JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Malkhan Singh has filed this revision impugning the order dated October 14, 1997 of the learned Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Bharatpur, whereby charge having committed offences under section 395, 397 read with 120 B IPC was framed against him. 2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of instant revision may succinctly be stated as under (i) Informant Mohan Lal Khandelwal instituted FIR with the Police Station Atalband (Bharatpur) on May 24, 1994 stating therein that on May 20, 1994 at about 8 p.m. while he was at his shop Rajesh Luhar, Hari Luhar and Arjun @ Pataudi alongwith three, other persons came armed with fire arm and other weapons and committed dacoity in the sum of Rs.2000/- from the cash box on the point of gun. The intervenor family members were also assaulted and threatened for dire consequences in case they fail to pay Rs.70,000/- by the next date. (ii) Criminal case under Sections 450, 395 and 397 IPC was registered. Investigation commenced and accused were arrested. Charge sheet was filed against Rajesh Luhar, Hari Luhar, Arjun and also against Pradeep Kumar. (iii) Pradeep Kumar, who was not named in the FIR was charged under section 395, 397 read with 120 B IPC. This court allowed the revision bearing No. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 50 of 1995 on Feb. 9, 1995 preferred by Pradeep Kumar and quashed the order of the trial court framing charges against Pradeep Kumar. (iv) The trial proceeded against remaining three accused Rajesh Luhar, Hari Luhar and Arjun and they were convicted by the learned trial court under sections 395, 397 and 450 IPC in sessions case No. 37 of 1994 on August 1, 1995. However, an appeal being preferred by them bearing S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 399 of 1995, before this Court their conviction under sections 395, 397 and 450 IPC was set aside and they were convicted under sections 452 and 323 IPC. (v) The Police Station Atalband (Bharatpur) submitted supplementary charge sheet against the present accused Malkhan Singh for the offences under sections 395, 397 read with 120 B IPC. (vi) Learned trial court thereafter framed the charge against the accused petitioner as mentioned hereinabove. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the charge sheet appended with the file. 4. Admittedly, in the FIR no allegation was made against accused Malkhan Singh. (vi) Learned trial court thereafter framed the charge against the accused petitioner as mentioned hereinabove. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the charge sheet appended with the file. 4. Admittedly, in the FIR no allegation was made against accused Malkhan Singh. But in the statement under section 161 CrPC. informant Mohan Lai Khandelwal stated that he had some dispute with Malkhan Singh regarding payment of money and Malkhan Singh through his employee Pradeep Kumar entered into a conspiracy and engaged accused persons Rajesh, Hari and Arjun to commit dacoity. 5. In P.K. Narayan v. State of Kerala ( 1995(1) SCC 142 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that an offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent evidence. 6. In the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. the witnesses only drawn the inference of conspiracy. The said inference has not been supported by cogent evidence. Malkhan Singh is the inhabitant of Jaipur and the incident had taken place in Bharatpur District. Evidence that Malkhan Singh entered into conspiracy with Arjun, Hari and Rajesh has not been collected by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of complete charge sheet demonstrates that there is no tangible evidence to prima facie show that the accused petitioner had entered into the criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Rajesh, Hari and Arjun. 7. The court can apply its judicial mind at the stage of framing charge to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. In State of Karnataka, v. L. Muniswamy and others ( AIR 1977 SC 1489 ) their Lordhips of the Supreme Court indicated that the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked be asked to face a trial. 8. In the case on hand I am of the considered view that the learned court below has not applied it judicial mind to the material on record. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be asked be asked to face a trial. 8. In the case on hand I am of the considered view that the learned court below has not applied it judicial mind to the material on record. When charge against Pradeep Kumar in similar circumstances was quashed, the charge under section 395, 397 read with section 120 B IPC, could not have been framed against the accused petitioner. 9. Consequently, I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order. Charge under sections 395, 397 read with 120 B IPC is hereby quashed and the accused petitioner is discharged of the said offences.Revision allowed-Charges quashed. *******