JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Sessions Judge, Merta under his order dated September 23, 1981 ordered that charges under section 376 IPC be framed against the two accused petitioners. Consequent to this order the charges were framed under section 376 IPC. 2. In this revision petition the petitioner desire that the order of the learned Sessions Judge framing charges should be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and I am of the opinion that as the record is available this revision petition should be disposed of at this admission stage. The relevant facts for the disposal of the revision are these. 4. Malchand, husband of Smt Nirmala lodged a report in police station Nawacity, District Nagaur on June 14, 1983 that in his absence somebody took away his wife from his house and on enquiry he came to know that Nathi son of Ram Chandra had taken away his wife in order to subject her to sexual intercourse. A case was registered and investigation was set in motion. Nirmala was later on taken to the house of Smt. Mooli, one of the accused petitioners and Nirmala was recovered by the police from the house of Modi. The statement of Nirmala was recorded under section 161 as well as under section 164 Cr. PC. She was also medically examined. Two accused petitioners Kailash and Radhey Shyam were also examined and on examining Radhey Shyam accused petitioner, the medical officer found that inspite of efforts to stimulate, there was no erection in the penis. He further opined that the age of Radhey Shyam is 16 years and because there was no proper erection, he was not capable of sexual intercourse. On examining Kailash, the medical officer observed that when efforts were made manually to stimulate, there was no erection in the penis it was loose and though Kailash was also aged about 16 years and normally a boy aged 16 years is capable of sexual intercourse, but Kailash was not capable of sexual intercourse. On examining Kailash, the medical officer observed that when efforts were made manually to stimulate, there was no erection in the penis it was loose and though Kailash was also aged about 16 years and normally a boy aged 16 years is capable of sexual intercourse, but Kailash was not capable of sexual intercourse. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the other accused persons but so far as the two accused are concerned, it was mentioned in the charge sheet that on investigation no case was made against them and, therefore, a negative report was filed against them, Thus, the police did not file any positive report against the two accused but the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence under section 376 IPC against the two accused petitioners also on October 21, 1981. He committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Merta who after hearing the arguments framed a charge against the two accused petitioners under section 376 IPC. 5. The contention of Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the material on record the learned Sessions Judge could not have framed a charge against the accused petitioners under section 376 IPC. For the reasons as already stated, I agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Chapter XVIII Cr. PC deals with the trial before a court or session. Under section 228 Cr. PC, if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is exclusively triable by him, he can frame a charge in writing against the accused. If upon consideration of the record of the case in the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he has to discharge the accused under section 227 Cr. PC and has to record his reasons for doing so. Merely because the Magistrate took cognizance of an offence against the accused and also committed them to the court of Sessions for trial alongwith other accused, it was not incumbent on the learned Sessions Judge to frame a charge against the accused petitioners also. PC and has to record his reasons for doing so. Merely because the Magistrate took cognizance of an offence against the accused and also committed them to the court of Sessions for trial alongwith other accused, it was not incumbent on the learned Sessions Judge to frame a charge against the accused petitioners also. It was the duty of the learned Sessions Judge to have heard both, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner and to have perused the documents and to them form an opinion. `Sufficient ground for proceeding' under section 227 Cr PC means that there must be prima facie case against the accused and the evidence should be such that if it remains unrebutted, there are chances of the conviction of the accused. In the instant case there is solitary statement of Nirmala and so far as the medical evidence is concerned, it is clearly to the effect that both the accused petitioners are not capable of sexual intercourse. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it was such a case in which on the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge should have come to a conclusion that there are no grounds for proceedings against the accused persons under section 376 IPC. 6. I hereby allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge ordering framing of a charge under section 376 IPC against both the accused petitioners. I also quash the charges framed against the petitioners under section 376 IPC.Revision allowed. *******