IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA 1.Cr. Revision No.36 of 2010. 2.Cr. Revision. No.41 of 2010, 3.Cr. Revision No.40 of 2010, 4.Cr. Revision No. 82 of 2010 5.Cr.Revision No. 108 of 2010. Date of Decision: 28.10.2010. _______________________________________________ 1.Cr. Rev. No. 36 of 2010. Parmil Kumar. ….Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. _____________________________________________ For the petitioner: :Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate . with Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. For respondent: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. 2.Cr. Rev. No. 41 of 2010. Shiv Lal ….Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. _____________________________________________ For the petitioner: :Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate . For respondent: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. 3.Cr. Rev. No. 40 of 2010. Kamal Mohini and others. ….Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. _____________________________________________ For the petitioner: :Mr.V.D.Khidta, Advocate . For respondent: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. 2 4.Cr. Rev. No. 82 of 2010. Ram Lal Dhal and another. ….Petitioners. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. _____________________________________________ For the petitioner: :Mr.V.D.Khidta, Advocate . For respondent: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. 5.Cr. Rev. No. 108 of 2010. Devinder Dogra. ….Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent. _____________________________________________ For the petitioner: :Mr.B.M.Chauhan, Advocate . For respondent: Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). Petitioners in each of these petitions challenge the framing of the charges by the learned Special Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken me through the orders passed by the learned trial Court framing charges. They submit that prima facie from the reading of the material on Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 3 record, no criminal case is made out and at best, they are only unsubstantiated allegations. They submit that this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction can always adjudicate on the point of law that the trial Court is not merely a mouth piece of the prosecution and that some exercise has to be undertaken by the Court in order to ascertain as to whether prima facie an offence has been made out or not. This exercise according to the learned counsel does not consist of a detailed examination of the evidence but some scrutiny of the material on record. 2. This proposition of law cannot be doubted as it is settled by long line of decisions {See: Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, 1990 Crl. L.J. 1869, State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699, State of M.P. Vs. S.B.Johari and others, (2000) 2 SCC 57 and Dilwar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 2 SCC 135 } 3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that looking to the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, meticulous examination of the evidence would be required which exercise can only be undertaken at the trial. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD) Patna, (2007) 1 SCC 49. 4. It is by now well settled that in criminal law, no two sets of facts are the same so as to attract the application of a particular precedent. However, considering the facts and circumstances in each of these cases, it would be in the 4 fitness of things in case no orders are passed by this Court at this stage. Considering the law in Lalu Prasad Yadav’s case (supra), holding: “16 But where the question of jurisdiction is raised and the trial Court is required to adjudicate that issue, it cannot be said that reasons are not to be recorded. In such a case reason relate to question of jurisdiction and not necessarily to the issue relating to framing of charge. In such a case reasons dealing with a plea relating to jurisdiction have to be recorded.” (P 59). 5. The law is also well settled that in case a question of jurisdiction is raised, the trial Court is required to adjudicate that issue and reasons are to be furnished by that court for either accepting or rejecting the objections so raised. 6. In these circumstances, these petitions are disposed of at this stage. I have not considered the respective contentions and the merits of the case as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also by the learned Additional Advocate General and I do not express any opinion on the merits of the case. However, it will be open to the petitioner(s) herein to urge any point of jurisdiction before the learned trial Court and if so urged it shall be disposed of in accordance with law by that Court. Needless to say or add that the jurisdiction goes to the very foundation of taking cognizance and as such would be required to be adjudicated as a preliminary point. Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 28, 2010(R) 5