JUDGMENT Arguments heard. By order dated 30th May, 2001 the learned J.M.F.C. Jabalpur framed charge against this petitioner in Criminal Case No. 1989/2000 for an offence punishable u/s 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC, which is in challenge in this revision. It is submitted by Shri Sharma that the investigation agency proceeded on taking this fact to be true that in U.S., a Limited Company cannot be constituted whereas it is permissible under the law in that State and a certificate in this respect is already received and submitted in Court at the time of framing of charge but the learned J.M.F.C. did not take that certificate into account. It is also submitted by Shri Sharma that even the papers submitted on behalf of defence may be considered at the time of framing of charge. In support of this argument, Shri Sharma has drawn the Court's attention in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration, reported in (I 996) 9 SCC page 766, wherein it is found dictated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that - "If the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material at that stage which might fatally affect even the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material shall be looked into by the Court at that stage. Here the 'ground' may be any valid ground including insufficiency of evidence to prove the charge." Their Lordships were considering the stage of framing of charge, while dictating the aforesaid opinion. A perusal of impugned order reveals that the papers on which the petitioner wanted the Court to rely were not found worth reliance and the learned J.M.F.C. opined that the genuineness of these documents would be tested on taking the evidence. Therefore, I neither find any illegality nor any impropriety been committed by the learned J.M.F.C., in framing the charge against this petitioner, on the basis of material available before him at the time of framing of charge and hence this petition does not merit, which is accordingly disallowed and rejected.