JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred under section 482, Cr.P.C., by the petitioners against whom the charges have been framed under sections 27 (a) (i) and (ii), 27 (b) and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 read with Rule, 1945. In this petition the challenge is to the order passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, under the revisional jurisdiction which was passed against the order of the trial Court of framing of the charges as stated above. It is contended that the learned revisional Court has dismissed the revision on the grounds that the order of framing of the charges is an interlocutory order, and the revision was, therefore, not entertainable. I am not convinced with the arguments advanced. The learned Court below has also taken into account the merits of the case and has found that on the evidence available, there were sufficient grounds for framing the charges, and that the learned trial Court committed no error of law or of jurisdiction, in passing the order of framing of the charges. The order of the revisional Court cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. The two Courts below have found that the evidence was sufficient for framing the charges against the petitioners. At the stage of charge, the Court has only to seek whether from the evidence and material available, a strong suspicion can be raised about the implication of the accused persons. At that stage, the evidence is neither to be waived nor to be appreciated on its merits. The veracity and reliability of the evidence is to be examined only at the conclusion of the trial. Presently, the sample of the medicines purchased by the Drug Inspector have not been found in conformity with the prescribed requirement on the laboratory test. Presently, there being prima-facie evidence available against the petitioners, no interference in the order of framing of the charges is warranted. The petition is, therefore, dismissed being without substance.