Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 18-12-98 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in RC 19/(A)/93(R) whereby he rejected the petitioners application for discharge and framed charges under Secs. 120-B, 402, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Dayal, learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. He firstly submitted that the impugned order is not a speaking order and there is no mention of the place and time where the offence was committed. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Court below has committed an error of record by referring the report of the expert, Calcutta to the effect that the signature of the petitioner was found. It was further submitted that the Magistrate while passing the impugned order and framing charge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner being a Government servant, his prosecution without sanction of the appropriate authority was unauthorised. According to the learned Counsel, it was one K.P. Sharma who did all the acts and conspiracy and there is no material in the case diary to disclose any conspiracy so far as this petitioner is concerned. 4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. From perusal of the same, it transpires that the Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has taken into consideration the entire materials available on record. The learned Magistrate has also gone into the materials come in the case diary and the evidence of the witnesses examined during investigation and has found that the petitioner, in conspiracy with other accused-persons, had dishonestly and fraudulently succeeded in the withdrawal of rupees three lacs from the bank. The learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order. I, therefore, do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel, 5. The learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order. I, therefore, do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel, 5. The law on this subject is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the materials 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 a conclusion that it is a case not likely to lead to conviction. 6. As noticed above, in the instant case, the learned Magistrate has come to a prima facie finding that a case has been made out against the petitioner for framing charge. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is dismissed.