1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R BHIM RAJ Vs.STATE OF RAJASTHAN S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.674/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.05/2006. ............... Date of Judgment: 13th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.G.J.Gupta for the petitioner. Ms. Chandra Lekha , Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bhim Raj s/o Banwari Lal , b/c Dhanak, r/o Ward No.3, Prem Nagar, Anoopgarh, District, 2 Sriganganagar against the judgment and order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned Addl.District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No.05/2006 arising out of FIR No. 216/2005 of Police Station Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar for the offence under section 332, 353 and 382 IPC and Section 135 (1) of the Electricity Act by which the petitioner has been charged. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ramgopal Vishwakarma, Asstt. Engineer , Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. Anoopgarh submitted written report before the police Station Anoopgarh wherein it was stated that on 24.05.2005 at about 05.00 PM he went with the Asstt. Engineer, Junior Engineer (Rural) and Junior Engineer ( City) (CCA-III) in Ward No.3, Anoopgarh for making a raid in respect of the theft of electricity in the petitioner's house. When complainant and his colleagues were making proceedings in respect of theft of electricity, at that time the wife of the petitioner and his two sons started abusing them and obstructing them from doing the government work. On the above allegation, FIR was lodged against the 3 the wife and two sons of the petitioner for the offence under section 332, 352 and 382 IPC and section 35 (1) of Electricity Act, 2003. After investigation police filed challan against the petitioner before the learned trial court. The learned trial court vide order dated 18.06.2010 charged the petitioner for the offence under section 332, 353 and 382 IPC read with section 135 of the Electricity Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sriganganagar dated 18.06.2010 the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that First Information Report lodged by the Asstt. Engineer did not bear the name of petitioner Bhim Raj and it is only during the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosed the name of Bhim Raj as the assailant and the learned trial court on the basis of above statement, ordered to frame charge against the present petitioner Bhim Raj, therefore, the order of the learned trial court is illegal and improper. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor contended 4 that the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the petitioner Bhim Raj for the alleged offence after investigation. The learned trial court did not commit any illegality or impropriety in framing the charge against the petitioner under Sections 332, 353 and 382 of the I.P.C. r.w. Section 135 (1) of the Indian Electricity Act. I have perused the order dated 18.06.2010 passed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court held in its order dated 18.06.2010 that there is a clear assertion in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Bhim Raj reached at the place of incident and snatched the “kundi” and 'wires' at the spot seized by the Asstt. Engineer. Thus, in my considered view, the learned trial court committed no error while framing the charge against the petitioner on the basis of documents submitted after investigation with report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Evidence recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. also constitutes the part of investigation file i.e. the report under section 173 Cr.P.C., and that can be acted upon while framing the charge. 5 Accordingly, the order of the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and hence the order of learned trial court requires to be affirmed and is hereby affirmed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george