B. K. RATHI, J. This criminal revision under Section 397/401, Cr. P. C has been directed against the order dated 28-10-98 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T No. 663 of 98, by which he rejected the request of the applicants for their discharge and framed charges for the offences under Sec tions 147,148,149,302,307, I. Pc 2. The order for dismissal of the revision was passed today, but before the order could be signed, the learned counsel for the revisionists appeared and argued the matter. I have, therefore, heard him and have also heard the A. G. A. and perused the impugned order. 3. It is contended that Criminal Misc. application under Section 482, Cr. P. C was filed which was allowed on 18-1-98 and the copy of the said order has been filed. In that order, it was directed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall pass orders regarding framing of the charge after hearing the applicants and considering the material placed before the Court. It is also contended that the said order has not been complied with. 4. I have considered the contentions. The order refusing to discharge of the applicants and framing of the charges for the offences is a very detailed order and the entire evidence has been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 5. In this case, three persons were murdered and there are several injured persons. The applicants, no doubt, were not nominated in the first information report, but in the first information report, it is mentioned that two accused were Sola and Bahnot of Suresh accused. In the statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. all the injured witnesses have also nominated the applicants and referred them as Sala and Bahnot of Suresh. It may he mentioned that it is not denied that the ap plicants aresala antibahnot of Suresh. 6. The contentions of the applicants were considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, They were, that they were not nominated in the first information report and also in the statements under Section 164, Cr. RC. by the injured witnesses and on their application, an order was passed by Court tor their test identification, but it was not got conducted and as such their identity has not been estab lished. It is also contended that the plea of alibi should also be considered. 7. RC. by the injured witnesses and on their application, an order was passed by Court tor their test identification, but it was not got conducted and as such their identity has not been estab lished. It is also contended that the plea of alibi should also be considered. 7. The entire evidence is not to be scrutinised meticulouslyat the time of the framing of the charges. The applicants are nominated by the witnesses and it is suffi cient ground for proceeding against them and framing of the charges, as it is a very heinous crime in which three persons lost life and there are certain injured persons. The evidence with regard to the plea of alibi will be considered at the stage of the judgment and cannot be considered at the stage of charge. The contention that the directions given by this Court in the order dated 18-1-98 have not been complied with is not correct. The learned Sessions Judge has categorically mentioned the evidence that was found against the ap plicants and it was sufficient for proceed ing against them. He has, therefore, right ly framed charges against the applicants. 8. It maybe mentioned that the crime in question is a very heinous crime and the applicants appear to have been nominated as Sala and Bahnot of Suresh accused and they are approaching this Court against every order to cause hindrance in the trial. Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge will proceed with the trial ex-peditiously. 9. With the above observations, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .