JUDGMENT P K. Sarin, J. This criminal revision application is directed against the order dated 30.5.1991 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1988 by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for his discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The petitioner is an accused in the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code. The copy of the first information report is at Annexure-1. The petitioner's name transpired during investigation. The incident is said to have been taken place in the intervening night of 27/28th July, 1987 at about 11.00 P.M. at village Lakshmipur, Tola Sahuria, P.S. Kumar Khand, District Madhepura. The informant is Gajendra Narain Choudhary. It was alleged that eight to ten dacoits committed dacoity at the house of the informant and at the house of the brother of the informant. The brother of the informant is said to have been shot dead by dacoits. Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet implicating the present petitioner in the said occurrence. Earlier the petitioner had come to this court for quashing of the case on the ground that there was no material available to put him on trial. This court, by order dated 7th March, 1990 dismissed the said application as withdrawn but observed that the petitioner may raise the point under Section 227 when the sessions trial opens and the Sessions Judge would pass appropriate speaking order. The copy of the said order of this court is at Annexure-3 of the application. 2. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with the submissions of the petitioners in detail and referred to various paragraphs of the case diary to indicate that there are materials against the petitioner to show his complicity in the crime and, accordingly, he rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 227 of the Code. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has moved this criminal revision application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and the• circumstances appearing against him did not show his complicity in the crime. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has moved this criminal revision application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and the• circumstances appearing against him did not show his complicity in the crime. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the person who is said to be standing along with the petitioner has not been sent up for trial and the person at whose house the miscreants were fed was also not implicated in the trial and the petitioner has only been implicated on account of enmity. It is further contended that mere presence of the petitioner near the place of occurrence or his taking bath at the night as has been stated by some witnesses, would not mean that the petitioner also participated in the crime. 4. We are not to go into details of the materials collected during investigation. Whether or not petitioner has been implicated falsely may be tested at the trial and cannot be tested at the stage of framing of charge. At the stage of consideration of the matter under Sections 227 or 228 of the Code only it has to be considered whether or not there are sufficient materials to raise grave suspicion against the petitioner and to show his complicity in the crime. The principles are now well settled by the various decision of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2018) has observed as follows : "Reading Ss. 227 and 228 together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under S. 227 or S. 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction." 5. In the case of Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal VS. Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors. (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 52) the Apex Court has observed that at the stage of framing charges, the Magistrate has to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the Investigating Police Officer. It is observed that the standard test, proof and judgment is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228. It is further observed that at this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy & Ors. (AI R 1977 Supreme Court 1489) wherein the Apex Court has observed that the object of the provisions of Section 227 require the Sessions Judge to record the reasons if he comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (AI R 1977 Supreme Court 1489) wherein the Apex Court has observed that the object of the provisions of Section 227 require the Sessions Judge to record the reasons if he comes to the conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. It is observed that for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be said reasonably to be possible. In the said case the court found that there was no material on the record on the basis of which any Tribunal could reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused were in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. In the present case, the facts are different due to the materials collected during investigation which has been referred by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Nayak vs. A.R. Antulay (AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2045). In the said case the court considered the comparative provisions of Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the Code and with reference to Section 227 it is observed that consideration is on the basis of the record of the case including documents and oral hearing of the accused and the prosecution or the police report and the documents sent along with it. In the said case the question before the court was discharge in respect of Section 245 for which it has been observed that under Section 245 of the Code test of prima facie case has to be applied before framing of charge. The Apex Court has not taken a different view than what was taken in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on the decision of the court in the case of Raj Narain Singh Vs. The Apex Court has not taken a different view than what was taken in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh (supra). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next placed reliance on the decision of the court in the case of Raj Narain Singh Vs. State of Bihar (1989 (2) BLJR 265) wherein on the facts of that case on consideration of the materials it was found that there was no material on which criminal court could reasonably come to the conclusion that the petitioner is in any manner connected with the assault on the informant and on consideration of those facts the charges framed were quashed. In the present case, the Sessions Judge has referred to the materials contained in the case diary and it cannot be said that there is no material on the record to connect the accused with the crime. 9. At the stage of consideration of the matter under Section 227 or 228 the evidences are not to be weighed and appreciated in the same as is done at the trial. 10. If there are some• materials in favour of the accused and some materials in favour of the prosecution in the case diary the court has to consider the same and find out whether the materials on the record are sufficient to raise grave suspicion against the accused regarding his complicity in the crime. The defence of the accused has not to be taken into account at that stage nor the court is required to believe or disbelieve the statements of witnesses recorded in the case diary under Section 161 of the Code. That stage would come only, at the trial when the witnesses appear and depose before the court. 11. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out to different paragraphs of the case diary and has come to the conclusion that those paragraphs make out sufficient ground for framing of charge against the petitioner and the materials show his complicity in the crime. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It does not appear to be a fit case for interference by this court in exercise of it~ revisional jurisdiction. 12. The criminal revision application is dismissed accordingly.