JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-5-80 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Alwar. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a case against the accused petitioner was registered Under Section 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC on the basis of the report lodged by one Shri Chajju Singh. In this report it has been alleged that in a Family Planning Camp organised at Tijara, the accused petitioner mis-appropriated Rs. 10/-. The payment shown by the accused petitioner in favour of Vimla Devi, Ramkali, Kamla Devi and Ganga Devi is false and fabricated. Actually no payment has ever been made to these ladies. After receipt of the report the investigation was conducted and accused petitioner was found guilty under the said sections of the IPC by the Investigation Officer. A challan was filed against the accused petitioner in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Alwar who by the order dated 23-6-1977 discharged the accused petitioner holding that no charge can be framed against the accused petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Officer Under Section 173 Cr. PC. 3. A revision was filed against this order of discharge and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar accepted the revision and set aside the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Alwar on 23-6-77. Hence this revision petition is filed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. According to the report submitted Under Section 173 Cr. PC the accusation against the accused petitioner is merely based on the statement of those ladies to whom the loops were inserted at the Family Planning Camp, who stated during the course of Investigation that they themselves went to the Family Planning Camp, and there was none to motivate them. There are nine ladies whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Officer. 6. The second basis for accusation according to the prosecution is the report of the finger print expert wherein it is contained that the thumb impression on the disputed receipts is similar to that of the accused petitioner. 7. The third alleged basis for accusation is the statement of Nawal Kishore who has stated that no lady having the name of Choti resides in their village. This Choti is alleged to have been given Re. 7. The third alleged basis for accusation is the statement of Nawal Kishore who has stated that no lady having the name of Choti resides in their village. This Choti is alleged to have been given Re. 1/- being a motivator The Family Planning Camp was also organised at Kishangarh, Distt. Alwar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed the evidence mentioned above. 8. The learned Counsel for the accused petitioner contended that no reliance can be placed on the report of the Finger Print Expert and the statement of the ladies which were recorded after ten years from the date of so called mis-appropriation. 9. Though the learned Additional Sessions Judge discussed the evidence at length, which was not proper while deciding the revision petition under provisions of the Cr. PC. As per Section 239 Cr.PC an accused can be discharged only when the charge against the accused is considered to be groundless. A charge against the accused can be framed Under Section 240 Cr. PC only when the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is ground for framing the charge. 10. In view of these sections while discharging the accused, the Magistrate has to conclude that the accusation is groundless but in framing the charge the Magistrate has to form an opinion only. At this stage of taking action Under Section 239 and 240 Cr. PC the Magistrate has not to decide the evidence finally. He has to form an opinion if he considers that charge is to be framed. At the time of such consideration, the learned Magistrate ignored the report of the Finger Print Expert and the statement of the ladies who appeared at the Family Planning Camp in order to get the loop inserted. 11. In the presence of this evidence, it cannot be said that the charge against the accused petitioner is groundless. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner may be relevant for the purpose of acquittal but not so at the stage where the Magistrate considers the case of charge and discharge of an accused. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions I do not find any force in this revision petition, Hence it is dismissed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the accused petitioner may be relevant for the purpose of acquittal but not so at the stage where the Magistrate considers the case of charge and discharge of an accused. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions I do not find any force in this revision petition, Hence it is dismissed. I think it just and proper to write in this judgment that any expression or observation with regard to the evidence on record by this Court or by the Additional Sessions Judge will not be prejudicial to the accused petitioner and their evidence shall be considered according to law at the proper time. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to inform the accused petitioner that the accused petitioner shall be present in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Alwar on 30-3-1986.Revision dismissed. *******