Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DAILYLAW 3075 (DEL)

Mahesh Bhatija v. State (NCT of Delhi)

2015-07-06

Sunil Gaur

body2015
Judgment Crl.M.A.9428/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2636/2014 Vide order of 4th February, 2015 petitioner has been put on trial for the offence punishable under Section 4/20/25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Section 379 of IPC in FIR No.11/2006 registered at P.S. Special Cell, (Delhi Police). Revision against the aforesaid order stands dismissed vide impugned order of 2nd June, 2015. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that charge under Section 379 of IPC is prima facie not made out because there is no loss caused and the offence, if any, falls within the purview of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Attention of this Court was drawn to the copy of the Loss Calculation Sheet, which reveals that the total notional loss to the Government of India is Rs.23,17,320/- only. After having heard learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order and the copy of the Loss Calculation Sheet and the material on record and on perusal of the impugned orders and the copy of Loss Calculation Sheet and the charge-sheet (Annexure P-3), I find that at this stage, it is to be only seen whether a prima facie case is made out or not. On this aspect, pertinent observations of the Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Another (2012) 9 SCC 460 are as under:- "At the initial stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the court has to see is that the material on record and the facts would be compatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage." The modus operandi adopted by petitioner prima facie warrants trial of petitioner not only for the offences under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 but also for the offence of theft under the Indian Penal Code. There is no palpable error in the impugned order. This petition is dismissed while refraining to comment upon merits of this case lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.