JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), are as under : At about 5.00 a.m. on the morning of 30.3.1989 a case was registered at Police Station Sapau vide FIR No. 68 /89 on the report lodged by Hem Singh son of Shri Gyan Singh, resident of village Kenthri District Dholpur (the complainant). According to the allegations in the report, on the night of 29.3.1989, at about 11.30 p.m., accused persons Sarva Shri Ganeshi Kachhi, Pana Lodha, Jagannath Kachhi, Mahaveer, Jagdish Gadariya, Rameshwar and Rambharosi came to the place of Hem Singh, Shiv Kumar, Naresh and Raju armed with guns and lethal weapons for abducting the said four persons for the purpose of murdering them. On seeing them, Shiv Kumar slipped away saying that he was going to answer the call of the nature and, while they were trying to abduct Hem Singh and Naresh, at the instance of Shiv Kumar, the officials of the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary came and fired at the place with the result that the said accused persons ran away from the spot leaving behind Hem Singh and Naresh. The police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 436, 364 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the challan was filed by the police against the above said accused persons as also against the petitioners Shiv Kant and Munna Lai, sons of Babu Lai, residents of village Kenthri Police Station Sepau District Dholpur. The case made out by the police against the petitioners-applicants was that they had conspired with the persons whose namesare mentioned in the FIR for committing the above said offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the two applicants-petitioners and committed the case to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, who, vide the impugned order dated 10.9.1990 framed a charge under Section 120-B 1PC against the petitioner as. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. The only evidence against the applicants is the statements of Shankar and Mathura recorded on 8.6.1989 under Section 161 of the Code by the police. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 3. The only evidence against the applicants is the statements of Shankar and Mathura recorded on 8.6.1989 under Section 161 of the Code by the police. Even in these statements recorded after more than two months no particulars of the conspiracy have been mentioned and there are general allegations to the effect that the accused persons normally act according to the instructions of the petitioners. The learned PP very fairly did not dispute that the statements of the abovesaid two witnesses, even if believed, would not show that any offence under Section 120-B IPC can be said to have been committed by the petitioners. 4. Chapter VIII of the Code deals with the trial before the Court of Sessions. According to Section 227 of the Code if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing and Section 228 provides that if, after such consideration and hearing the judge is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he shall proceed in the matter. As noted above, there is no material to presume that the accused-petitioners have committed the offence and, as recorded, even if the statements of the two witnesses are believed, no case for conspiracy is made out against the petitioners and, as such, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has erred in not discharging them by exercising the powers vested in him under Section 227 of the Code and instead framing that charge against them. 5. In this view of the matter, this petition has to be allowed and, consequently, accepting this petition I quash the impugned order dated 10.9.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 19/90 "State v. Jagdish & Ors." framing the charge against the petitioners-applicants under Section 120-B IPC and discharge both of them. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.The record of the learned lower Court be sent back immediately. AUGUST8 Petition allowed Impugned Order quashed. *******