Judgment N. C. KOCHHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), are as under: ( 2 ) A case was registered under Sections 147,148,149,302,307. 395 - and 397 read with Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station-Gudhagorh, District - Jhunjhunu, vide FIR No. 169/93, dated 16-10-1993 and during the course of investigation of the case, Madho Singh, the Petitioner No. 1 and his sons, the Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6, besides 13 other persons, were arrested and challan was filed against 19 persons, i. e. , including the six petitioners. Along with the challan-papers, the Investigating Officer also filed documents, showing that the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3. Vijendra Singh and Ranveer Singh were arrested in case FIR No. 185/93 of Police Station, Jhotwara, under Sections 323. 341 and 365 IPC and were sent to Judicial custody in Central Jail on 15-10-1993, under the orders passed by the learned ACJM No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The documents, submitted along with the challanpapers, also show that Petitioners Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Mahendra Singh. Mahipal Singh and Narendra Singh were arrested under Section 107 read with Section 151 of the Code, on 15-10 1993 by the police of Police Station Itawa, District - Kota and they were produced before the learned ACM. , Kota, on 16-10-1993, who remanded them to judicial custody till 29-10-1993, but they were released on ban vide order dated 19- 10-1993. Although, in the FIR, the names of Vijendra Singh, Ranveer Singh. Mahendra Singh, Mahipal Singh and Narendra Singh were mentioned as the persons present along with the others, the name of Madho Singh did not find place in the said document. In the statement of an eye-witnesses, it was mentioned that some of the persons had muffled faces but they appeared to be Vijendra Singh. Ranveer Singh, Mahendra Singh, Mahipal Singh and Narendra Singh, all sons of Madho Singh, After hearing the learned Counsel for the Tparties, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 4-12-1995, found prima facie case against all the six petitioners under Sections 148, 302/149. Ranveer Singh, Mahendra Singh, Mahipal Singh and Narendra Singh, all sons of Madho Singh, After hearing the learned Counsel for the Tparties, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 4-12-1995, found prima facie case against all the six petitioners under Sections 148, 302/149. 307/149, 323/149 and 324/149, IPC, Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Code, ( 3 ) ON receipt of notice, the learned Public Prosecutor has appeared on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and Shri A. K. Gupta has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, Shimbhu Singh, the complainant. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order. ( 5 ) THE facts stated above, have not been disputed at this Bar, either by the learned Public Prosecutor, or by the learned Counsel for the complainant. ( 6 ) MR. S. R. Bajwa, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners, Mahendra Singh, Mahipal Singh and Narendra Singh, according to the case of the police itself, were under custody, firstly, with the Police Station Itawa, on 15-10-1993 and thereafter, under judicial custody between 16-10-1993 and 19-10-1993, when they were ordered to be released on bail and that the other two petitioners were sent to judicial custody by the learned ACJM No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on 15-10-1993, in the case mentioned above, and the occurrence took place at Villagegudha in District Jhunjhunu, at a distance of about 200 kms from Jaipur and about 400 kms, from Kota and it could not have been possible for them to have taken part in the alleged offences. ( 7 ) THE contention of Mr. A. K. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, on the other hand, is that it is the defence of the petitioners and cannot be taken into consideration at the stage of framing of charge. ( 8 ) IN case, Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, the Apex Court has held that the materials, other than those, produced by the prosecution, can also be looked into and should be considered at the time of framing of charge, to find out, whether a prima facie case against the accused persons, is made out or not. ( 8 ) IN case, Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, the Apex Court has held that the materials, other than those, produced by the prosecution, can also be looked into and should be considered at the time of framing of charge, to find out, whether a prima facie case against the accused persons, is made out or not. ( 9 ) AS noted above, the prosecution itself has produced the documents above said, showing that the petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 were in judicial custody either at Kota or at Jaipur and could not have been present on 16-10-1993, at the place of occurrence. It may also be noticed that in the papers, submitted under Section 173 of the Code, the Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioners were guilty of conspiring to commit the abovlt3aid offences. No charge of conspiracy has been framed by the learned Sessions Judge. Jhunjhunu, against either of the petitioners. ( 10 ) IN my view, the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in ignoring the documents, produced by the prosecution and framing charges against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 and also framing the charge against the petitioner No. 1, against whome there was no evidence of his being one of the assailants or of being present at the spot. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY. I accept this petition and set aside the order dated 4-12-1995, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 58/94, arising out of the FIR No, 169/93 of Police Station Gudhagorh, District- Jhunjhunu. ( 12 ) THE petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.