JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In my view no interference is called for with the impugned order of the Trial Court. My observations are fortified from the judgment of Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and ors., reported in 1997 Cr.LR (SC) 462 wherein the Apex Court has observed that at the stage of framing of charge the Court has -to arrive at prima-facie view after considering the material available on record with a view to assess the culpability of accused while possibility of conviction need not be taken into account. 2. The learned counsel -for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, reported in 1996(9) SCC 766 in which the Apex Court has observed as under : "Consideration which should weigh with the Sessions Court at the stage of framing of charge have been well designed by Parliament through Section 227 Cr.PC. Section 228 contemplates the stage after the case survives the stage envisaged in the former section. When the court is of opinion that there is ground to presume that the-accused has committed an offence the procedure laid down therein has to be adopted. When those two sections are put in juxtaposition with each other the test to be adopted becomes discernible : Is there sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? It is axiomatic that the standad of proof normally adhered to at the final stage is not to be applied at the stage where the scope of consideration is where there is "sufficient ground for proceeding." 3. Thus, in my view what has to be seen at the stage of framing of charge is only the evidence on the basis of which prima-facie view can be drawn against the accused for commission of the offence. No interference is called for with the impugned order of the Trial Court. The revision petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******