U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 19-11-1990 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra in Sessions Trial No. 195 of 1985 discharging opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9 of the charges under Sections 395, 397, 307, 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, I. P. C. and framing charges only under Sections 307 and 324, I. P. C. against opposite parties Nos. 10 and 11. ( 2 ) THE fact of the case giving rise to this revision, briefly stated, was that Pancham Singh, father of applicant Dambar Singh and Jorawar Singh, father of opposite party Kamod Singh, were real brothers. They had another brother Amiri Singh. Jorawar Singh, father of opposite party Kamod Singh died in the year 1961. Thereafter, Amiri Singh died issueless in the year 1973. Property of Amiri Singh was inherited by Pancham Singh, father of applicant Dambar Singh being real brother of Amiri Singh as his other brother Jorawar Singh father of Kamod Singh died prior to him. Kamod Singh also claimed half share in the property of Amiri Singh. Since Dambar Singh was not ready to give him above share, opposite party Kamod Singh filed Civil Suit No. 280 of 1982 in the Court of Munsif, Fatehabad. In the above suit, an injunction order was also passed. However, the above injunction order was allegedly wilfully disobeyed and therefore Kamod Singh filed Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 1983 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. in which learned Munsif passed order of attachment on 17-2-1982 and appointed Commissioner to execute the order. The Commissioner came to the spot with police force on 31-3-1984 at 2. 30 p. m. for affecting attachment. ( 3 ) THE Commissioner executed the order of attachment and took item of ornaments and jewellery in custody and prepared memo of attachment. Applicant Dambar Singh refused to sign the above document. Since, Dambar Singh or Kamod Singh failed to provide a supurdgar, therefore Commissioner left the spot with the attached ornaments to be deposited in the Court. When he reached at the house of Natthi Lal, Dambar Singh along with six or seven persons came there and Dambar Singh and Ranvir Singh snatched the attached articles from the Commissioner. The other 5-6- persons started throwing brick bats. Dambar Singh also fired, which hit Sobran Singh and others. When he reached at the house of Natthi Lal, Dambar Singh along with six or seven persons came there and Dambar Singh and Ranvir Singh snatched the attached articles from the Commissioner. The other 5-6- persons started throwing brick bats. Dambar Singh also fired, which hit Sobran Singh and others. The Advocate Commissioner lodged written report of the said incident at P. S. Iradat Nagar on same day at 4. 45 P. M. against Dambar Singh, Ran Veer Singh and 5-6 unknown persons. On investigation a charge sheet was submitted by the police under Section 396, I. P. C. and Special Sessions Trial No. 198 of 1984 was registered. ( 4 ) APPLICANT Dambar Singh lodged a report at P. S. Iradat Nagar, district Agra with the allegations that on 31-3-1984 at about 4 P. M. when he returned to his house, he saw that the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 committed dacoity in his house and looted 40 tolas gold and Rs. 25,000. 00 cash. The complaint objected opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 and they came on the Chabutara of Natthi, where they started beating him with lathi and Pharsa. Kamod Singh had pistol, Om Prakash, Sobran Singh and others had country made pistols. The opposite parties fired from their respective arms. On the basis of first information report, the police registered a case and investigated the same. After investigation, the police submitted final report on 30-5-1984 as no case of dacoity was made out. On filing of the final report S. P. (Rural Area) directed fresh investigation on 15-6-1984. The I. O. found that case under Sections 147, 323, 324, 307, I. P. C. was made out and submitted charge sheet under said Sections. S. P. (Rural Area) again did not agree with the above report of the I. O. and on 19-2-1985 directed further investigation by S. I. S. Again the S. I. S. reported that no case under Section 395/397 or 147, 323, 324, 307, I. P. C. was made out and it submitted final report. The applicant filed protest petition, which was rejected by the Judge and final report was accepted on 7-6-1985. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the applicant filed complaint against opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 147, 148, 395, 397, 307, 302, 323, 329, I. P. C. on 17-6-1985 before the special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area ). The applicant filed protest petition, which was rejected by the Judge and final report was accepted on 7-6-1985. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the applicant filed complaint against opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 147, 148, 395, 397, 307, 302, 323, 329, I. P. C. on 17-6-1985 before the special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area ). The applicant examined himself under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and 14 witnesses under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) on considering above evidence summoned the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 under Section 395/397, I. P. C. ( 6 ) THE accused persons of the S. T. No. 198 of 1984 including the applicant filed revision before the High Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 15-12-1986. Thereafter, they went in S. L. P. before Honble Supreme Court, which was disposed of with the direction that the Trial Court would adopt fair procedure in the matter in the cross cases and the same Judge shall try both the cases one after the other. After recording of evidence in one case is completed, he must hear the arguments, but he must reserve the judgment. Thereafter, he must proceed to hear the cross case and after recording evidence he must hear the arguments to reserve the judgment in that case. The same Judge must thereafter dispose of matters by two separate judgments. In deciding each of the cases, he can rely only on the evidence recorded in that particular case. The evidence recorded in cross case cannot be looked into. ( 7 ) WHEN the S. T. No. 195 of 1985, out of which this revision arose came up for framing charges, the learned special Judge on hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering evidence before it as well as submissions and documents of opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 came to the conclusion that opposite party Kamod Singh and Om Prakash are liable to be charged under Sections 307, 324, I. P. C. and rest of the accused opposite parties namely Natthi Lal, Chaturbhuj, Ramnath, Jaswant, Baboo, Khooba, Hira and Madho are entitled to be discharged as there was no sufficient evidence against any of them. With these findings he framed charges under Sections 324 and 307, I. P. C. against accused opposite parties Kamod Singh and Om Prakash and discharged other opposite parties Nos. With these findings he framed charges under Sections 324 and 307, I. P. C. against accused opposite parties Kamod Singh and Om Prakash and discharged other opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9 by the impugned order dated 19-11-1990. