JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J. This application under s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, sent through the Superintendent, Presidency Jail, by the petitioner Peter Bleach, one of the accused persons placed on trial before the Ld. Sessions Judge, IVth Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta, in Sessions Trial No. 1 (June) of 1997, is directed for quashing of the charges framed against him at the trial and stay of further proceeding in the matter besides judicial enquiry in the matter and his release on bail. 2. The petitioner prayed for appearing before this court in person and making his submissions in support of the application and the said prayer for appearing in person was allowed by this court and the petitioner in person and the Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of C.B.I. have been heard at length for several days. 3. In brief, the submissions of the petitioner are that he is innocent and the charges framed against him are untenable in law in the facts, circumstances and the materials on record and the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced for non-consideration of his defence at the time of framing of the charge by the trial court. 4. It appears that charge has been framed by the trial court against the petitioner, Peter Bleach and other accused persons in the case under ten counts as follows : (i) In Count No. 1, the petitioner Peter Bleach has been charged with six other accused persons including the captain of the seized aircraft and four other Latvian crews of the aircraft named therein and one Vinay Kumar Singh and six other absconding accused persons named therein for offence punishable u/s. 121A of I.P.C. for conspiracy to commit offence punishable u/s. 121 I.P.C. (waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against Govt. of India or the State Government) (ii) In Count No. 2, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein including Vinay Kumar Singh has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 121 of the I.P.C. (iii) In Count No. 3, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 122 of the I.P.C. for collecting arms etc, with intention of waging war against the Government of India. (iv) In Count No. 4, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 25(1-A) of the Arms Act for possession of Arms. (v) In Count No. 5, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 25(1-B) (f) (g) of the Arms Act for importing and transporting prohibited Arms. (vi) In Count No. 6, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged of offence punishable u/s. 9B(2) of the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 for possession/importation of explosives. (vii) In Count No. 7, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for possession & control of explosive substances for unlawful purposes. (viii) In Count No. 8, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged u/s. 10 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 for knowingly giving false information to airport authorities in India. (ix) In Count No. 9, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 11 of the Aircraft Act, 1947 for wilfully flying an aircraft in such a manner likely to cause danger to a person or property. (x) In Count No. 10, the petitioner along with other accused persons named therein has been charged for offence punishable u/s. 11-A of the Aircraft Act, 1934 for wilfully diverting the aircraft from an approved flight-path. 5. From the materials collected during investigation and produced before the Court relating to the case registered as Jhalda P.S. case No. 152/95 dated 18.12.95 u/ss. 121, 121A, 122 & 123 IPC and u/s. 25/27 of the Arms Act out of which the aforesaid trial registered as Sessions Case No. I of 1997, pending before the Ld. Sessions Judge IVth Bench, City Civil & Sessions Court at Calcutta has arisen and is pending, the following facts emerge. 6. During the night between 17th and 18th December, 1995, huge quantities of sophisticated arms, ammunition, explosives including AK 47 rifles, 1,50,000 rounds of ammunition, rocket launchers, detonators, explosives, hand grenades, etc. Sessions Judge IVth Bench, City Civil & Sessions Court at Calcutta has arisen and is pending, the following facts emerge. 6. During the night between 17th and 18th December, 1995, huge quantities of sophisticated arms, ammunition, explosives including AK 47 rifles, 1,50,000 rounds of ammunition, rocket launchers, detonators, explosives, hand grenades, etc. were dropped from the Aircraft (AN26) with call sign of YLLDB of Carol Air Service in wooden pallets by parachutes in villages Khatanga, Belamu, Maramu, Beradi and Barudi within Jhalda P.S. by diverting the aircraft from its flight-path from Varanasi to Mynamor and the petitioner was one of the seven crews in the aircraft and those arms and ammunition were found to be of foreign origin and active and effective as found from the report of the C.F.S.L. 7. It also appears that on 18.11.95 a meeting was allegedly held at Copenhagen, Denmark among the petitioner, accused Kim Davy (absconding) and two other persons for 2500 assault rifles and 1,500,000 rounds of ammunition and thereafter on 27.8.95 another meeting was held among the petitioner, Kim Davy, Acharya Suranyanananda and four other persons at Bangkok in which the quantity of assault rifles was reduced from 2500 numbers to 500 numbers and instead a decision was taken to purchase an aircraft and accordingly the said aircraft was purchased and taken delivery at Riga Latvia and the petitioner and the absconding accused Kim Davy took active part in the purchase of the said aircraft and all arms, ammunition, explosives and other articles. 8. It also appears that the five Latvian crews who are also accused and arrested from the aircraft were originally employees of Latvia Airlines but they took leave for three months to work with Carol Air Services on whose behalf the aircraft was purchased and a contract was signed on 18.11.95 between the absconding accused Kim Davy and those five Latvian crews accordingly. 9. It further appears that on 21.11.95 the petitioner along with other accused persons flew to Plavdiv at Bulgaria and on 22.11.95 left Plavdiv and came to Varanasi on 23.11.95 and stayed there till 27.11.95 and on 27.11.95 left for Karachi. 10. It is the prosecution case that on 10.12.95 the consigment of arms, ammunition and explosives had been loaded in the aircraft at the Burgos Airport in Bulgaria and from Burgos the petitioner, Kim Davy and the Latvian crews arrived at Karachi on 13.12.95. 10. It is the prosecution case that on 10.12.95 the consigment of arms, ammunition and explosives had been loaded in the aircraft at the Burgos Airport in Bulgaria and from Burgos the petitioner, Kim Davy and the Latvian crews arrived at Karachi on 13.12.95. At Karachi, the petitioner, Kim Davy and the crews stayed about four days where the absconding accused Daya Anand joined them and delivered parachutes to them for dropping those arms, ammunition etc. and they left Karachi on 17.12.95 for Varanasi and landed at Varanasi on the same day although the special flight permit issued by the Latvian Authority expired on 5.12.95 and from Varanasi the aircraft took off for Calcutta by submitting the flight path only at Varanasi Airport without submitting the General Declaration and on way to Calcutta, deviated from the approved flight-path and dropped the arms & ammunition at Jhalda as aforesaid. 