JUDGMENT The present revision petition is against the order dated 1.2.1991, passed by " Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 225/90 framing charge against the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 120B/307/326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, on 18.6.1986, acid was thrown on the complainant Daya Shankar Vyas who was Food Inspector in Katni town at the relevant time and who was going in a rickshaw with Surendra Saraswat who also received some injuries on account of acid burns." On their report being lodged, the police investigated the matter but there was no evidence as such. Eventually, the police filed a final report on 16.12.1986. The matter was handed over to the C.B.I. which eventually filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons including the present applicants on 18.6.1988. One Beni Koshta is also charge-sheeted for an offence under section 307/326, I.P.C read with section 120-B, I.P.C, as he is alleged to have thrown acid. The present applicants along with one Daulatram have also been charge-sheeted for conspirary to throw acid on the complainant Daya Shankar Vyas. The present revision petition is filed for quashing the charges framed "against the applicants. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that there is no material on which such charges could be framed against the applicants. His further submission is that in similar circumstances the other co-accused persons Daulatram and Beni Koshta had filed a revision before this Court for quashing the charges framed against them. This Court vide order passed in Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1991 decided on 3.5.1991 dismissed the revision petition of Beni Koshta (Cr.R. 120/91) but allowed the revision petition of Daulatram (Cr.R. 95/91). This judgment was upheld by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Daulatram [Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. 3076/91] on 6.9.1991. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the case of the applicants is not different from that of Daulatram and they should also be discharged. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant State. His submission is that the case of Daulatram is different from the present applicants. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicants is opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant State. His submission is that the case of Daulatram is different from the present applicants. His further submission is that for framing charges only material facts of the case are to be looked into and that no rowing - enquiry for framing charges is required at this stage. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Hon'ble Shri Justice B.C. Verma, while deciding Criminal Revision No. 95 of 1991, has not only discussed the evidence recorded by the prosecution but has also discussed at length the case law on the point. According to Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabai v. Jitendra Dhimraj Bijja, ( AIR 1990 SC 1962 ) while framing the charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, the evidence may be shifted as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. It this case, the only statement against the applicant is that of Kallu Yadav. In paragraph No.2 of his deposition, he states that when he went to the shop of Daulatram, the present applicants were also sitting there. They informed him that the Food Inspector is to be reprimanded. Daulatram asked them to do so. On that, Kallu Yadav contacted Soniram and others. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has pointed out to the other evidence also i.e. of Kashiram Soni, Soniram and Shrimantu Nigam but these witnesses do not support this witness Kallu Yadav. They do not depose anything against the present applicants. The fact remains that only Kallu Yadav remained witness to the facts of the case there is no other corroboration in this case, except the statement of Kallu Yadav. While deciding the case of Daulatram, the counter statements have also been taken into consideration in Cr.R.No. 95/91; and the Court came to the conclusion that the suspicion, even if arose, is not grave. While deciding the case of Daulatram, the counter statements have also been taken into consideration in Cr.R.No. 95/91; and the Court came to the conclusion that the suspicion, even if arose, is not grave. The circumstances and the manner in which the statements of these witnesses were recorded and the way they claim to have heard the applicant conspiring to harm the complainant is all opposed to common sense. Therefore, according to Hon'ble Shri Justice Verma, the material on record is not sufficient to frame any charge against Daulatram and he must be discharged. Against this order of discharge, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a petition for special leave to appeal (Cri.) 'No. 3076/91 and the Apex Court dismissed the same on merits by order dated 6.9.1991. Learned counsel for the non-applicant failed to point out reasons for differing from the view already taken by Hon'ble Justice Shri Verma. In view of this, I fully agree with the order passed by Hon'ble Justice Verma in Cr. R. 95/91 referred to above. Accordingly, this revision is also allowed. Charges framed against the applicants Shrichand Makhija and T.P. Singh are hereby quashed. AIR 1990 SC 1962 followed.