IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Rev.No. 74 of 2007. Date of Decision: 18.3.2009. ____________________________________________________________ D.P.Verma.. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1?yes For the petitioner : Sh.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate . For respondent : Shri J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ______________________________________________________. Surinder Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 12.4.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Solan in Case No. 6-S/7 of 2006, whereby the objections raised by him against framing of the charges under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, were dismissed. . Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that during the year 2001, the petitioner was posted as Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O.) at Solan. It is alleged that one of his duties was to levy and charge fee from the transporters who are found plying their vehicles within his jurisdiction without any valid permit under the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that on 17.1.2001 when he was checking the vehicles at Nalagarh, he came across vehicle No.PB-12-D-9997 (truck) without a valid permit thereby contravening the provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the said vehicle was Sh. Amrish. The petitioner is alleged to have issued a receipt No.0181982 on a printed form to the driver for Rs.2500/- as compounding fee but it was undated. The said truck again happened to enter the boundary of Himachal Pradesh through Parwanoo barrier on the same day which was checked by Sh. Shyam Lal, Incharge of the Parwanoo barrier. Since the truck was not having permit, the said driver had shown the receipt No. 0181982 which was shown to be valid up to 30.9.2001. The receipt was undated said Sh.Shyam Lal entertained suspicion. He retained the original receipt and handed over its photocopy to the driver. Thereafter the said official checked up with the office of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) Solan and found that against the said receipt number in its counter foil only Rs.1,000/- was shown to have been charged/received against Rs.2500/- on 17.1.2001 and both were having the writing and signatures of the accused. Sh.Shyam Lal produced these documents to the then Director Transport Smt. Manisha Nanda. She retained the receipt for further action. Thereafter she sent her note 3 along with the receipt, to the Joint Director Transport but the original receipt got misplaced somewhere. The matter was brought to the notice of the Vigilance Department of the Police and the F.I.R was lodged. The original counter-foil of the receipt and photocopy of receipt were taken into possession and the specimen signatures and hand writing of the petitioner were obtained for the examination from the expert of the Questioned Documents. The hand writing expert observed that the signatures and the writings found on the photostat copy of the disputed receipt and counter foil were of the same person i.e. the petitioner. The police also started verifying and checking the assets of the petitioner for the period 1.1.1985 to 31.8.2003. His assets were found disproportionate to his known sources of income, the difference was of Rs.3,93,029/- over and above his known sources of income. The police prepared its compilation and the trial result of the investigation was that the petitioner was found having committed the offences as referred to above, thus presented the challan against him in the court of Special Judge. Before framing the charges, the learned Special Judge heard the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The objections raised by the petitioner were dismissed. On perusing the challan and statements of the witnesses finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, 4 he was ordered to be chargesheeted for the offences stated above. Sh.Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Special Judge wrongly came to the conclusion that the material placed before the Court disclosed the commission of the aforesaid offences. According to him the statement of the driver Amrish was not recorded by the Police during the investigation and the original receipt of Rs.2,500/- alleged to have been issued to the said driver went missing. Thus the opinion of the expert on the basis of the photo copy of the said receipt was wrong and illegal and further there was no clinching evidence to conclude the allegation of possessing disproportionate assets more than the known sources of income by the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the points raised by the learned counsel and perused the record. In State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, [AIR 1977 SC 2018], the Supreme Court held that the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of the charges in a criminal case. At the stage of framing charge, the courts is not to see whether there is 5 sufficient ground for the conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of trial, but, however at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground(s) for proceeding against the accused. The Bench consisting of three Judges of the Supreme Court in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, [AIR 1980 S.C. 52] observed that at the stage of framing charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. The standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing the charges. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 6 In Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, [AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1962] the apex court held that the court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Thus applying the above observations and the law laid down by the apex Court, in the instant case after perusing the challan and documents appended thereto, in my opinion prima facie there is enough material to chargesheet the accused for the offences aforesaid. I do not find any infirmity, illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as such the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to be present before the learned Special Judge, Solan on 8.4.2009. The Registry shall ensure that the record of the learned trial court reaches there well before the date fixed. (Surinder Singh), Judge. March 18, 2009(R).