11. After identification of the aircraft, all the Military Liaison Units in the airports all over the country were alerted and on 20.12.95, India Airports Head Quarter, New Delhi received intimation that an aircraft having similarity with the aforesaid aircraft had been cleared by Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India to fly along the route Phuket (Thailand) Karachi but in the meantime the said aircraft had already been flown from Madras for Karachi. However as the aircraft was within the airspace of India the Civil Air Traffic Control, Bombay Airport, ordered the aircraft to land at Bombay and accordingly the aircraft had landed at Sahar International Airport, Bombay on 22.12.95 at 01:33 hrs. 12. It also appears that after landing of Bombay all the crew members of the aircraft namely the Peter Bleach, Alexander Klichine @ Sasha (Captain of the aircraft), Igor Moskvitine @ Alexandra, Cleg Gaidich, Evegueni Antinenko and Igor Tinnerman where detained by the Immigration Deptt. of the Airport and arrested and on search of the aircraft, arms and ammunitions concealed underneath the floor of the aircraft were also found but one of the associates of the accused persons namely Kim P. Davy, managed to escape and he is still absconding. The aircraft as well as other articles including the arms and ammunitions, Lap Top Computer, Global Postitioning in System (GPS), Flight Date Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), Velocity Gravity Heigh Recorder (VGHR) of the said aircraft were seized. 13. The aircraft as well as other articles including the arms and ammunitions, Lap Top Computer, Global Postitioning in System (GPS), Flight Date Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), Velocity Gravity Heigh Recorder (VGHR) of the said aircraft were seized. 13. It further appears that at the request received from Beseops Europe Ltd., U.K. for obtaining DGGA route permit in favour of M/s. Carol Air Services, Hongkong for operating a ferry flight with AN-26 type of aircraft having call sign YLLDB with seven crew members and A. Klichine as captain for flying on 17/18.12.95 from Karachi to Varanasi (at 7.30 hrs. UTC) and from Varanasi to Yagoon (Mynamar), the permit was granted but as the aircraft did not have the landing permission at Yagoon and this was informed to the aircraft the aircraft landed at Calcutta on 17.12.95 at 19:07 UTC (on 18.12.95 at 00:37 IST) and it left for Phuket on 18.12.95 at 03:34 IST. 14. It also appears that on analysis of the photo-slides in one of the brief case, one photograph of a three storied white coloured building located at village Bansgarh under Jhalda P.S. belonging to the Anand Marg organisation used by Anandamargis for the purpose of training voluntary security service and also for some other purpose was also found. 15. It also transpires that a book titled as "Technique of Modern Arms" was seized from the Anandamarg establishment at Jodhpur Park, Calcutta and the said book deals with the science of war, the art of leadership etc. and some other documents seized from the said organisation show that the prout universal, a wing of Ananda Marg was planning for war to implement the prout concept for economic democracy and partyless democracy and the said organisation introduced their own Municipality named as "Ananda Nagar Nija Purosabha" at Ananda Nagar in the district of Purulia. 16. and some other documents seized from the said organisation show that the prout universal, a wing of Ananda Marg was planning for war to implement the prout concept for economic democracy and partyless democracy and the said organisation introduced their own Municipality named as "Ananda Nagar Nija Purosabha" at Ananda Nagar in the district of Purulia. 16. It also transpires that the accused Vinay Kumar Singh was present at the Bansigarh Building in Anandanagar Purulia on the day of dropping of the arms and ammunition at that place on 17.12.95 and he was seen frequently moving with a motorcycle between Bansigarh Building and Anandanagar on 17.12.95 in the afternoon and he is a member of the Anandamargh organisation and he disappeared after the dropping of the arms and ammunition and also some persons found him during the night of 17.12.95 near the building in the company of the two absconding accused Acharya Saileshwara Nanda and Acharya Suranjanananda Avadhat and he also practised firing. 17. In the context of the aforesaid materials on record against the petitioner Mr. Peter Bleach, this court does not find any illegality in the charge framed against the petitioner as there are materials on record to frame the charge as framed by the trial court. 18. This court does not consider it necessary to record the details of submissions made before this court on behalf of the petitioner and the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. as the law in the subject is now well-settled by the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bijjaya ( AIR 1990 SC 1962 ) and the case of State of Mahashtra vs. Priya Sharan Maharas and others (1997 Cr. L.J. 2248) that at Ss. 227 and 228 stage 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 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 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 of the charge 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 no 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. 19. I have carefully gone through the materials on record placed before this court by the parties and I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the charges framed against the petitioner Peter Bleach or allow any other prayer as prayed by him before this court in his application registered as Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1996. The application is therefore disposed of. 20. Interim order, if any is vacated. Since the matter is pending before the trial court for a considerable time, the trial court is directed to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. Since there are large number of witnesses in this case, the trial court is directed to hold the trial without any adjournment if not otherwise inconvenienced or prevented by any unavoidable and compelling circumstance. 21. The department is directed to send the copy of the judgment to the petitioner, Mr. Peter Bleach (in jail) and to the trial court immediately. Liberty is also given to the ld. counsel appearing for the parties to take down and communicate the gist of the order to the court below. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, be made available to the parties as expeditiously as possible subject to compliance with usual formalities. Application disposed of.