneously and alternatively if eventually the learned trial court finds that only one of those charges is proved, conviction would follow for only one of them. I therefore do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. The revision petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-