Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision application under Sections 397/40 of the Code of criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 18-2-2003 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 320/99 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the present petitioners for their discharge under Section 227 of Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) IT appears that the case was instituted against 26 accused persons and cognisance was taken by the C. J. M. , Dhanbad under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that all the accused persons dragged the husband of the informant from his house and killed him with deadly weapons. Before the framing of charge the petitioners who are amongst the accused persons filed an application for their discharge on the ground that no independent witnesses have supported the case and after investigation the investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet only against 11 accused persons and these petitioners were not sent up for trial. The court below considered the allegation made in the F. I. R. that the petitioners have also been named by the informant and also in the case diary the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and there are sufficient evidence against the petitioners for framing charges under Sections 147, 148. 149, 302, 120-B, I. P. C. ( 4 ) I have heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jawahar Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the State. ( 5 ) MR. Tiwari vehemently contended that these petitioners were not sent up for trial and it was only on the basis of protest petition the discharge petition was rejected. On the other hand, Mr. Jawahar Prasad submitted that investigation is still going on and there are sufficient materials available in the case diary for framing charge against these petitioners also. ( 6 ) AT this stage, the Court is not supposed to make a roving inquiry to find out whether these petitioners were not involved in the commission of crime. From perusal of the order, it appears that the husband of the informant has been brutally killed and prosecution story is supported by the statements recorded in the case diary. ( 6 ) AT this stage, the Court is not supposed to make a roving inquiry to find out whether these petitioners were not involved in the commission of crime. From perusal of the order, it appears that the husband of the informant has been brutally killed and prosecution story is supported by the statements recorded in the case diary. It has come in the case diary that the accused persons were detained by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station from which it is evident that the petitioners were present at the time of commission (commencement) of trial and, therefore, I am of the view that the Court below has not committed illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioners for their discharge. The order needs no interference. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reason, I do not find any merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, it is clarified that any expression or observation made in this order will not in any way prejudice the case of the petitioners and Court below shall proceed with the case and pass final judgment on the basis of the materials that may be brought by leading evidence. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .