IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-23759 of 2008 Date of Decision:2.5.2011 Mukesh and others .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 13.10.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and judgment/order dated 21.7.2008 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad. Reply has been filed by the State. As per the said reply, on the complaint of the complainant DSP Bijender Singh, a case FIR No.273 dated 27.12.2006 under Sections 409/120-B IPC was registered against EHC Satpal and others. After registration of the case, the matter was referred to Inspector Harish Chand for investigation. It is alleged that on 27.12.2006, during the checking of Shastra Bhandar by the DSP Shri Bijender Singh HPS, it was found that 700 empty cartridges were missing. On inquiry by ASI Bhim Singh it has come that in stock register there were 30295 services cartridges and 3130 practice cartridges of 303 bore rifles and that in CRM M-23759 of 2008 -2- stock there were 700 empty cartridges of 303 bore rifles. On physical verification of the stock, it was found that 700 empty cartridges of 303 bore were not available in the stock and when enquiry was made on the spot, ASI Bhim Singh told that on 26.12.2006, his assistant EHC Satpal Singh No.745 was deputed to deposit 7790 empty cartridges of 303 bore in DGP Kaut, Madhuban and that vide RC no.27 dated 26.12.2006, 7090 empty cartridges were deposited in DGP Kaut, Madhuban whereas 700 empty cartridges were not deposited and have been misappropriated by EHC Satpal not only misappropriated 700 empty cartridges in the stock and that there are signatures of EHC Satpal in the stock register. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that during the investigation, facts arrived on record are that the said cartridges were sold to Jamuna Parshad for consideration of Rs.40,000/-. All the petitioners were arrested in case FIR No.298/6 under Sections 356/357/358/359 and under Sections 409/41/411 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Loha Mandi Agra on 27.12.2006. The learned Illaqa Magistrate issued production warrant against them. During the investigation, the statements of PW ESI Bhim Singh, Rajinder Singh DSP Ram Kumar, SI Mahinder Singh, Rohtash Singh SI/LO, 2nd Bn Madhuban, Ram Bhagat SI Police Station Loha Mandi Agra were recorded. The learned Illaqa Magistrate, Faridabad issued production warrant against Jamuna Parshad Naib Court Head Constable of Uttar Pardesh. He was arrested in this case and was produced before the learned trial Court on 13.3.2007. During the investigation, he was interrogated and he suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he has purchased CRM M-23759 of 2008 -3- 2500 empty cartridges, 250 alive cartridges, 8 Bandorial (in which cartridges are kept) and 80 chargers from EHC Satpal and was recovered by the Police of PS Agra. Similarly, co-accused Mukesh and Kishore Kumar had joined in investigation on 3.2.2007. During the interrogation, both the accused were interrogated by the investigating officer. Both the accused made their disclosure statement and demarcated place of delivery. Co-accused EHC Satpal, Kishore, Mukesh, Jamuna Parshad, ASI Ram Niwas, EHC Hitender Kumar, SI Prem Singh, were arrested in this case. After completition of the investigation, challan was put in Court against the petitioner and co-accused on 24.3.2007. The allegations are serious. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sanjay Choudhary and others reported as 2008(4)CRC (Criminal) 640 held that at the time of framing of charge only prima facie case has to be seen and in paras 10 and 11, held as under :- “10. After analysing the terminology used in the three pairs of sections it was held that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of a prima facie case is to be applied. 11. The present case is not one where the High Court ought to have interfered with the order of framing the charge. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for CRM M-23759 of 2008 -4- the appellant, even if there is a strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused, it is sufficient for the Court to frame a charge. At that stage, there is no necessity of formulating the opinion about the prospect of conviction. That being so, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.” In view of the prima facie case made out against the petitioners, the order framing charge cannot be set aside. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, the petitioner is always at liberty to raise all the requisite pleas before the trial Court at an appropriate stage. 2.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE