JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions under Section 482 Cr.PC. are directed against the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali whereby he framed charges against the petitioners under Secs. 120-B, 394 and 398 I.PC. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 19.5.1998 an attempt was made to loot the Pali Urban Co-operative Bank, Pali. The F.I.R. was lodged by Ganpat Lal, Incharge Bank in which it was stated that at about 4.30 p.m. three persons having their faces covered entered the Bank precincts and after rolling up the channel gate, one of them threw red chili powder on the facts of two bank employees, and one miscreant at the dagger point, asked the employees to handover the entire cash to them. Hearing the shoutings, outsiders rushed there. The miscreants tried to make good their escape, however, one of them who later disclosed his name as Umed Singh, was caught. Umed Singh told the persons collected there that his two other companions were Surendra Vyas and Chhotu. On this report a case under Secs. 394 and 398 I.RC. was registered. After the completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order framed charges under Secs. 394, 398 and 120-B I.RC. against the petitioners. 3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointing out that Hari Ram was the employee of the Bank and the chilli powder was thrown at him, contended that there could not be any occasion for him to have associated himself with the act of robbery. His further contention was that there is no material against Surendra Vyas on which charges could be framed. He pointed out that no test Identification parade was held. He argued that the statement of co-accused Umed Singh could not be made basis for framing charges. Relying on the basis of Hari Charan v. State of Bihar, 1964 SC 1184 and Suresh Budhram v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1998 SC 631 , he canvassed that petitioner Surendra Vyas be discharged. 4. Mr. Mehar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the order of the Trial Court. Relying on the basis of Hari Charan v. State of Bihar, 1964 SC 1184 and Suresh Budhram v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1998 SC 631 , he canvassed that petitioner Surendra Vyas be discharged. 4. Mr. Mehar, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the order of the Trial Court. His contention was that apart from the fact that co-accused Umed Singh had disclosed the name of Surendra Vyas as one of the perpretrators of the crime, there is evidence that Hari Ram co-accused was informed that Surendra was calling him at the hotel and that there is also evidence on record that Hari Ram and Surendra Vyas resided in the same area and that Hari Ram was the regular customer of Suredra Vyas. He pointed out that the conduct of Hari Ram at the time of occurrence was far from natural and it seems that just to show innocence of Hari Ram some amount of chilli powder was thrown at him also. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. First, we may see the principle which should be kept in view while framing the charge or discharging the accused. The Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia, 1989 (1) SCC 715 interpreting Section 227 Cr.RC. laid down the principle in the following words- "Section 227 itself contains enough guidelines as to the scope of enquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused. It provides that "the judge shall discharge when he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." The &ground' in the context is not a ground for conviction, but a ground for putting the accused on trial, It is in the trial, the guilt or the innocence of the accused will be determined and not at the time of framing of charge. The Court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into." (emphasis supplied) 7. The Court, therefore, need not undertake an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. Nor is it necessary to delve deep into various aspects. All that the Court has to consider is whether the evidentiary material on record if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more need be enquired into." (emphasis supplied) 7. It is obvious that at the stage of the framing of the charge the Court is not required to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused. At that stage, the Court is also not required to under take an elaborate enquiry in sifting and weighing the material. The Court is only to see whether there is such material on record, if generally accepted, would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. 8. Keeping the above principle in mind, now I proceed to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Against Hari Ram who was employee of the Bank, there is the statement of Shanker who was the owner of hotel. He states that about 2.30 and 3 p.m. three persons visited his hotel and one of them asked him to call Hari Ram from the Bank, informing him that Surendra was remembering him and thereafter he went to the Bank and gave message to Hari Ram who after some time came to his hotel and had a talk with three persons and after some time the occurrence took place. Shanker also states that when the occurrence took place and he rushed to the Bank, the miscreant who was caught by the persons, was the person who was sitting in his hotel alongwith two other persons and who had called Hariram. The circumstance, that Hari Ram went to the hotel on receiving the message that Surendra was remembering him and thereafter those very persons took part in looting of the Bank, prima facie shows that Hari Ram was in league with those persons. 10. It is true that some chilli powder was thrown at Hari Ram also but injury report shows that he had suffered injury of minor nature. It appears that Hari Ram was injured deliberately to create an impression that he was an innocent person. It is significant to point out that Hari Ram did not make an attempt to catch the culprits. It appears that Hari Ram was injured deliberately to create an impression that he was an innocent person. It is significant to point out that Hari Ram did not make an attempt to catch the culprits. It may be that he had suffered some irritation in his eyes but that would not have prevented the faithful servant to make efforts to save the property of the Bank. 11. As to Surendra, as already stated, there is the circumstances that Hari Ram was called by giving message that Surendra was remembering him. It is true that the test identification parade of Surendra has not been held in which Shanker might have identified him but the statement of co-accused, Umed Singh when he was caught, is a formidable circumstances against this accused. Umed Singh had told that Surendra Vyas was one of the two persons who had taken part in the robbery along with him. Apart from that it has also come on record that Surendra was having account in this very bank which was operated by him upto 1997. This shows that the Surendra was aware of the sitting and other arrangements of the bank. There is also material on record that this accused runs a shop and Hari Ram was his customer. It cannot be accepted that the aforesaid circumstances do not connect this accused with the crime. 12. The contention based on the case of Hari Charan (supra) that an accused cannot be convicted only on the basis of the confession of the co-accused may have some force but that cannot be a ground to discharge the accused, moreso when in the instant case there are other circumstances also which may connect the accused with the crime. In the case of Hari Charan (Supra) what has been held by the Apex Court is that first the Court should see whether there is other evidence on record or not and after it has formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt. This principle would be kept in mind by the Trial Court while deciding the case but at this stage it is not required to delve deep into those aspects as held by the Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad (supra). This principle would be kept in mind by the Trial Court while deciding the case but at this stage it is not required to delve deep into those aspects as held by the Apex Court in the case of Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad (supra). All that can be said at this stage is that the circumstances brought on record may reasonable connect the accused with the crime. 13. The case of Suresh Budharmal v. State of Maharashtra (supra) relates to an offence under the TADA Act. What has been held in that case is that while dealing with the question of framing charge the Court is required to concentrate its attention on the evidence which can be legally translated and not further evidence (dehors those materials that the prosecution may adduce in the trial). In the instant case we have considered only that material which has been collected during investigation. It cannot be denied that the evidence collected by the prosecution can be legally translated into evidence. Therefore, this ruling does not help the petitioners. 14. There is thus on merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The rsvision petitions are hereby dismissed.Revision Petition dismissed. *******