FAROOQ HASS AN, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute that against the present petitioners a challan was filed and they were committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/Ss. 147, 302/149, 323/149, 336 and 325/149 IPC against the petitioners which have been challenged by this petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of petitioner Hanif and Iqbal have nether been mentioned in F.I.R. nor were mentioned in the police statements. He further submits that on the day of incident both these petitioners Hanif and Iqbal were not present on the spot and in the field as well. So on the basis of alibi the order of framing charge against these two petitioners be quashed. In support of this plea a certificate of the hospital has been produced. Similarly charge against Ahmed has been challenged on the ground that he was also not present at the scene of incident and in support of this plea certain documents have been filed. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the names of Hanif and Iqbal are not there in the F.I.R. but their names have been mentioned in the Police statements, which have been recorded subsequently. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions referred the case of Dinesh Singh Vs. State of Raj. (1) decided on 20-9-89. In this case it was held that there is no evidence to say that there was meeting regarding conspiracy. All the three petitioners were therefore, discharged for the offence u/S. 120-B IPC but charge against petitioner No. 1 u/Sec 302 IPC was maintained but the petitioners No. 2 and 3 in that case were discharged. He also placed reliance on the case reported in 1986 Suprene Court 2046, 1985 Supreme Court 1124 and 1977 Supreme Court 1489 and 1972 Supreme Court 545. 4. I have gone through the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a detailed order of framing charge against the petitioners and has appreciated the evidence which was available on record. It is a settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is limited and the powers of this court are restricted. The learned Sessions Judge has passed a detailed order of framing charge against the petitioners and has appreciated the evidence which was available on record. It is a settled law that the jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. is limited and the powers of this court are restricted. Under these circumstances the documents filed by the petitioners in support of their plea of alibi which are open to enquiry cannot be held to be genuine on its face value and the petitioners have produced evidence regarding these documents at the proper stage but such an enquiry is not possible u/S. 482 Cr. P.C. As said earlier that in the case of Dinesh Singh (supra) the court observed that there was no evidence against the petitioner that there was a meeting of minds regarding conspiracy so two of the petitioners were discharged but charge u/s. 302 IPC against petitioner No. 1 was maintained. In other cases referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners the facts were quite different and in those cases plea of alibi was not taken and plea of alibi was not decided. As stated earlier that the scope of Sec. 482 Cr. P.C is very limited, moreover the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge after appreciating the evidence which was available on record. So in view of the principles laid down in the case reported in 1981 Supreme Court 1548 and 1990 Supreme Court 121, the same evidence cannot be re-appreciated by this Court while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr. P.C. While framing the charge it is the satisfaction of the trial Court as to whether any material is there to proceed against the accused and if the trial Court finds that sufficient material is there then definitely the court is bound to frame the charge against the person. This is true that the names of Hanif and Iqbal is not there in the FIR and so also in the police statement. This is true that the names of Hanif and Iqbal is not there in the FIR and so also in the police statement. The absence of the petitioners names in the FIR and police statement is definitely open to explanation which can be given by the informant and the person who gives statement during investigation and if this explanation is taken at the time when the witness comes in the witness box at this stage the witness and the informant cannot be held to be liable because the omission though in material but it is open to explanation so this is not the stage where the testimony of the informant and the persons who failed to mention the names in their police statements can be discarded at this stage. 5. For the reasons given above, I do not find any force in this misc. petition and the same is dismissed.