Abdul Farid Vs. State of Rajasthan.

Abdul Farid vs State of Rajasthan.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 14, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920428

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/920428
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2011
Case Number: Case No. CRLR - 786 of 2011
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 227, 228, 397

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Farid

Advocate Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa; Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv

Respondent

State of Rajasthan.

Advocate Ms. Rekha Madnani, Adv

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 227, 228, 397

Excerpt

1. heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging order dated 05.11.2008 passed by trial court, framing charges against the petitioner for offences under sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 i.p.c. 3. submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that trial court committed an illegality in framing the charges for the above-mentioned offences against the petitioner, without any material available on record. 4. i have considered submission of learned counsel for the parties. 5. a copy of charge sheet has also been placed on record, from which it is clear that all the relevant facts have been mentioned by the trial court, while framing charge against the petitioner. no illegality or perversity has been pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the charges framed against the petitioner for the above-mentioned offences. 6. hon'ble apex court in state of m.p. v. s.b. johari & others, reported in (2000) 2 scc 57, while interpreting scope of sections 227, 228 and 397 cr.p.c. held that at the time of framing of charges, the court is required to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; it cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter at this stage. 7. since there is prima-facie evidence to frame above-mentioned charges against the petitioner in the present case and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order framing charges or charges itself, therefore, i do not find any merit in this revision petition. 8. revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging order dated 05.11.2008 passed by trial court, framing charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that trial court committed an illegality in framing the charges for the above-mentioned offences against the petitioner, without any material available on record.

4. I have considered submission of learned counsel for the parties.

5. A copy of charge sheet has also been placed on record, from which it is clear that all the relevant facts have been mentioned by the trial court, while framing charge against the petitioner. No illegality or perversity has been pointed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the charges framed against the petitioner for the above-mentioned offences.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari & Others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 57, while interpreting scope of Sections 227, 228 and 397 Cr.P.C. held that at the time of framing of charges, the court is required to see whether prima facie there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; it cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a conclusion in the matter at this stage.

7. Since there is prima-facie evidence to frame above-mentioned charges against the petitioner in the present case and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the order framing charges or charges itself, therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

8. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2011 Same Parties Abdul Farid vs State of Rajasthan. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Narendra Kumar Jain, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 467, 468, 471, 420; Code O...