1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. No. 950 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 *** Dalip Singh @ Pappu Rathor .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is questioning the legality of order dated 29.9.2009 and charge sheet of even date, by virtue of which charges against him have been framed under Sections 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, in case FIR No. 37 dated 4.3.2005, under Sections 376, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the FIR he has not been attributed any specific role in the commission of offence, except the bald assertion made by the complainant in the last lines of her complaint. The contention is meritless. A bare perusal of the FIR it reveals that the complainant while complaining the alleged commission of offence, specifically named the petitioner being involved in the whole incident along with his co-accused. Obviously for this reason the petitioner has been charged for an offence under Section 420 IPC that too with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, while his co-accused has additionally been charge sheeted under Section 376 IPC. The Court at the stage of framing of charges does not evaluate evidence to determine its correctness, credibility or worth its legality or validity. It merely sifts and weigh evidence for a limited purpose namely whether there is sufficient evidence on record to warrant 2 framing charges. It cannot be said that the order passed by the trial court suffers from any infirmity. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed accordingly. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the merits of the case. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 19,2009 Jiten