Judgment :- Heard both the parties. 2.The above revision is directed against the order dated 14-9-1994 in Crl. M.P. No. 2082/94 in C.C. No. 347/92 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore refusing to discharge the petitioner. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner facing a trial for an alleged offence under Section 135(1)(b)(i) of the Customs Act. According to the petitioner, there is no material evidence even to suggest that the petitioner has involved in the alleged offence and therefore the petitioner has filed an application under Section 245 of Criminal Procedure Code to discharge him from the said charge. 4.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore refused to discharge the petitioner holding that the petitioner has not established that the charges are groundless and accordingly dismissed the Crl. M.P. No. 2082/94 by an order dated 14-9-1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the above revision petition. 5.The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have discharged the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent invited my attention that there are materials available to establish the charges and therefore the petitioner cannot be discharged at this stage. He further contends that such material evidences are, if gone into, at this stage of revision petition, that would prejudice the trial if the revision is ultimately dismissed. 7.That apart, the learned Counsel for the respondent relies upon the decisions of the Apex Court in - (i)State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa reported in 1996 SCC(Criminal) 820; and (ii)State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj reported in 1997 SCC(Criminal) 584and justifies the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in refusing to discharge the petitioner. 8.In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa reported in 1996 SCC(Criminal) 820, the Apex Court has held as follows : "If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame a charge against him for committing that offence. Regarding the meaning of the word presume, in Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". Regarding the meaning of the word presume, in Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law 'presume' means "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming", Stroud's Legal Diectionary has quoted in the context a certain judgment according to which" * A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged. "So if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at this stage." * Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj reported in 1997 SCC(Criminal) 584, the Apex Court has held as follows : "At the stage of Sections 227 and 228 of the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as for 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. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as for 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. Therefore, at the stage of framing the charges the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.What the Court has to consider at the stage of framing of the charge is whether the version of the person complaining together with his/her explanation is prima facie believable or not. It was, thereof, not proper for the High Court to seek independent corroboration at that stage and to quash the charge and discharge the accused in absence thereof. The High Court was wholly wrong in discarding the material placed before the Court as false and discharging the accused on that ground." * 9.I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides. 10.In this connection, I am obliged to refer to Section 245 of Cr. P.C. and to the decision of the Apex Court referred to above. Section 245 of Cr. P.C. reads as follows : "When accused shall be discharged - (1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a (2) Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate he considers the charge to be groundless." * 11.In the light of the above decisions, I do not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 14-9-1994, refusing to discharge the petitioner at the stage of framing the charges as in his opinion, sufficient materials are available for framing the charges. 12.In the result, revision petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to raise all his submissions on merits before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.