Hem Chandra Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
penal code - sections 420/34, 406, 408, 409 and 120b and criminal procedure code--framing of charge--order of framing charge does not suffer from any infirmity--held, it required no interference.;the order passed by the learned lower court, framing the charges against the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity and does not require any interference. the order passed by the learned lower court is just and proper.;petition dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - the court, while framing the charge, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken put at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the court has to evaluate the evidence at the initial stage, and even the presence of a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner.b.r. arora, j.1. this miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated july 5, 1988, passed by the additional chief judicial magistrate no. 1, udaipur, by which the learned additional chief judicial magistrate framed the charges under sections 420/34 and 406/34, i.p.c. against the petitioner.2. mr. banshi lai filed a written report at the police station, surajpole, udaipur, against the petitioner under sections 420, 406, 120b, 408 and 409/34, i.p.c. the police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the petitioner under sections 420, 406, 120b, 408 and 409/34, i.p.c. in the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate no. 1, udaipur. the learned judicial magistrate took cognizance and issued process and thereafter heard the arguments for framing the charge. after hearing the arguments, the learned judicial magistrate framed the charges against the petitioner under section 420/34 and 406/34, i.p.c. it is against this order that the present petition has been filed.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and perused the record.4. at the time of framing the charges, the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to produce are not to be meticulously examined. at this stage, the court has only to see whether the unrebutted evidence, which the prosecution is to adduce, makes-out a case for conviction and if it is so then the charge can be framed. but if the unrebutted evidence itself does not disclose that the accused has committed the offence, then the charge should not be framed. the court, while framing the charge, is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken put at their face value, disclose the presence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and for this purpose, the court has to evaluate the evidence at the initial stage, and even the presence of a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge against the petitioner. after going through the record of the case. i am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned lower court, framing the charges against the petitioner, does not suffer from any infirmity and does not require any interference. the order passed by the learned lower court is just and proper.5. the result is that this miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioner has got no force and is hereby dismissed.