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED with the above order, the applicant has come up in this revision. ( 9 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. as none appeared from the side of opposite parties and perused the record. ( 10 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned special Judge had discharged opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9 and had framed lesser charges against opposite parties Nos. 10 and 11, on the basis of evidence available on record, but at the stage of S. 226/227, Cr. P. C. a meticulous examination of the statement of the witnesses, which exists in the case diary is not permissible because the opinion, which is to be formed at the time of trial will necessarily depend upon the statement of the witnesses to be made in the Court. That at the stage of framing charge, the Judge has to only see whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Judge shall discharge the accused only if there was no ground for proceeding against him. Therefore, the learned special Judge has acted beyond his jurisdiction in discharging opposite parties Nos. 2 to 9 by meticulous examination of the evidence. Reliance was also placed on single Judge decision of this Court in Kamal Singh v. Reshma Singh, (1990) 27 ACC 513 : (1991 All LJ 479 ). ( 11 ) THE scope and ambit of the consideration by the Trial Court at the stage of Ss. 226, 227 and 228, Cr. 2 to 9 by meticulous examination of the evidence. Reliance was also placed on single Judge decision of this Court in Kamal Singh v. Reshma Singh, (1990) 27 ACC 513 : (1991 All LJ 479 ). ( 11 ) THE scope and ambit of the consideration by the Trial Court at the stage of Ss. 226, 227 and 228, Cr. P. C. was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra, Bhimraj, Bijja, 1990 Cri LJ 1869 and after considering the law on the subject, the Apex Court approved the following observation laid down in Prafulla Kumar Shamals case 1979 Cri LJ 154 :- (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (5) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which (sic) under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and document produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. " ( 12 ) THE following observations of the Apex Court in Supdt. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. " ( 12 ) THE following observations of the Apex Court in Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 were also approved :"the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. " ( 13 ) THE Apex Court also considered this point in recent decision in Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 AIR SCW 146 and again approved the principle laid down in Prafulla Kumar Samals case (supra) as below :-"in exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence from the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial" ( 14 ) IF the facts and evidence as appeared before the Special Judge in this case are considered in the light of above decisions of the Apex Court, it would appear that according to report lodged by Advocate Commissioner Jai Vir Singh Yadav and order of attachment in Miscellaneous Case No. 39 of 1983 was passed against the applicant Dambar Singh for attachment of the jewellery etc. lying in his house. The Commissioner along with police force came to the spot on 31-3-1984 at 2. lying in his house. The Commissioner along with police force came to the spot on 31-3-1984 at 2. 30 p. m. made attachment took into the custody jewellery and prepared Farda, Kurki. The applicant Dambar Singh, who was present on the spot refused to sign the attachment memo (Fard Kurki ). Since the parties could not provide any reliable supurdgar, the Advocate Commissioner was taking the jewellery etc. with him to be deposited in Court. When he reached in front of house of Natthi Lal. Dambar Singh, Ranvir Singh along with 5 and 6 persons came there snatched jewellery and started throwing brick bats. Dambar Singh fired, which hit Sobran Singh. On the basis of above report a case under Section 396, I. P. C. was registered against the applicant and others, which was cross case of the present case. It is also clear that report lodged by applicant was investigated thrice, twice by local police and once by S. I. S. , and all the investigation reports showed that case under Sections 395, 397, I. P. C. was false and no dacoity as alleged by the applicant had taken place. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of above evidences, which he was authorised to consider at the stage of framing charges rightly concluded that there was no ground for proceeding further against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 395, 397, I. P. C. ( 15 ) REGARDING offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307 and 324 read with S. 149, I. P. C. the learned special Judge also found that since the evidence on record showed that no dacoity had taken place and incident took place otherwise as indicated in the report of Commissioner, Jai Vir Singh Yadav, the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 cannot be said to be members of unlawful assembly and therefore, individual act of Kamod Singh and Om Prakash was taken into consideration. The facts and circumstances of the case narrated above clearly indicated that opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 were not members of unlawful assembly and if they appeared on the spot, they came only to see the proceeding being conducted by the Commissioner. The facts and circumstances of the case narrated above clearly indicated that opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 were not members of unlawful assembly and if they appeared on the spot, they came only to see the proceeding being conducted by the Commissioner. Therefore, they cannot be held liable with the aid of Section 149 regarding the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324, I. P. C. However, on the basis of their individual act, the opposite party Kamod Singh and Om Prakash were rightly charged under Sections 307 and 324, I. P. C. ( 16 ) REGARDING offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, I. P. C. the learned special Judge had also taken into consideration that the factum regarding death of Sobran Singh on account of fire arm injury in the same incident was not mentioned in the report lodged by applicant Dambar Singh while it was mentioned in the report lodged by the Commissioner that Dambar Singh fired, which hit Sobran Singh. It was also noticed that the fact of causing death of Sobran Singh by fire arm injury was introduced for the first time in the complaint, which was filed subsequently after one year and 7 months of the occurrence. Therefore, the conclusion of the special Judge that there was no ground to proceed further against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 11 under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. was justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record. ( 17 ) IN this way, there appears no ground to interfere with the order under revision, as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in it and it cannot be said that the learned special Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. The revision having no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .