THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT IN BILASPUR (CGQ $ing!e Bench Disttr Raipur y //T ‘7 Cr. M. P. No. PETITIONER Kamlesh Sahu aged about 47 Years Sahu, R/o Vill.-Kopra, S/o g6! % ........ . Purshottam .. P.S.— Rajlm, .. D1stt.- . Ralpur . Pj. “WVkLM by 3"" #r ' ' Rajlm, mu . io/ ' @ is. RESPONDENT Of Chhattisgarh, District Magistrate, — w,» mwrn (Wu) WWW am was!m WWW?! mmiwm‘ m v fwa?m a: en'fém 31m SB ' Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan $hrivastava, J. 14=12=2911 Shri Rakesh Thakur, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ashis'n Gupta, Pane! 1 awyer for the State. Heard. This petition under $ection 482 CrPC has been med by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 14i09i‘ 11 passed in revision by which, order of framing charge by the triai Court has bee afnrmed. Learned counsei for the etitioner contended that the charges have been j framed against the petitioner eve without there being any iota of materiai showing "\ his invoivemeht in the aiieged ommission of oh’ence. Submission of iearned counsei for the petitioner is thati terpoiation, if any, in the revenue records is done by the concerned Revenue Ofhc and the petitioner was oniy a broker engaged in the transaction of sale. He su mits that there is no materiai to show that the petitioner ever represented any f the parties with regard to the extent of iand avaiiabie for saie under the t ansaction and mereiy because the petitioner facilitated sale of a particuiar ch nk of iand‘ any offence committed in respect of y. the revenue records is oniy att ibutabie to those, who have prepared revenue i records and not the petitioner. i support of his submission, teamed counsei for \ the petitioner placed reiiance on he decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anii Ritoiia A.K.Ritoiia v. S ate of Bihar 20W 41‘ Crimesttd $62 A perusal of the charge s eet shows that the purchaser has alleged that a huge chunk of iand was propos d for sale at the instance of the petitioner who played a predominant role in faci tating safe of land and it was at his instance that the purchaser purchased the lan '. An enquiry was made by the Tahslidar and in 2g ’%HC 78 mmm wmm tnmfwmiifmim Deeyii recorded various statements and the report of that nqulry, the Tahslldar has e sheet, shows that there are aiiegations against also been aiieged to be played by the petitioner in preparanon I change o reveue ecords n r cannot be said that there is absoiuteiy no materiai s petitioner. in the case of $tate of Madhya 120003 'i JLJ 12. Niranian Singh Karam Singh iiiaya & ors., i19§0§ 4 SCC 7o: it has been heid charges, what is required to be seen is whether . eedings is made out and not a case of conviction. er piaced reiiance on the decision in the case of a case where on facts, the Court found that there that the appeiiant therein had requisite intention w inducement. ase are entirety different. Therefore, this petition ~cordingiy dismissed. Before parting With the c se it is observed that whatever observations made Ited purposes of finding as to whether a case or The Lourt betow shall hold the trial Without berhg f this Court I l r ' Pradesh v S B John & ors , Puni v Jitendra Bmm Ral that at the stage or trammg of tner 1s sulftclent ground far prm Learned co sel f6r’the"“etltlor i :_.Anli Rlto was “was nothing an recor to Show ' and there was no eiement to shc ’ The facts of the present d has no merits The petltlon is ai by this Court are only for the II interference is made out or not influenced by the observations o Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge l d t g . w