1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Ramkishor & Anr. & State of Rajasthan S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.79/04 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code Date of Judgment :: 06.10.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Ashvin Garg for the petitioner. Mr. Javed Choudhary PP for the State. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 03.12.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kota, whereby the learned Magistrate had framed charges for offence under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that one Kaluwa Ram has lodged a report with the Superintendent of Police, Kota wherein he claimed that “he is a freedom fighter. Since he is a freedom fighter, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., had allotted a gas agency to him. In order to run the gas agency, he had rented out a shop from Smt. Ganga Devi Gurjar. Taking advantage of his old age and his illiteracy, one Ram Kishore Gurjar, who happens to be a friend of his elder son offered to run the shop for him. He accepted his offer. Ram Kishore had a 2 general power of attorney drawn in the name of his son, Kapoor Chandra and in the name of complainant's elder son, Munshi Ram. In order to benefit himself and in order to cause loss to the complainant, Ram Kishore entered into a conspiracy and sold the gas connections at a higher rate than permissible and misused the letter head of the company. Moreover, he also manipulated the record of the business so as to play fraud with the customers. The complainant further claimed that Ram Kishore got the names of his family members entered into the ration card which was issued in the name of the complainant. He further asserted that Ram Kishore also withdrew Rs.50,000/- from his bank account although the complainant had instructed his bank to not to release any money in favour of Ram Kishore. On the basis of the said report, the police registered an FIR, FIR No.162/96, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act (in short, “EC Act”). Since the offences under Section 3/7 of the EC Act were triable by the Special Judge, who is equivalent to a District and Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Special Court. The learned Special Judge discharged the accused petitioners for offences under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act and directed that charges for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 3 and 471 IPC be framed. Vide order dated 13.01.2000, under Section 228 of Criminal Procedure Code, the case was remanded back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In pursuance of the order dated 13.01.2000, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Ashvin Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that there is no evidence against the accused petitioners with regard to their committing the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Moreoover, as petitioner No.1 is an employee of Jaipur Development Authority, has been falsely implicated in this case. Lastly, the order dated 03.12.2003 is a non-speaking order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. A bare perusal of the order dated 13.01.2000 clearly reveals that the Special Judge has discussed the evidence in a rather detailed manner. After discussing the evidence, he has concluded that although no case was made out under Section 3/7 of the E.C. Act, but prima facie, case was made out for offence under the provisions of IPC. Therefore, after applying his judicious mind, he sent back the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who was directed to frame the necessary charges. 4 A bare perusal of the order dated 03.12.2003 reveals that the charges have been framed legally. Since the evidence was discussed by the Special Judge, there was no need for the learned Magistraste to re-discuss the said evidence. Moreover, at the time of framing of the charges, it is not necessary for the Court to pass a detailed speaking order. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality or perversity in either of the two impugned orders. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the criminal revision petition. Hence it is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/