JUDGMENT 1. -Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Profullakumar (1979 Cr.LJ 154) had observed that while considering the question of framing the charge the court has "the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. " However, their Lordships pointed out that the test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By a large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to some suspicion but not gave suspicion, the Judge would be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At the same time the court cautioned that a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence as if he was conducting the trial is not expected or even warranted at this stage. 2. In view of the law laid down hereinabove by their Lordships of the Apex Court, I proceed to consider this revision petition, which has been preferred by the accused petitioner impugning the order dated March 5, 1994 passed by the court below whereby charges under Sections 304, 342 and 323 IPC have been framed against him. On Feb. 3, 1986 FIR was lodged by the complainant Mohan Lal against the petitioner at Police Station Modak District Kota under Sections 304, 342 and 323 IPC. It was averred in the FIR that the accused petitioner, who was SHO at the relevant time came to his shop along with one Head Constable some altercations were exchanged thereafter the petitioner left. At about 12.00 or 12.30 p.m. the petitioner again came and started beating Shyam Sunder brother of complainant and took him in the jeep. Shyam Sunder was severally beaten thereafter he was admitted to the hospital then he died. 3. The case was investigated by the Police and subsequently it was transferred to CID (CB) for investigation. Ultimately final report was submitted in the case. The complainant Mohanlal filed protest petition on October 26, 1988 before the learned Magistrate. Shyam Sunder was severally beaten thereafter he was admitted to the hospital then he died. 3. The case was investigated by the Police and subsequently it was transferred to CID (CB) for investigation. Ultimately final report was submitted in the case. The complainant Mohanlal filed protest petition on October 26, 1988 before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Mohan Lal, Chandra Shekhar and Ghasilal and thereafter took cognisance under sections 304, 323 and 341 IPC against the petitioner. The FIR was submitted before the Magistrate and Magistrate took cognisance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Kota from where it was transferred to the Court of Special Judge SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota. The learned trial court vide order dated March 5, 1994 passed a detailed order and framed charge under sections 304, 342 and 323 IPC against the accused petitioner relying on the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate on the protest petitioner of the complainant. Against this order that the present action for filing this revision has been resorted by the accused petitioner. 4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before me by the learned counsel Shri A.K. Gupta, appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.L. Goyal learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully scanned the record. 5. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 627 of 1989 filed by the accused petitioner assailing the order dated June 13, 1989 of the learned Magistrate, whereby cognisance under Sections 304, 342 and 323 IPC was taken against the petitioner. This Court vide order dated July 10, 1989 disposed of the petitioner with the directions that the objection raised against the order of cognisance can be canvassed at the time of hearing of arguments on charge. 6. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently canvassed that the case was investigated by the police and CID (CB) and no case was found proved against the petitioner that is why final report was submitted but the learned trial court at the time of framing of the charge did not consider the reasons given in the final report submitted by the police. Under Section 197 Cr.P.C. obtaining of sanction was necessary for the police before registering the case against the petitioner but no such sanctioned is available on the record, therefore no case is made out against the petitioner. All the witnesses filed their affidavits duly attested by the Notary Public before the DIG, but the said affidavits of the witnesses were not considered. The witnesses earlier made a complaint against the petitioner thereafter withdrew it but again changed their mind. In these circumstances it is evidence that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner. 7. On the other hand Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that there was sufficient material on record which has proved the prima facie case against the petitioner and the charge was rightly framed. Mr. A.K. Gupta, placed reliance on Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another (JT 1996(7) SC 6) . Mr. M.L. Goyal, placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and other ( AIR 1997 SC 2041 ). 8. The questions which arise for considerations are as to whether on protest petition the Magistrate can record the statements of the witnesses and whether such statements can be looked into by the trial court at the time of framing of the charge. 9. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obliges the prosecution to describe the charge brought against the accused and to state by what evidence the guilt of the accused would be proved. The next provision enjoins on the Sessions Judge to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. In so deciding the Judge has to consider (T) the record of the case and (2) the documents produced therewith. He has then to hear the submissions of the accused as well as the prosecution on the limited question whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. Similar situation arises under Sections 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that situation the Magistrate has to afford the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard besides considering the police report and the documents sent therewith. As these two stages the code enjoins on the court to give audience, to the case accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. As these two stages the code enjoins on the court to give audience, to the case accused for deciding whether it is necessary to proceed to the next stage. It is a matter of exercise of judicial mind. There is nothing in the code which shrinks the scope of such audience to oral arguments. If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the court at that stage. 10. The Magistrate on a protest petition submitted by the complainant can take cognisance under Section 190 Cr.PC. after recording the statements of witnesses involving the provisions contained in Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 11. No doubt that the police submitted final report in the case. Thereafter the learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the witnesses and took cognisance of the offence. At the time of hearing of the arguments of the charge the learned trial court looked into the statements recorded by the Magistrate. After looking entire record I am of the view that there was sufficient material with the learned trial court to frame charge under Sections 304. 342 and 323 IPC against the petitioner. I cannot make roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the by weighing the evidence at this stage. 12. The case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (supra) cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is distinguishable and is not applicable in the facts and circumstance of the case. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that Nikita, the child witness. 8 years and four months old must necessarily be subjected to cross questions involving sex and sex organs and looking to the traumatic impact on the child when she would be confronted by volley of questions dealing with a subject is a matter of concern. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the trial should not be allowed to continue on account of the impending consequences befalling an innocent child. 13. In that case the allegations were levelled by the wife against the husband regarding sexual abuse of their child and the Saffolok County Police Station. United States after conducting detailed investigation concluded that the allegations of incestuous abuse were untrue. 14. 13. In that case the allegations were levelled by the wife against the husband regarding sexual abuse of their child and the Saffolok County Police Station. United States after conducting detailed investigation concluded that the allegations of incestuous abuse were untrue. 14. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded thus- "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." 15. I am therefore unable to persuade myself with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner, to arrive at the conclusion at this stage from the record that the prosecution evidence so far collected is not likely to lead conviction of the accused petitioner. 16. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order so as to intervene under Section 397 Cr.PC. 17. Consequently, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 20th Feb., 1998.Revision Petition allowed. *******