R. K. SAKSENA, J. ( 1 ) A crime was registered at police station Deeg, district Bharatpur, State of Rajasthan, on the foot of allegations that three persons including Raja Man Singh a candidate in general election, had been murdered and some had suffered wounds at the hands of police party on 21-2-1985 at about 12 or 12. 30 noon on the eve of general election. The crime was thoroughly investigated under the orders of the Central Government by a Senior Officer of the C. B. , C. I. D. new Delhi, who submitted a charge sheet against some police officers posted in that district including the petitioner, Ravi Shankar Misra, who was then posted as Sub-Inspector at the said police station. Shortly put, the accusation are that while Raja Man Singh was going on a vehicle along with some of his associates in connection with election campaign the police party surrounded his vehicle and persons constituting the party, indiscriminately fired shots. Yet another allegation is that Raja Man Singh and his associates were empty-handed, but the petitioner in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by the police personnel prepared a forged seizure memo to show that fire arms were recovered from the persons who were the occupants of the vehicle at the relevant time. The criminal case was finally transferred by the Supreme Court of India to the Sessions Judge, Mathura for disposal. The Sessions Judge, Mathura, commenced the hearing of the trial and after the case had been opened on behalf of the prosecution, it was pressed by the defence that the case calls for an order of discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The learned trial Judge has, by a well reasoned order dated 30-4-1990, rejected the contentions of this defence almost in its entirety except on the point that no case for proceeding against the driver of the police vehicle was made out and, further that a charge under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code could not be framed in view of the bar created by the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned trial Judge, thus fixed a date for framing charges. The correctness and the propriety of this order has been assailed, by one of the accused of this trial by means of this revision. The learned trial Judge, thus fixed a date for framing charges. The correctness and the propriety of this order has been assailed, by one of the accused of this trial by means of this revision. ( 2 ) IT was urged on behalf of the revisionist that there was no evidence to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. In this continuation it was pointed out that the petitioner was neither named in the first information report of the occurrence nor he was put up for identification. The contention is devoid of merit. The prosecution appears to be placing reliance on some entries made in the general diary of the police station which shows that the applicant was also in that police party and that he had deposited his revolver which was examined by the Ballistic Expert who had found that it had been used. It is, therefore, not a case of no evidence against the applicant. ( 3 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that in view of the provisions of Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, the subordinate officer, namely the revisionist who complied with the directions of the superior officer for firing had committed no offence. The question as to whether there was a direction from the Superior Officer and, if so, whether it was justified can be effectively answered after the evidence is adduced before the triad Court. In a decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1917 : (1981 Cri LJ 1683) State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh, it was held on fact that the Junior Officer had complied with the directions of the superior officer and that the order of the Superior officer in the circumstances of the case, was justified. As pointed out above, the matter can be concluded after the entire material comes before the trial court. ( 4 ) AT this stage, the accused can be discharged only when there is no sufficient ground for proceeding againstthem. The underline portion appears under Section 227 of the Code, which means that no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is ground, whatsoever, to sustain the charge against the accused. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous consideration was not required. The underline portion appears under Section 227 of the Code, which means that no reasonable person can come to the conclusion that there is ground, whatsoever, to sustain the charge against the accused. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous consideration was not required. What is relevant for consideration at this stage is only the sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused and not whether materials on record are sufficient and adequate for a conviction to be recorded. It is for the prosecution to substantiate the accusations at a later stage. Suffice it to refer to Mrs. Dhanalaxmis case, reported in AIR 1990 SC 494 : (1990 Cri LJ 320 ). ( 5 ) YET another contention of the learned counsel for revisionist was that no charge under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code can be framed. The point was pressed before the learned trial court also which has repelled the contention giving sound reasons; they need no repetition. ( 6 ) IN the end, it was submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. I have already shown above that the Sessions Judge received the record of the case under the orders of the Honble Supreme Court which gave a direction to the Sessions Judge, Mathura to dispose of the case. The competence of the Supreme Court in passing an order of this nature cannot be challenged. The learned trial court has, after giving necessary and sound reasons, directed that it was a fit case for framing charges. The impugned order, in my opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity. The revision is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .