JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by Mukarab Khan and Ameen. They want me to reconsider earlier order dated 19.1.1998 by which their revision was dismissed. 2. So far as Ameen Khan is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not press petition on his behalf. For Mukarab Khan he has contended that no case is made out against him and that the trial court has framed charges against him erroneously. He submitted that petitioner Mukarab Khan was not at all involved and has been falsely implicated. 3. One Moinuddin reported to Superintendent of Police, Churu on 22.3.1991 that in village Taranagar, Muslim Committee was constituted. It has a constitution. The election of the office bearers takes place next day of the Eid every year. All muslims of the area contribute to the committee which purchases articles to be used during the marriages and also manages the mosques and grave-yards. The committee had an account with Marudhar Gramin Bank wherein Rs. 30,000/- was deposited. There was a provision in the constitution that the amount could be withdrawn by cheque signed by Treasurer, Secretary and the President. Moinuddin was the Treasurer of the committee. On 12.3.1991 the Secretary Ameen and Mukarab Khan withdrew an amount of Rs. 20,000/- by making fictitious signature of Moinuddin. This amounted to misappropriation of funds. The matter was checked in the bank on 15.3.1991. No record was given by, the bank. The FIR further mentioned that Mukarab Khan was in habit of indulging in such activities and on previous occasion he had got a piece of land recorded in the name of his brother which actually belonged to the Custodian Department. He was facing trial in that case. After investigation challan was submitted and charges were framed. A revision was preferred against framing of charges and the same was dismissed earlier by me on 19.1.1998. 4. Now the counsel for the petitioner Mukarab Khan submits that Mukarab Khan has been falsely implicated and no case is made out against him. Counsel has relied on a large number of citations and almost all of them are such in which the accused had faced trial and were convicted but on appeal were acquitted. 4. Now the counsel for the petitioner Mukarab Khan submits that Mukarab Khan has been falsely implicated and no case is made out against him. Counsel has relied on a large number of citations and almost all of them are such in which the accused had faced trial and were convicted but on appeal were acquitted. The revision, which was earlier decided, was against the order of framing of charge and the counsel for the petitioners again reiterates that petitioner Mukarab Khan should have been discharged by accepting the revision and if not so then he may be discharged now under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He forgets that a charge can be framed even on a strong suspicion. Reliance can be placed on Brijkumar Sharma v. State and Others, 1998 Cr.L.J. page 1449 and on 1997 Cr.L.J. page 2248, State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and Others , wherein Hon'bie Supreme Court has observed that 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. 5. From the record it was found that the charge was correctly framed against petitioner Mukarab Khan by learned Magistrate and that order was confirmed by this Court. There appears to be no ground to interfere in the earlier order under the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Consequently, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******