Judgment : VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) VIDE order dated 9/02/2000, the learned 2nd Asstt. Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, discharged the opp. party No. 2, Jai Prakash Singh, on the ground that sufficient material did not exist for proceeding against him in the trial, being session Trial No. 201/1999. The respondent No. 2. J. P. Singh, along with other accused persons were facing trial in the aforesaid sessions trial case for the offences under S. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 436 read with S. 120b and 34 I. P. C. During the course of trial, the opp. party No. 2 presented a petition in the trial Court for his discharge and it is on this application of opp. party No. 2 that the learned trial Court, by a detailed speaking order and on consideration of the material available, discharged the opp. party No. 2 holding that "there was no sufficient ground for proceeding" against him. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed the present revision application in this Court which, even though earlier was entertained and notice issued to the opp. party No. 2, was subsequently dismissed, vide order dated 12/01/2001. ( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. Vide judgment dated 1 9/10/2001, their Lordship of the Supreme Court, while setting aside the aforesaid order dated 1 2/01/2001 passed by this Court, directed that the High Court will dispose of the revision application afresh. ( 3 ) HEAR the learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken me through various portions and paras of the case diaries as also other material on record. Certain facts including the operation of the Bank Accounts, the preparation of the Demand Draft the trading with respect to the purchase and sale of Shares on line and the Demand Drafts being prepared /issued in the names of the certain persons connected with the opp. party No. 2, have also been brought to my notice. In my opinion, the existence of these facts in the case diaries, which constitute the material available on record, suggests that a case for discharging the opp. Party No. 2 was not made out. In my opinion, as far as the limited question of charging or discharging the opp. party No. 2, have also been brought to my notice. In my opinion, the existence of these facts in the case diaries, which constitute the material available on record, suggests that a case for discharging the opp. Party No. 2 was not made out. In my opinion, as far as the limited question of charging or discharging the opp. party No. 2 is concerned, the learned trial Court committed an error in discharging the opp. party No. 2 Sufficient material is available on record warranting the framing of the charge against the opp. party No. 2. ( 5 ) BEFORE quite conscious of the fact that the trial would be at its very threshold and that in this application, this Court is dealing with the limited aspect of the opp. party No. 2 being charged or being discharged, I am purposely and deliberately steering clear of making any positive assertions or even referring to certain aspects of the matter lest, any observations made by me, may prejudice the case of either of the parties or tend to influence the outcome of the trial. Whatever indirect observations I have made in the course of the this order are relatable only to the aforesaid limited aspect of interfering with the impugned order only to correct the illegality with respect to the opp. party No. 2. 6. For the foregoing reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside with all consequences. I wish to make it absolutely clear that no part of this order shall be construed as any expression of opinion of this Court with respect to any issue involved in the trial. The trial shall proceed in accordance with law and ultimate judgment shall be pronounced on the merits of the case. Application allowed. --- *** --- .