JUDGMENT K.K. Birla, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order dated 1st August, 1977, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah. 2. In the F.I.R. 9 persons including these respondents were named, Six of them were tried in S.T. No. A-80 of 76 (State v. Shiv Raj Singh and 5 others). The trial resulted in acquittal of all these six persons. In appeal before us, Tej Singh was charged under Sections 148 I.P.C. and 307 I.P.C. and Bhajan Singh was charged under Sections 147 I.P.C. and 323 read with Section 149 I.P.C. in S. T. No. A-83 of 1976 and Rohan Singh was charged under Section 147 I.P.C. in S.T.No. A-1 4 of 1976. 3. As already stated above, Shiv Raj Singh and others were tried in S. T. No. A-80 of 1976 and that trial resulted in acquittal. From the impugned order it appears that the State appeal against that order was not allowed to be filed. By the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that in view of the acquittal in S. T. No. A-80 of 1976 which was also.started on the basis of the same F. I.R. no purpose would be served by proceeding with the accused in these cases as there was no distinction. He, accordingly, passed the impugned order discharging the respondents. 4. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. 5. Heard learned A.G.A. 6. No doubt, the stage for discharging the accused in any Sessions trial is before the framing of the charge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is after the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C., that in suitable cases, a charge is framed as provided under Section 228 Cr.P.C. After the charge had been framed and the accused pleads not guilty, a date for the examination of witnesses is to be fixed. Therefore, it may be said that the order of discharge was not warranted by law at that stage. He that as it may, this is an order of discharge and as such the appeal is misconceived. 7. Apart from this, even on merit the acquittal of six accused in S. T. No-A-80 of 1976 clearly goes to show that the prosecution case and prosecution evidence had not been accepted by the trial court. The same evidence was to be adduced in these Sessions trial also. 7. Apart from this, even on merit the acquittal of six accused in S. T. No-A-80 of 1976 clearly goes to show that the prosecution case and prosecution evidence had not been accepted by the trial court. The same evidence was to be adduced in these Sessions trial also. After the acquittal of Shiv Raj Singh and others learned Sessions Judge was right in thinking that these cases would have met the same fate, that is acquittal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in either of these cases the impugned order does not call f any interference. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.