JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-8-92, passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, by which the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Section 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative, under Section 304(2)/120-B, I.P.C. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case for framing the charges against the petitioners is made out as the evidence collected by the investigating agency during course of investigation, do not, prima facie, disclose any offence for which the petitioners have been charge. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioners only on the ground that once the cognizance has been taken by him, he is bound to frame the charges. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Sessions Judge has acted wholly on wrong premises and the order, framing the charges against the petitioners, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge framing the charges against the petitioners. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Framing of charge is not merely a formality but it is judicial act which the court has to perform.in a judicious manner after taking into consideration the relevant material available on record. At the time of framing the charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find-out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredient constituting the offence; while at the time of taking cognizance the Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made-out to proceed-with against the person accused, on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses and the suspecting conditions of the case the order taking cognizance is an ex-parte order passed against the accused without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused. If after taking the cognizance the accused puts his appearance in pursuance to the Warrant/summons issued against him and satisfies the Court concerned that no case for framing the charge is made-out then the Court can pass an order for discharging the accused. If after taking the cognizance the accused puts his appearance in pursuance to the Warrant/summons issued against him and satisfies the Court concerned that no case for framing the charge is made-out then the Court can pass an order for discharging the accused. The order issuing process is an interim order and not a judgment and this order can varied or cancelled. Section 227 Cr.P.C. authorises the learned Sessions Judge to discharge an accused if, after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion that no ground exists for proceeding against the accused. The learned Sessions Judge proceeded on wrong premises that since once the cognizance has been taken, the charges have to be framed. At the time of framing the charges, the Court has to apply its mind, though in a limited manner, in order to decide : whether the facts emerging from the record and the documents on record, constitute the offence and not merely to frame the charges for the offences, for which the cognizance has been taken. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges merely on the ground that as the cognizance has already been taken, he has to frame the charge. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have proceeded on the wrong premises in framing the charges against the petitioners. The order, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. In result, the revision petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed. The order dated 5-8-92, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, framing the charges against the petitioners, is set-aside and the case is remanded to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, for framing the charges against the petitioners in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.Revision allowed. *******