Order.- This is a petition filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, to quash the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, in Crl.M.P. No. 20 of 1982, in S.C. No. 65 of 1982. 2. The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town, filed a charge-sheet in Crime No. 215 of 1981 against the petitioners herein for offences under sections 153 (A), 147, 148, 323, 427, 506 (2) and 307, Indian Penal Code, alleging that on 22nd June, 1981, when the Superintendent of Police, South Arcot, instructed the Inspector of Police, to conduct a raid with a police party at Sorappur and Veeranam Harijan Colonies to search for the naxalite leaders, A.K. Kothandaraman and others, the petitioners and others, while the raid was being conducted, pelted stones at the police party and they were also at that time armed with deadly weapons. The petitioners are alleged to have raised alarms and instigated the mob at the place of occurrence to kill the police officials and as a result damage was caused to the police vehicles and some constable sustained minor injuries, 3. The petitioners tiled a petition before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No. 20 of 1982 stating the police had seized about 25 books for which a mahazar was prepared in the police station, as the witnesses admit, and their -signatures were obtained there by force. They submitted, the books seized were not in any way connected with the so-called naxalite principles and there is nothing in law preventing the petitioners from reading such books. It was further submitted that there is no warrant for arrest or provocation for the police to conduct any raid in the village of Sorappur and Veeranam to arrest the naxalite leaders. They contended they were captives in the hands of the police and they were physically immobilised at the time of the incident to commit any overt acts as alleged against them. Even on the allegations, there is no specific act alleged against the petitioners excepting there was a general investigation. All the materials available including the statements recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, they pleaded, would not implicate the petitioners in any of the offences alleged. Even if the entire allegations in the first information report are admitted, there is no case made out against them. 4. All the materials available including the statements recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, they pleaded, would not implicate the petitioners in any of the offences alleged. Even if the entire allegations in the first information report are admitted, there is no case made out against them. 4. On the said petition of the petitioners, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held there was no offence made out under section 307, Indian Penal Code, and framed charges for offences under sections 147, 148, 153-A, 323, 427 and 506 (2), Indian Penal Code. He rejected the petition of the petitioners on the ground that the evidence has to be recorded and only thereafter the Court has to consider whether the accused have committed any offence with which they are charged. Hence, there is no question of discharge at that stage. He was of the view that this was a raid to curb the naxalite activities and it was unsafe to discharge the accused, taking into consideration the damages caused to the police vehicles and injuries sustained by the police constables. At the stage of section 227, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court has to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the materials produced before the Court are sufficient to constitute an offence, the Court has to frame charges. The Court has to take into effect the totality of the materials and the documents produced before it, without going into the infirmities in the case. 5. Assailing the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, contended on behalf of the petitioners, that they are respectable people and they are not likely to be involved in the allegations made against them. The fifth petitioner for instance is a graduate and is a Central Government Employee. Even on the allegations, on 22nd June, 1981, at Sorappur, in the backyard of the first petitioner's house, the first and second petitioners were found discussing about naxalite activities with bocks. When they were questioned, it is alleged they took to their heels and they were chased and over-powered. Some of them raised alarms and instigated, the mob to kill the police officials and as a result, damage was caused to police vehicles and some police constables also sustained minor injuries. When they were questioned, it is alleged they took to their heels and they were chased and over-powered. Some of them raised alarms and instigated, the mob to kill the police officials and as a result, damage was caused to police vehicles and some police constables also sustained minor injuries. The learned Counsel took exception to the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge remarking that this was a case of naxalite activities and it was unsafe to discharge the accused. He submitted every case has to be judged in its correct perspective without being influenced by extraneous considerations whether the persons accused of belong to some party or other or held certain political convictions. He relied on the decision reported in Karnnakaran Jabamani Nadar, In re1, where K.N. Mudaliar, J., observed: “India is a land of freedom under law. Even the crimes of Naxalites must be legally proved before Courts of law. We cannot treat or equate Naxalites as hardened criminals and hang them on the merest production of flimsy and fabricated evidence.” The learned Counsel vehemently contended, taking all the materials available including the statements given under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, by the witnesses examined by the Investigating Officer into consideration, there is no case made out against the petitioners. Even if the entire allegations in the first information report are admitted and the statements are true in toto, it cannot be said there is a case to go before Court against the petitioners. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decision in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal1. In that decision, an observation made in the case reported in K.P. Raghavan and another v. M.H. Abbas and another2 is extracted and it huns as follows: “No doubt a Magistrate enquiring into a case under section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, is not to act as a mere post office and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the Court of Session.” In the same judgment, there is an extract from the decision reported in Almchan Das and others v. State of West Bengal3 which is as under: “A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused.” The learned Judge after considering the authorities referred to above, laid the following principle among others: “……..the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie, case against the accused has been made out.” 6. The learned Counsel then relied on the decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh4. This is a case like the one on hand where offences were committed in a crowd. In that decision, the learned Judge observed as follows: “If any member of such a crowd had indulged in any act of arson or violence, it cannot, from such an individual act, be presumed that it was either the common object of the crowd or that every member of that crowd had necessarily shared the object of that individual who had committed the act. The acts of only a few individuals of such crowd cannot be held to be the common object of the crowd nor every member of that crowd can be presumed to have shared the object with which such acts ware committed by only a few members of that crowd. The mere presence of the accused persons in that crowd would not, therefore, make them responsible for any act of damages, violence or arson committed by any member of that crowd.” In the instant case, it was contended when the persons are in the custody of the police, they could not have shared the object with the others if some offences were committed by some members of the crowd. 7. The learned Counsel finally relied on a decision of mind in K.S. Narayanan v. S. Gopinathan5 where I had quashed the prosecution pending against the petitioners on the ground that it was groundless and vexations. 8. 7. The learned Counsel finally relied on a decision of mind in K.S. Narayanan v. S. Gopinathan5 where I had quashed the prosecution pending against the petitioners on the ground that it was groundless and vexations. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, relying on a decision reported in P. Narayana v. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad6 contended the Court need not see at the time of framing charges whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction. The standard of test and judgment, which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228, Criminal Procedure Code. However, he drew my attention to the first information report filed in the present case. According to it, when the police party raided at Sorappur, the house of the first petitioner, who was said to be a close associate of the extremist leader A.K. Kothandaraman, he along with the second petitioner were found discussing about naxalite activities with some books. When questioned about A.K. Kothandaraman, the two petitioners ran out leaving the books at the place and made an alarm shouting to attack the police party. By then a mob of 150 persons had gathered and the first petitioner shouted to attack the police and kill them. Then pelting of stones began and some constables were injured and police vehicles were damaged. The learned Public Prosecutor was fair enough to bring to my notice that there is substantial force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioners that as far as petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, on the first information report, the case against them could be viewed favourably. 9. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is not a case where petitioners 3 to 5 have to undergo a trial. I quash the proceedings pending against petitioners 3 to 5, and allow their petition. As far as the first petitioner Lalkhan alias Gnanaprakasam and the second petitioner Chandrasekaran are concerned, there is material against them to face proceedings in a Court of law, and their petition stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the petition of petitioners 3 to 5 is allowed and the petition of petitioners 1 and 2 is dismissed. As far as the first petitioner Lalkhan alias Gnanaprakasam and the second petitioner Chandrasekaran are concerned, there is material against them to face proceedings in a Court of law, and their petition stands dismissed. 10. In the result, the petition of petitioners 3 to 5 is allowed and the petition of petitioners 1 and 2 is dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Proceedings quashed in respect of petitioners 3 to 5.