Judgment : 1. This revision was sought to be admitted to challenge the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief-Judicial-Magistrate, Nagapattinam in C.M.P. No. 80 of 1996 in S.C. No. 64 of 1994 dated 7th August, 1996. dismissing a petition filed on behalf of the revision petitioners who are accused Nos.7,8 and 9 for their discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It was alleged that at about 9.00 P.M. on 25. 1988 on the corner of Sivan Temple in Koothanallur Police Jurisdiction, with the common object of forming an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons with an intention to do away with the deceased by name Pakkirisamy, the three revision petitioners who are accused 7,8 and 9 along with seven other accused attacked the said person with deadly weapons like Aruval, firewood and thereby caused multiple injuries to the deceased, whereby he was admitted into the Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on the third day. The law was set in motion and consequently investigation was over and final reports against the ten accused including the revision petitioners were filed before the court and accordingly committed to the court of Sessions as the of fence was one triable exclusively by a court of Sessions. Since the first accused was still at large, the case against him was split up and the rest of nine accused were proceeded by the court of Sessions and after hearing both sides charges were framed under Sections 148, 341 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. It was at this stage, when the case was posted for further proceeding, the impugned petition under Section 227, Cr.P.C. was filed by and on behalf of the accused 7,8, and 9 who are the revision petitioners herein, praying for their total discharge on the ground that there are no materials or evidence made against them nor involved them for trial. On being resisted on behalf of the respondent the State by the Inspector of Police, Koradachery, Koothanallur Police Station Crime No. 236 of 1988, the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, by quoting a passage in the judgment reported in 1993 MLJ (Crl.) 277 dismissed the said petition with the following further observations. “The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia containing all the details regarding the of fence and all the names of the accused. “The F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia containing all the details regarding the of fence and all the names of the accused. It is only an instrument to set the law in motion. Moreover, F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and this document could be used either to corroborate or to contradict the of fence let in by the complainant. So, FIR need not contain all the details regarding the commission of the of fence in relation to each and every accused. Perusal of the statements of the witnesses L.W.1, L.W.2, L.W.3 and L.W.4 and also the FIR., the confession given by A.1, A.4 and A.6 and other related documents it is shows that A-7 and A-8 armed with logs of fire wood and A-9 with aruval, intervened the deceased along with the remaining accused in this case and A-9 cut the deceased on his thigh and other places with aruval and A-7 and A-8 beat him with logs of fire wood and because of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died. Therefore, there are ample materials in the records before this court, so that A-7 A-8 and A-9 were properly charged under Sections 341 148 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., It is very clear that the above accused had a common intention to commit the crime as stated above. Moreover, the charges in this case were framed by the learned Sessions Judge. Thanjavur after hearing arguments on both sides and on perusal of the records. If the accused were not satisfied with the charges framed against them, they could have raised their objection in the earlier point of time. Having kept quiet, for several months the accused are coming up with this petition at the time of starting of the trial, only with a view to prolong the proceedings in this Court. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the charges already framed against A-7, A-8 and A-9 under Sections 341, 148 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. After the trial is over, if the court finds that the above charges are not made out against the accused, they were always entitled for an acquittal. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Aggrieved at this order by the accused 7,8 and 9 the present revision was sought to be admitted. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Aggrieved at this order by the accused 7,8 and 9 the present revision was sought to be admitted. However, on ordering notice of motion, I had the occasion to hear the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent besides the entire case records called for from the trial court for perusal. .4. Mr.B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would challenge the impugned order on the ground that though the alleged occurrence was at 9.00. p.m. on 25. 88 and the injured was admitted in the hospital in a condition to speak and give a dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate, he never implicated the revision petitioners, and that except P.Ws. 1 and 2 none of the eye witnesses nor any other witnesses had claimed the very involvement of these revision petitioners to the of fence alleged in the instant case, and that even the statements recorded by the police from P.Ws. 1 and 2 were also subsequent and very late, and that therefore the very overt acts claimed by the prosecution against these revision petitioners are a mere make believe, just created to make these revision petitioners involved in the criminal trial unnecessarily, and that in fact P.Ws. 1 and 2 had ample motive to implicate these revision petitioners as accused in the instant case. While stating so, the learned counsel would challenge the observations made by the learned trial judge in the impugned order as incorrect. On the other hand, the general observation made by the learned Judge is nothing but a brooding omnibus, having no reference of any kind to the actual materials and documents and evidence placed before the trial court. By so contending he urged to intervene in this revision. 5. The learned Government Advocate Mr.Kumaresan on his part would justify the impugned order by contending that the confession statement given by the co-accused to the preference of the statement given by P.Ws 1 and 2 before the investigating agency would clearly amount to a prima facie evidence ex facie, and that therefore, before the trial, it is too premature and too early to presume the innocence or the very involvement of the revision petitioners. In other respects, the learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order in full. 6. In other respects, the learned Government Advocate would support the impugned order in full. 6. In this context, I have had the occasion to peruse the entire case records called for from the trial court with reference to the statements recorded from the prosecution witnesses, confession statement and FIR. A casual perusal of the same clinches the fact that though the claim made by Mr.Kumar at the first instance is true to some extent, there are the statements recorded from P.Ws 1 and 2 and the confession statement given by the first accused, fourth accused and sixth accused. Under such circumstances, whether the involvement of the present revision petitioners in the commission of the crime in this case is true or not has to be looked and gone into and ascertained only after the fullfledged trial after the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. To arrive at any conclusion at this stage on the basis of the FIR as well as the dying declaration on the one hand or the confession statement of the accused on the other hand, in the context of several eye witnesses cited in the instant case, a fullfledged trial is to be awaited and the contentions made by the Bar on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted and for which the several materials placed before this court are not adequate to concede. Therefore, though I am not agreeing with the inadequate clarity and the non-specific finding given by the learned trial Judge, however, I have to support his final conclusion and accordingly, I am unable to accept the case of the revision petitioners. .7. It is always open for the accused/revision petitioners to controvert the claim made by the prosecution witnesses and adduce rebuttal evidence if any, and bring out the circumstances appeared in their favour and get their remedy adjudicated before the trial court. In this regard, to this extent, enough for me at this stage to say I do not come across with any tangible or material grounds amounting to irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order. In short to say, I do not find any legal laches in the impugned order or merits in this revision. 8. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings and observations given by me, the revision fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2944 of 1996 is also dismissed. 9. In short to say, I do not find any legal laches in the impugned order or merits in this revision. 8. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings and observations given by me, the revision fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. No. 2944 of 1996 is also dismissed. 9. The Registry is hereby directed to send the copy of this order with the entire case diary to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law immediately.