1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R HADMAN & ANR. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.513/2010 under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.18/2010. ............... Date of Judgment: 13th December, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI Mr.Ravindra Acharya for the petitioners. Mr.K.K.Rawal, Public Prosecutor Mr.Ramesh Purohit for the complainant. BY THE COURT: The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Hadman and Geeta b/c Mali, r/o Chowk-ka- Bas, Merta City, District Nagaur, against the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions 2 Judge, Merta, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No.18/2010 whereby the learned Sessions Judge ordered to frame charge against the petitioners under section 341, 427, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2004 at about 07.00AM, complainant Man Singh Tak filed a written report at police Station Merta City stating inter alia that on that day at about 4.30AM he started for village Khariya on his Motor cycle . As soon as he came out of the gate, accused Hadman and Geeta Devi pulled him out of the motor cycle, Hadman poured kerosene and Geeta lit the fire, as a result of which his motorcycle got burnt and then they started beating him. The reason behind this attack was that the complainant had reported to the higher authorities with regard to a house being constructed by the accused, without prior permission . On the basis of this report Case No. 201/04 was registered for offence under section 341,323, 427, 307 IPC and started investigation. After investigation charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Merta for offence under section 341, 323, 427/34 IPC from where the case was committed to the court of 3 Sessions for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Merta vide order dated 21.06.2010, ordered to frame charge against the petitioners Hadman and Geeta under section 341, 427, 323/34 and 307/34 IPC . Dissatisfied by the order of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioners have preferred this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated 21.06.2010 by which he ordered to frame charge against the petitioners Hadman and Geeta under section 307/34 IPC is illegal and improper and it requires to be set aside, because there is no ample evidence against both the petitioners to frame the charge under section 307/34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the act of both the petitioners amounts to preparation, but it cannot be said to be an act amounting to prima facie attempt to murder. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. the trial court has to see that whether in its opinion there is ground for presuming 4 that the accused has committed the offence, then it is sufficient material for the trial court to frame the charge. In this particular case, there is evidence on record that both the petitioners, in furtherance of the common intention, lit fire to the Motorcycle and it was found burnt and the injured escaped from the fire. The revisional jurisdiction can be exercised only in exceptional cases, where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The jurisdiction is not ordinarily invoked or used, merely because the lower court has wrong view of the law, or mis-appreciated the evidence on record. At the stage of the charge, the Court need not weigh the evidence collected by the prosecution. The court would not interfere, if there is material available for presuming that the accused has committed an offence of which he is charged with. The Court of revision, steps in only to ensure that there is no 5 miscarriage of justice. Where the trial court came to a prima facie finding of its own, the revisional court cannot substitute its own view, after re-appreciation of the whole evidence, where two evidence are possible. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the order dated 21.06.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Merta, does not require to be interfered and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI),J. l.george