JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi, whereby he has discharged the accused persons of the offence under S. 302 or 328 and 201, IPC. It arises in the following circumstances. 2. In between 2nd and 4th July, 1979 seven persons after having consumed Thinner (Mathia) at Mt. Abu breathed their last and many persons were injured and were admitted in the hospital. A case No. 25/70 was registered at Mt. Abu Police Station on the report of Lalsingh, Dy. S. P. Abu Road. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against the accused respondents and the the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged them under S. 227 Cr. P. C 3. It is contended by the learned P. P. that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have only discharged the accused respondents if he could form an opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. According to him, on the material on record, there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy of selling methyl alcohol or methia or thinner or French polish for the purpose of consumption by human being. Methyl alcohol is, a poison and, therefore, if any body sells poison knowing it fully well that it is likely to be consumed by those who purchase it then the act of the accused persons is immensely dangerous and is an offence of murder falling under clause fourthly of S. 300, IPC. It is further submitted that there is sufficient material on record, which prima facie goes to show that a case is made out under S. 201, IPC, as after having come to know that certain deaths have taken place as a result of consumption of methia sold by the agents of the accused persons to various persons, persons have died and have also received injuries. It may be stated here that while considering the case under S. 227 or 228, Cr.P.C., it is not the stage where it is expected of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to analyse the evidence, as if dealing with the case finally, and all that is required of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that he should have gone through the documents furnished under S. 173, Cr.P.C., should have heard the learned P. P. and the learned Advocate, and if, thereafter, he could reach the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, only then he could discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. If, after considering the documents aforesaid, and after hearing the Advocate, he could form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by him. then he is bound to frame a charge against the accused. In Superintendent Remembrances-Legal Affairs West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that at the stage of framing charges the prosecution evidence does not commence and the Magistrate, therefore, has to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the material placed before him by the Police Officer. The standard test, brief and judgement, which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is exactly not to be applied at the stage of S. 227 or 228, Cr.P.C. at this stage, even a strong suspicion found on the material before the learned Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charges against accused in respect of the submission of that offence. Therefore, if there is strong suspicion, a court has to frame a charge, and it is not expected of the Court at this stage to appreciate the evidence and discharge the accused. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the accessed observing that there is no material on record on which it can be said that methia or thinner which was consumed by those who died or those who were injured had died after having perchased from the accused respondents. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the accessed observing that there is no material on record on which it can be said that methia or thinner which was consumed by those who died or those who were injured had died after having perchased from the accused respondents. He also observed that it does appear from the statement of Piru and Ramchand that Amritlal used to deal in Methia, but on such a vague evidence no charge can be framed against the accused persons. It is submitted by the learned P. P. that there is sufficient material on record which goes to show that there is strong suspiration of the accused having committed an offence u/s 302 or 328 and 201, IPC. He has taken me through the relevant material on record. The case relates to the death of Tulsa who died along with six others. No doubt, there is no material on record, so far as the death of persons other than Chunnilal is concerned, but there appears to be sufficient material on record, on which it can be said that there are sufficient grounds for presuming that the accused - respondents have committed an offence u/s 302 or and 201, IPC. In this connection, it may be observed here that the evidence collected by the prosecution is that the accused Amritlal is the person who used to deal in thinner, which was sold by him for human consumption. He had his agents at Mt. Abu and Abu Road and also sold it personally. On 30-6-78, he received two drums of thinner (methia), though methyl-alcohol is used for pints, but the learned P.P., looking to the fact that he purchased large quantity of thinner during the year 1978, and looking to the fact that the activity is not to that extent which needs so much of methyl alchohl which was purchased only for human consumption, it will be decided at the trial whether it is so or not. But, there is the statement of Mst. Teepu wife of deceased Tulsa, who has stated before the police on 17.7.78 that her husband had purchased 5 tins of thinner from Amritlal, and there is also evidence that Tulsa had sold out that consignment to Chhunnilal. There is also evidence that Tulsa consumed the same thinner from the same consignment which had been purchased from Amritlal. Teepu wife of deceased Tulsa, who has stated before the police on 17.7.78 that her husband had purchased 5 tins of thinner from Amritlal, and there is also evidence that Tulsa had sold out that consignment to Chhunnilal. There is also evidence that Tulsa consumed the same thinner from the same consignment which had been purchased from Amritlal. There is also material on record that 5 tins of thinner were later on recovered from a room which was in possession of Tulsa, and on chemical examination they were found to contain methyl alcohol. There is also evidence that small quantity of methyl alcohol, which was recovered from the godown of Amritlal on chemical examination was found to be methyl alcohol. There is also evidence that after having come to know that after consuming thinner sold by him for human consumption, some people had died and were hurt. The accused persons went away to Durga Prasad to whom also thinner had been sold on the same day it was sold to Tulsa and destroyed it. It could have been the evidence in the case and, therefore, I am of the opinion that prima facis there are sufficient grounds to presume that the the accused persons have committed an offence u/s 302/34 or 328/34, 120-B and 201, IPC, On a proper application being presented before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and after hearing arguments the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall frame charges, which arise on the material on record, so far on the death of Tulsa and Chunnilal is concerned and hurt to other persons is concerned.Revision Accepted - Directions Issued. *******