K. P. MOHAPATRA, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rayagada framing charges against the petitioner under Sections, 120-B and 471, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that in the night of 3-7-1983 two rail way wagons loaded with illegally felled round logs were surriptitiously despatched from K. Singhpur to Patiala and Burdhawan railway stations. F. I. R. was lodged on 16-1-1984 where after investigation commenced culminating in a charge sheet against eight persons including the petitioner. ( 3 ) SO far as the petitioner was concerned, charges were framed against him for having committed offences under Sections 120-B and 471, I. P. C. which have been challenged in this Court. Mr. A. C. Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that there is no material in the case diary so as to implicate his client with the criminal conspiracy and user of fictitious and forged documents as genuine ones. Being a Banker he acted as a mediator on commission. Therefore, charges framed against him are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) I have carefully gone through the statements in the case diary and give a brief resume of the same. One Pitambar Das, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Rupsa Road, district Kalahandi stated that on verification of the records he found that his predecessor received a sum of Rs. 41,960/- from the State Bank of India of Patiala on 30-8-1983 which was credited to the account of the petitioner. One Sohan Singh, a timber merchant of Patiala stated that he knew the petitioner. His firm purchased logs worth Rs. 40,960/- and the amount was paid to the commission -agent. It will further appear from the case diary that the investigating officer verified the documents produced by Sohan Singh and found that there was a Hundi of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 55,000/- granted in the name of Dhimon Wood Store, Patiala. Except these materials, there is no other material implicating the petitioner with the illegal felling and theft of the logs from the forest and selling them to a distant purchaser. These materials show that the petitioner acted as a commission agent through whom consideration for sale passed. 55,000/- granted in the name of Dhimon Wood Store, Patiala. Except these materials, there is no other material implicating the petitioner with the illegal felling and theft of the logs from the forest and selling them to a distant purchaser. These materials show that the petitioner acted as a commission agent through whom consideration for sale passed. ( 5 ) IN Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, the Supreme Court held that while framing charge the court 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. Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicions bur not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. As already referred to above, the only material against the petitioner in this case is that the consideration for the sale of the illegally felled logs passed through him. He acted as a commission agent. There is no further material to show that he was implicated with the act of illegally felling of the logs, transportation of the same to the railway station and booking the consignment to the purchaser for delivery. There is also no material to show that he had engaged himself in a concerted action with the other accused persons for identification of the trees and engagement of labour for felling the same. This being the position, although there may be some suspicion against the petitioner, the facts will not give rise to a case of grave suspicion so as to culminate in framing of charges for offences under Sections 120-B and 471, I. P. C. It is the cardinal principle of law that unless there is strong suspicion against a person, he should not be subjected to the agony of a protracted criminal trial by framing charges. These being the facts and law, I find sufficient force in the contention of Mr. Mohanty to hold that framing of charges against the petitioner was neither legal nor proper and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the charges framed against the petitioner are hereby-quashed.