ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The State is hereby assailing the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandleshwar, in Criminal Case No. 54 of 1987 by which he discharged the respondent of the charge for committing offence under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to the prosecution are stated as under : On 17-2-1987 at 5 P.M. complainant Jairam was talking with his son Vishnu and one Shobharam sitting on the outer platform of the house and at that time accused Pappu came there along with a tin of acid and threw the acid on the body of the complainant Jairam and Vishnu. The prosecution alleged that the present respondent at that time came out of his house and told Pappu to throw the acid properly on the person of complainant Jairam and ran away. The State alleged further in this petition that after the respondent said that way and ran away, the accused Pappu threw more acid on the person of the complainant and ran away. 3. The complainant Jairam lodged the report with Police and thereafter crime bearing No. 10/87 was registered against the accused Pappu and the respondent for offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. By order dated 16-3-1986, the respondent was discharged from the said charge by the J.M.F.C. Mandleshwar and that is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 4. Shri Desai, Dy. Government Advocate for the State and Shri Jaisingh, Advocate for the respondent were heard. 5. Shri Desai, learned Deputy Government Advocate read the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant Jairam, statements of Shobharam, Vishnu and Dama recorded by the police during the course of enquiry under the provisions of Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). He also pointed out the relevant portion of the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate. In spite of detail consideration of the material placed by the prosecution before the Magistrate, the Deputy Government Advocate Shri Desai was unable to point out anything from the record to show that after the alleged statement was made by the respondent, co-accused Pappu did any act which could have been treated to be one in furtherance of common intention to commit the crime. 6. 6. The learned Magistrate in his order pointed out that the act of Pappu throwing acid on the body of Jairam and Vishnu was prior to the appearance of the respondent Omprakash at the spot of incident as per prosecution case as depicted from the statements of the witnesses above recorded during the course of the investigation. He also pointed out the statement of Jairam which is also of the same nature. The learned Magistrate held that material placed by the prosecution was not indicating any thing to show that any thing was done by the co-accused Pappu at the instance of the respondent Omprakash. After the perusal of the F.I.R. and the statements of the witnesses mentioned above recorded during the course of investigation it is quite clear that the prosecution was unable to bring any thing on record to show that whatever was done by Pappu was in furtherance of the common intention shared by him with the respondent Omprakash. 7. It is well settled that the Court can frame the charge on suspicion after perusing the record placed by the prosecution before it in a criminal case but the Court has to satisfy itself so as to find out whether the material which has been placed before it, if unrebutted would warrant a conviction. If that is not so, the Court should refrain from framing the charge against the accused. Law does not intend that the innocent person should undergo the ordeal of facing a criminal prosecution, defending the charge levelled against him in such a prosecution by wasting his energy as well as money. 8. After examining the record, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Magistrate is correct, proper and legal. I do not find that the order passed by him is in any way perverse or illegal. Thus, the revision petition will have to be dismissed and it is dismissed. The record be sent to the trial court forthwith for avoiding delay for the disposal of trial. Oral judgment delivered in open Court.