JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Heard. 2. Order dated 24.9.1998 in S.T. Case No. 419 of 1998 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. Jagatsinghpur is under challenge in this Criminal Revision. 3. Admittedly, petitioners are the accused persons in the said sessions case and they claimed for discharge u/s 227 Code of Criminal Procedure by filing such an application in the Court below on 23.9.1998. As per the impugned order learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected their application precisely on the ground that charge was framed in 21.9.1998 and the case was adjourned to several dates for hearing, as provided in Section 230, Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter the application filed u/s 227 Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. 4. In course of hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to an earlier order passed by this Court on an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 4463 of 1997 moved by the petitioners claiming for quashing the criminal proceeding. In that respect Hon'ble Shri Justice R.K. Dash (as His Lordship then was) passed the following order: 7. 12.3.98. This matter was not in today's list. On being mentioned before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the same has come to me for admission. Heard. Perused the impugned order. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record has come to hold that there is prima tacie evidence against the accused persons, petitioners herein about their alleged involvement in the incident punishable u/s 498-A. 304-B read with 34 I.P.C. and 4 of D.P. Act. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and on going through the impugned order, I do not find anything to take a' contrary view and quash the proceeding in exercise of power u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure in the result the Crl. Misc. Case fails and the same is dismissed. it appears from the said order that petitioner's contention regarding absence of prima tacie case was negatived by this Court. Be that as it may, at the stage under Sections 227/228, Code of Criminal Procedure. there is nothing on record to show that petitioners claimed for discharge. Therefore, after framing of charge when the case went to the stage of trial, as is found from the lower Court's order, learned Addl. Be that as it may, at the stage under Sections 227/228, Code of Criminal Procedure. there is nothing on record to show that petitioners claimed for discharge. Therefore, after framing of charge when the case went to the stage of trial, as is found from the lower Court's order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge was right in his approach in rejecting that application being not maintainable at such stage. Apart from that, from the contention advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners this Court finds that more or less a plea of innocency coupled with the plea of alibi is the prime plea which the petitioners advance. Such plea cannot be ascertained at the stage u/s 227, Code of Criminal Procedure. or till the evidences are completely recorded! Under such circumstance this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order and no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed. Consequentially the stay order vide order No. 3 dated 3.11.1998 in Misc. Case No. 618 of 1998 stands vacated. Intimate the lower Court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, because it relates to an occurrence of the year 1994. Send back the L.C.R. immediately to the Court below and ensure its reaching there within three weeks hence