ORDER
Fakhruddin, J.
1. Heard.
2. The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 17-3-2001 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, framing charges against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, one Upendra along with his brother had gone to Durg for filing tender in the Public Works Department. It is stated that while he along with Gopal, Manish Sillu was coming out, the applicant armed with deadly weapons i.e., Sword, Lathi and Farsa attacked Upendra and Gopal and as a result of which they sustained injuries. Report was lodged. After due investigation, challan was filed.
4. Learned Sessions Court after scrutinizing the material on record has framed the charges.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a simple case under Section 323 of IPC and charges under Sections 147, 148/307 ought not to have been framed.
6. Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that there is sufficient material on record for the purpose of framing of charges.
7. Heard at length and material perused.
8. The incident occurred in the broad day light at 2.30 P.M. and that too where the tenders were being submitted and filed in the office of Public Works Department. The persons, who go to Govt. office for submitting tenders or for any other Govt. job when the office functions and activities are going on, have to maintain proper discipline. The manner in which the incident had occurred in the broad day light and the accused persons having entered into the office of the Public Works Department armed with deadly weapons Sword, Lathi and Farsa amply demonstrate the object for which they had gone. The totality of the circumstances has to be seen at the time of framing of charge. The Court cannot lost sight of the fact regarding the place of incident and the manner in which the offence has occurred and persons are attacked. The First Information Report has been read and the statements have also been perused.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswami and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489. That case is on different footing and relates to the case where charges were framed against some persons. The High Court in revision quashed proceedings against the persons charged. It is not a matter where it can be said that there is no material.
10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors., reported in 2000(3) M.P.H.T. 164 = 2000(1) JLJ 142, in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that at stage of framing of charge, only prima facie case has to be considered and such consideration is for limited purpose of framing charge and not for conviction. It is not a case where there is no iota of evidence.
11. The revision fails and dismissed.
12. The record of the Court below be sent back immediately and the Trial Court shall decide the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.
Certified photocopy to the parties as per rules.