IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.176 of 2010. Date of decision: 4.10.2010. Vinod Kumar Malhotra … …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mrs.Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner challenges on the framing of charges by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the learned trial Court was in clear error in framing charges on the material placed on the record. Aside from the fact that evidence has not to be examined meticulously at the stage of framing of charges, the points as urged in this petition will be open to the petitioner during trial. The allegations made require detailed examination of evidence. I have not given a categoric finding on the submissions made by the petitioner for the reasons that any findings rendered would prejudge 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 the case of the petitioner-respondent before the trial Court. Learned counsel was at pains to point out that no charge under the Excise Act is made out as the receipt and dispatch of molasses is well documented. He submits that no charge for possession of fire arms against law has been made out. I have perused the record and at this stage I cannot persuade myself to accept this view as documents and the circumstances as assessed by me will be the subject matter of evidence before the trial Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. October 4, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.