IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revisions No.91 & 97 of 2011 Date of decision : June 17, 2011 Cr.R No.91/2011 K.L. Rana Versus State of H.P. Versus Cr.R No.97/2011 Darshan Lal Arora Versus State of H.P. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, in Cr.R No.91 of 2011. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, in Cr.R No.97 of 2011. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, and Ms Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge(Oral) These two petitions are being disposed of by a common order, as these are based on the same set of facts. 2. The petitioners herein have challenged the framing of charge against them by the trial Court vide order dated 5th March, 2011. The grievance of the petitioners, in both these petitions, is that they have not only committed defalcation and forgery but that the tender was never allotted to them and documents were forged and fudged, but no particulars have been given in the charge. The petitioners rely upon the document Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… Annexure P-6, being letter No.PW-DPD-CB-WA-R.T.I./2010- 10412, dated 12th October, 2010 addressed to Shri K.L. Rana son of late Shri S.S. Rana, Village Nounu, P.O. Ropari, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., stating that there was no work in the division, which was awarded to him on Sidhpur-Saklana-Gorat Sandhol Road. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if that be the position there can be no criminal charge. 3. I am not going into the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners or the learned Additional Advocate General. The charge framed must explain the particulars and nature of the offence committed by the persons to be charged. It is not merely sufficient to say that some offences or a particular offence has been committed by the person charged. What I find in the order of the trial Court is that a general allegation has been made. According to the challan, the work of allotting the tender to the petitioner herein was without following the codal formalities. The learned trial Court should have stated in the order with some particularity the nature of the tender and the work allotted. 4. It is by now well settled that at the time of framing the charge, the Court is not required to go into the entire evidence meticulously but at the same time it …3… cannot act as a mouth piece of the prosecution nor that of the defence. 5. Considering the law applicable to framing of charge, it is by now well settled that the Court cannot be expected to act as the mouth piece of the prosecution and at the time of framing of charge the Court has to sift through material on record to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. (See: Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, AIR 1979 SC 366, Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others, 1990 Crl. L.J. 1869, State of Karnataka Vs. L.Muniswamy and others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 and Dilwar Balu Kurane versus State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135. 6. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed and I direct that the charge be re-framed, before proceeding with the trial. The case is fixed for evidence of the witnesses from 20th June, 2011 to 29th June, 2011. I direct that the evidence in the case shall be recorded only after the charge is framed, in accordance with law and the well settled principles, as stated supra. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( Dev Darshan Sud ), June 17, 2011(sd) Judge.