Judgment MAHENDRA BHUSHAN SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition arises out of an order dated April 12, 1985 of the Sessions Judge, Pali, in Sessions case No. 13/85. The learned Session Judge in the aforesaid order held that prima-facie a case under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against Amritlal. He ordered that a charge under section 201 I. P. C. he framed against him. ( 2 ) AMRITLAL has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge so far as the charge has been framed against him. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Gheesalal son of Khimram Jam aged about 30 years was missing from his house for the last 25 days prior to July 27, 1984. Smt. Sukhibai one of the accused, persons, is the wife of said Gheesalal. A report was lodged by Parasram Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Lunawa. On July 27, 1984, at 1. 30 P. M. in Police Station Pali about the disappearance of Gheesalal about 25 days prior to the report. It was also mentioned in the report that relationship between Gheesalal deceased and his wife Smt. Sukhibai accused were strained because Sukhibai was having an affair with Lalchand son of Bhutaji Jam. A complaint had been made by Gheesalal deceased to the Jam Samaj in this connection. But Lalchand was still visiting Smt. Sukhibai and was having illicit relation with her. It was also mentioned in the report that on July 25, 1984, Lalchand came to him (Parasram) and gave out that Gheesalal is missing for the last 25 days from the village. Parasram also gave out in the report that today (July 27, 1984) near public toilets meant for women in the thorny bushes, a dead body of some-body was lying in gunny bag and Chhaganlal had informed him about this. When he went there he saw that the dead body was lying. After some time Lalchand accused came to him and confessed his guilt that he had illicit connection with Smt. Sukhibai and other instance he had called Gheesalal at his house and with the connivance of Smt. Sukhibai he killed him. When he went there he saw that the dead body was lying. After some time Lalchand accused came to him and confessed his guilt that he had illicit connection with Smt. Sukhibai and other instance he had called Gheesalal at his house and with the connivance of Smt. Sukhibai he killed him. He had buried the dead body of Gheesalal in his house in a pit but it started emitting foul smell and, therefore, he took out the gunny bag of the dead body and left it in the bushes. On this information a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. ( 4 ) SMT. Sukhibai was arrested on July 28, 1984. Evidence was collected during investigation that Smt. Sukhibai accused after the murder of her husband Gheesalal. had got addressed 2 letters by the accused-petitioner Amritlal to Gheesalal in order to show that Gheesalal was still alive. The two letters to be written by Amritlal accused-petitioner were recovered from the house of Sukhibai. ( 5 ) SO far as the accused-petitioner is concerned, a charge sheet was filed against him under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the accused-petitioner knowing or having reason to believe that Gheesalal had been murdered and an offence under section 302 I. P. C. has been committed, caused the evidence of the commission of the offence to disappear, with the intention of screening Smt. Sukhibai and Lalchand from legal punishment or with that intention had written the letters. The question, therefore, arises that assuming that the 2 letters were addressed by the accused-petitioner whether an offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against him or not. ( 6 ) THE two letters said to have been written by the accused-petitioner are dated July 11, 1984 and July 26, 1984. As per the case of the prosecution, the death of Gheesalal had taken place much before July 11, 1984 and as such on that day Gheesalal was not alive. The sub-stance of the letter dated July 11. 1984 is that it was addressed to the deceased Gheesalal and the accused Smt. Sukhibai Jointly. It was written from Desuri on behalf of father Bhikamchand of Smt. Sukhibai and Amritlal accused petitioner, her brother. The sub-stance of the letter dated July 11. 1984 is that it was addressed to the deceased Gheesalal and the accused Smt. Sukhibai Jointly. It was written from Desuri on behalf of father Bhikamchand of Smt. Sukhibai and Amritlal accused petitioner, her brother. Welfare of Shri Bhikamchand and Amritlal, accused- petitioner, was sent and it was inquired as to why no letter had been addressed from the other side. It was also informed that Amritlal will be reaching Bombay in 15 to 20 days. The substance of the letter dated July 26, 1984 is that it was addressed to Smt. Sukhibai accused and Sanjay her son, by Amritlal on his behalf and on behalf of his father Bhikamchand. It was also mentioned in the letter that Vimal had come from Bombay and had given out that Gheesalal had met him 10 days ago and Smt. Sukhibai should not worry about him. It was also intimated that Amritlal will go to Bombay in 8 to 10 days. Apart from these letters and the statement of Vimal that he did not inform Amritlal there is no other evidence on which the prosecution seeks to connect the accused with the crime or with the offence under section 302 I. P. C. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these letters were addressed by Amtitlal the question arises as to whether there are any reasonable grounds to believe that Amritlal committed any offence. The necessary ingredients for an offence under section 201 I. P. C. are (1) Knowledge or reason to believe that the offence has been committed; (2) caused any evidence of the commission to disappear; (3) doing so with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or giving any information respecting the offence which be knows or believes to be false with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. It is not the case of prosecution that the accused with the intention of screening Smt. Sukhibai and Lalchand from legal punishment wrote the two letters respecting the offence. There is no reference of any offence in any of the two letters. There is no material on record worth the name that the accused-petitioner knew or had reason to believe that an offence of murder has been committed and that the death of Gheesalal had been caused. There is no reference of any offence in any of the two letters. There is no material on record worth the name that the accused-petitioner knew or had reason to believe that an offence of murder has been committed and that the death of Gheesalal had been caused. Merely because that the accused is brother of Smt. Sukhibai such knowledge cannot be ascribed to him. The accused by writing the letters cannot be said to have caused any evidence of the commission of the offence of murder to disappear. It can, therefore, not be said that by addressing the two letters assuming them not to be correct the accused can be said to have committed an offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 7 ) UNDER section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted or that after hearing the submissions of the prosecution and the accused in this behalf the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he has to discharge the accused by recording his reasons for so doing. Under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid the Judge is of the opinion that there are grounds for presuming that the accused had committed an offence, which is exclusively triable by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. Thus a charge can be framed only if the Judge can be of the opinion after considering all the documents submitted and hearing She prosecution and the accused that the accused had committed an offence. In the instant case on the material on record no such opinion can be formed. In my opinion so far as the accused-petitioner is concerned, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing both the sides it can be said that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, no charge can be framed against him. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated April 12, 1985 of the learned Sessions Judge so far as the accused petitioner is concerned. The accused petitioner is discharged of the offence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.