FAIZAN UDDIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been directed by one of the co-accused in Sessions Trial No 89 of 1985, against the order dated 24th July, 1986, framing charge under section 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Vinirdist Bbrashta Aacharan Niwaran Adhiniyam, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Sub Engineer R. R. Agrawal was in charge of the site KM. 42/2 to 42/6 Raigarh-Sarangarh Road for repair works. The Executive Engineer, S. P. Mishra made a written report dated 26-5-1983 to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh (Annexure 1) to the effect that some. Bitumen in drums have been stolen from the aforesaid work-site of the Public Works Department, Sarangarh Division, that is, from K. M. 42/2 to 42/6 in recent past and, there fore, he made a request to investigate info the matter. It was stated in the report that according to the Chowkidars posted at the site, 2 trucks of Bitumen drums were shifted elsewhere from the work site in the presence of Sub Engineer R. R. Agrawal-50 drums in the truck Dumber CPL 6353 belonging to the co-accused Om Prakash Sharma on 11-5-1983 at about 10-11 p. m. and 50 drums in truck Dumber ZRM 1075 in the intervening night of 16th and 17th May, 1983. In a letter (Annexure II) dated 28-5-1983, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer stated that on stock verification of stores he found 25. 5 drums of Bitumen in excess for which he was told by the Store-keeper that excess was due to non-shifting of Maxphalt already indented by the Sub-Engineer. On the aforesaid report, the police investigated into the matter and presented the charge-sheet before the trial court against several persons including the applicant who was Store-keeper at the relevant time. It has been alleged against the applicant that he as a Storekeeper is also liable for prosecution under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been alleged against the applicant that he as a Storekeeper is also liable for prosecution under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Judge after considering the notice report and the document sent to the Court, under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing the counsel for the accused persons by the impugned order, framed charge against the applicant under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against which this revision has been directed for setting aside the impugned order and to quash the proceedings against him. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the learned trial Judge framed the charge against the applicant under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code without applying his mind to the material on record. He submitted that there is no material on record against the applicant attributing any criminal act on his part by reason of which it may be said that there is prima fade case against the applicant so all to justify the framing of the charge against him. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the challan papers produced before me by the learned counsel for the applicant, I find that there is great force in his submission. ( 4 ) SECTION 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record the reasons for so doing. Further section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if, after such consideration and hearings as said in section 227 of the Code, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. Further section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if, after such consideration and hearings as said in section 227 of the Code, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. It is now well settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. While exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Judge has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads to Court to think that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no ground for proceeding against the accused. In this view of the matter I am supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Somal and another1 and C. S. and Manufacturing Co. v. State of Maharashtra2. ( 5 ) IT may be pointed out that a combined reading of sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will go to show that no charge can be framed if there is no evidence on record to support it. A groundless charge would be a charge, which could not be sub. satiated or proved by the material on record. The object of framing a charge is not to prosecute the accused by any means but to make the accused face the trial, which may reasonably lead to his conviction. The word Tgroundless would certainly mean the absence of reasonable ground to expect the conviction. satiated or proved by the material on record. The object of framing a charge is not to prosecute the accused by any means but to make the accused face the trial, which may reasonably lead to his conviction. The word Tgroundless would certainly mean the absence of reasonable ground to expect the conviction. It would not be proper to say that a charge was not groundless if there was some evidence on record to support it, howsoever flimsy insufficient or unworthy of credit it might be. The evidence must be of such a nature and standard which, if believed would result in a conviction, if it remained unrebutted; but if the evidence is of such a nature and character upon which no reliance could be placed and which requires no rebuttal, there would be no justification in framing the charge because on such evidence the prosecution is bound to fail. See also Paritosh Khan v. States. 3 ( 6 ) THE test to determine a prima facie case and existence of grounds for framing a charge against an accused person would naturally depend upon the fact of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application in this behalf. In the present case there is no evidence of material whatsoever against the applicant showing his complicity in the theft of the alleged Bitumen drums even with the aid of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The only evidence appearing against the applicant is the solitary case diary statement of one Sevak Matiyas Tandi who was a clerk in the Accounts Section of Public Works Department, Sarangarh and lived in Government quarter adjacent to Public Works Department god own at Fuljhadiya Para. He has stated that on 11-5-1983 at about 9 p. m. while he was at his quarter he saw two trucks which came to the godown-one of them bearing No. 1075. Damar drums were loaded in the said truck. He has further stated in his case diary statement that applicant Reshamlal was the Store-keeper in that godown and that after the drums were loaded in the trucks the Chowkidar of the godown had come to him for making entries in the Despatch Register of the godown and he, therefore, had made the entries together with the number of the trucks. There is no other evidence or material besides this statement regarding the applicant indicating his complicity in the alleged offence. This statement by itself can hardly be said to be the material, which may reasonably lead to the conviction even in the absence of any rebuttal. Even if the applicant had issued the said drums he had done it at the instance of his immediate superior R. R. Agrawal who was the Sub Engineer in-charge of the site for which the drums were taken for repair works. The applicant had taken care that a proper entry for the despatch of those drums was made in the Despatch Register, If in fact the applicant had any knowledge that the said drums were not to be utilised for repair work at the site but had to be stolen away and had to be taken somewhere else, he would not have made the entry thereof in the Despatch Register. This apart the drums were not directly stolen from the godown but seem to have been lifted sometimes later on from the site itself for which there is no material to connect the applicant with the act of lifting those drums from the site with the criminal motive. In these circumstances I find that there is no point in framing a charge against the applicant under section 10 of the Adhiniyam read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code because on the strength of the evidence appearing against the applicant the criminal proceedings against him cannot, with any stretch of imagination lead to conviction but the prosecution is bound to fall as far as the applicant is concerned. ( 7 ) IN the result, the revision succeeds and is here by allowed. The impugned order in so far as it relates to the framing of the charge against the applicant Reshamlal, is set aside and the criminal proceedings against him are quashed. Revision allowed. .