IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 143 of 2010 Bhuwneshwar Prasad Thapliyal .…. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand ……… Respondent August 13, 2010 Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) has been filed by the revisionist to quash the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal (New Tehri) in Special Trial No. 9/2010, State v. Bhuwneshwar Prasad Thapliyal whereby learned trial court has framed the charge against the revisionist under Section 5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is this that on 19.8.2009 at about 5.30 pm, revisionist along with other co-accused was caught by the patrolling police party near Baiswada Bridge Ghansali, PS Ghansali, District Tehri Garhwal along with the illegal explosive materials and 100 rods of Power Gel 801 Explosive, 100 detonators and 10 bunches of fuse wire were recovered from his possession. Explosive materials were also recovered from the other co-accused. The revisionist could not produce the license for keeping the aforesaid explosive materials and, therefore, the said materials were seized and the revisionist was arrested by the police and the FIR was lodged against the revisionist and other co-accused. After the investigation, the I.O. submitted the chargesheet against the revisionist. Thereafter learned Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide the impugned order dated 19.6.2010 has framed the charge against the revisionist for an offence under Section 5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 3. From the perusal of the impugned order of the trial court it reveals that the trial court has framed the charge after perusing the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC and other documentary evidence on record. It is settled law that charge can be framed if prima facie it indicates that the offence might have committed and the commission of the offence is a probable consequence and the prima facie case is made out against the accused. From the perusal of the order dated 19.6.2010 passed by the trial court and other evidence available on record, it reveals that prima facie the case against the revisionist under Section 5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is made out and, therefore, the impugned order of the trial court dated 19.6.2010 is correct and justified and it does not require any interference by this Court at this stage. 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2007) 5 SCC 403, Soma Chakravarty v. State through CBI, wherein at para 32 it has been observed as under: “The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be 2 gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at this stage.” 5. For the reasons recorded above, the revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 13.8.2010 PRABODH 3