Judgment :- (Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to call for records concerning order dated 9.6.2005 passed in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2005 in S.C.No.25 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Judge No.III, Madurai and discharge the petitioners from the charge framed against them under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.) The petitioners/accused have come forward with this Criminal Revision Case to quash the impugned order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court Judge No.III, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.53 of 2005 in S.C.No.25 of 2005 in so far as the charge under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is concerned. 2. The petitioners instituted the above said proceedings before the Court below to discharge them from the said charge on the ground that there is no material available on record so as to frame the charge under the said provision of law as against the petitioners. 3. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court Judge No.III, Madurai having considered the submissions made by both sides passed the considered order in the above said proceedings on 9.6.2005 and hence the Criminal Revision Case. 4. Heard Mr.T.K.Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Muthukaruppan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent. 5. It is admitted that the above said proceedings had been initiated by the petitioner before the Court below after the charges were framed against them and therefore the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the petition to discharge the petitioners after the charges were framed is not maintainable in law. 6. In this context, it is relevant to extract, Section 227 Cr.P.C. to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and it reads as under: - "227. Discharge.-- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing." 7. Discharge.-- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for so doing." 7. But, on the contrary, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision, RATILAL BHANJI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( AIR 1979 S.C. 94 ), for the position that after framing of the charges (vide) Section 228 Cr.P.C., the Court has no power to discharge the accused. The ratio of the said decision reads as under:- "Once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under Section 227 or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 253 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of charge if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in Sections 254 to 258 to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, and thereafter, he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Sections 349 and 562 of the Code of 1898 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973)." 8. On a careful reading of the above provisions of law in the light of the ratio laid down in AIR 1979 S.C. 94 , this Court is of the view that the petition for discharge filed after framing of the charges before the court below is not maintainable under the said provisions of law. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since there is no iota of incriminating material available on record, the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge that a prima facie case under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act has been made out against the petitioners cannot be sustained. 9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since there is no iota of incriminating material available on record, the finding rendered by the learned Sessions Judge that a prima facie case under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act has been made out against the petitioners cannot be sustained. But, on the contrary, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned order wherein the learned Sessions Judge held in this context as follows: - "The grounds alleged by the petitioners/accused are that this is a private complaint in respect of alleged destruction of private property and that the charge as framed is not sustainable. This court is unable to accept the above contention. As the Section is very clear which says any property will come under the definition of property, the charge as framed under Section 3(1) of the said Act is on the basis of prima facie case. Hence, it is open to the prosecution to adduce evidence at the time of trial about the context in which the private property was destroyed. Just because it is a private property, it cannot be an impediment to the prosecution to its proof how the provision is applicable to this case. Hence, the petition is dismissed." 10. Further as has been rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the learned Sessions Judge had an occasion to examine the materials available on record in this case and to evaluate the materials and documents with a view to find out if the facts emerging there from prima facie constitute the necessary ingredients for framing of the charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and thereafter held while the charges were framed against the petitioners that the said charge under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act was prima facie supported by necessary materials and documents available on record. 11. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) in his further argument, the petitioners did not pursue their remedy to discharge them from the said charge at the earliest opportunity while the charges were framed against them, but they filed the petition only 11 days thereafter before the Court below. 11. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) in his further argument, the petitioners did not pursue their remedy to discharge them from the said charge at the earliest opportunity while the charges were framed against them, but they filed the petition only 11 days thereafter before the Court below. Again the learned Sessions Judge having perused the materials and documents available on record came to the conclusion that prima facie the said charge was made out at that stage of the proceedings. Hence, in any view of the aspect of the matter, according to him, the impugned order cannot be questioned by the petitioners. After careful consideration of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below was correct in holding that there were sufficient ingredients emerging from the materials and documents available on record to justify the charge against the petitioners under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. Thus, finding no illegality in the impugned order, the same is sustained. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.3610 of 2005 is closed.