JUDGMENT 1. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.8.85 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, in Criminal Original Case No. 120/84, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been ordered to be framed against accused petitioner No. 2 Brijlal, while for the offences under Sections 411 and 420 Indian Penal Code against accused petitioner No. 1 Amra Ram. 2. According to the prosecution, petitioner No. 2 Brijlal took a trolley from the complainant Mangla Ram and thereafter did not return the same. Later-on, the trolley was recovered from accused petitioner No. 1 Amra Ram, who, after recovery, got the trolley transferred in his name. Aggrieved by the order of framing charges as aforesaid, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. The prosecution case is that the trolley belongs to the complainant Mangla Ram, who had purchased it from one Abdul Khan and the petitioner Brijlal fraudulently induced the complainant to deliver it to him and later on, he refused to return it to him (complainant). The Investigating Agency thereafter recovered it from and at the instance of petitioner Amra Ram. The case of the petitioners is that Amra Ram is the registered owner of the trolley., 4. A perusal of the copy of the Registration Certificate would show that the trolley mentioned therein earlier belonged to one Idan Ram and on 13.7.82, it was transferred in the name of petitioner Amra Ram. The Investigating Officer has recovered the trolley from and at the instance of petitioner Amra Ram on 7.7.82. It is, therefore, evident that the transfer in the Registration Certificate was effected after the trolley was recovered by the Investigating Officer from petitioner Amra Ram. A perusal of the statement of Idan Ram recorded Under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code would show that he has said that the trolley recovered by the police is pot the one, he sold to Amra Ram. This prima facie goes to show that the trolley recovered by the Investigating Officer does not belong to Amra Ram. 5. It is well settled in law that at the stage of charge, meticulous and minute scrutiny of the evidence and material by the court is not required. This prima facie goes to show that the trolley recovered by the Investigating Officer does not belong to Amra Ram. 5. It is well settled in law that at the stage of charge, meticulous and minute scrutiny of the evidence and material by the court is not required. A strong suspicion may justify the framing of charge and even if the scales of pan are even, the proper course is to frame the charge. At the stage of charge, what is to be seen is whether there are sufficient grounds to put the accused on trial and not to see whether there are sufficient grounds for his conviction. 6. In Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 121 , it has been laid down that at the stage of framing of charge, meticulous consideration of evidence and materials by the Court is not required and the charge cannot be quashed on the ground of inadequacy of the evidence. 7. Viewing the matter in light of the above discussion and principle of law, I find that no case is made out for quashing the charges and in my opinion, there are sufficient ground to put the petitioners on trial and the learned lower Court has committed no legal infirmity in framing the charges. 8. In the result, the revision petition having no force, is hereby dismissed.Revision Rejected. *******