JUDGMENT : B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.:— This Criminal Case is directed against the order dated 12-12-2002 passed in Crl M.P. No. 19 of 2002 in C.C. No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam, whereby and where under the learned Judge allowed the application of A-3-Rodda Vasudeva Reddy filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and accordingly discharged A-3 Rodda Vasudeva Reddy from the charges levelled against him. 2. The facts of he case in brief leading to filing of this Criminal Revision Case are:— A-1 Smt Venna Gayathri Naga Kumari is Secretary of Cripples Paradise, Kankipadu, Krishna District. The Ministry of Social Justice, New Delhi, Government of India in order to implement the educational policy to disabled person, physically handicapped and mentally retarded through voluntary non-governmental organization rendered financial assistance under the scheme. The financial assistance in the shape of grant-in-aid would be given to the eligible voluntary organization/institution fulfilling eligibility conditions of the scheme for setting up special school and for up gradation of the existing special schools for the usually handicapped, speech and hearing handicapped and mentally handicapped, children. A-1 applied for grant-in-aid under the scheme for construction of school building estimated at the cost of Rs. 45,00,000/- maximum amount permissible under the scheme was Rs. 5,00,000/- It is alleged that A-3-Rodda Vasudeva Reddy issued a certificate certifying the cost of the proposed construction of a building at Rs. 5,00,000/- and value of stage of the construction of the building including materials at Rs. 2,00,000/- Basing on the certificate issued, by him, L.W. 53- Riyaz Ahmed Khan, Chartered Accountant issued utilization certificate. The said certificate was annexed to the application submitted by A-1 for release of the funds. Basing on the utilization certificate issued by L.W. 53 an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- came to be released, which A-1 withdrew through State Bank of India, Labbipet Branch Vijayawada, During the course of investigation by C.B. 1 it came to light A-1 to A-3 laid a conspiracy to misappropriate the funds granted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi and in pursuance of the conspiracy A-3 issued a false certificate, which A-1 made use of it and withdraw the funds. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before the Special Judge for C.B.I., cases, Visakhapatnam. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet came to be submitted before the Special Judge for C.B.I., cases, Visakhapatnam. The learned Special Judge took the charge sheet on file as C.C. No. 16 of 2001. Thereupon A-3 entered appearance and filed Crl.M.P. No. 19 of 2002 in C.C. No. 16 of 2001 seeking discharge. The learned Special Judge, on considering the material on record and on hearing A-3 and the prosecution allowed the application filed by A-3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and discharged him from the charges for the offences under Sections 120-B, 471 I.P.C. land Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 by order dated 12-12-2002 Hence, this Criminal Revision Case. 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Petitioner-complainant submits that the trial Judge went beyond the enquiry contemplated under Section 239 Cr. P.C. and virtually conducted roving enquiry on the material place on record and proceeded to record a finding that certificate issued by A-3 does not relate to the construction of the school building, for which grant had been obtained by A-1. He took me to the relevant portions in the impugned order. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Supdt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affair, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : AIR 1980 SC 52 , Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar, (2000) 5 SCC 623 : 2000 (2) ALT (Crl.) 126 (SC), State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 (2) ALT (Crl.) 288 (SC) and State of M.P. v. B. Johari, 2000 Crl.L.J. 944 : 2000 (1) ALT (Crl.) 207 (SC). In the 1st cited decision, the Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing the charges, the prosecution evidence does not commence. The Magistrate has therefore, to consider the question as to framing of charge on a general consideration of the materials placed before him by the investigating Police Officer. The standard, 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 S. 227 of 228. The standard, 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 S. 227 of 228. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material 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 charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence. 4. In the 2nd cited decision, the Supreme Court held that for a charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. there does not be direct evidence, but the same is required to be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence. Para 11 of he judgment needs to be noted and it is thus. “Thus criminal purpose in the matter cannot possibly be ruled out as against the appellant. The allegation pertaining to the factum of the habit of the Branch Manager, of receiving illegal gratification from Shri Ved Prakash Agarwal, however, by itself, in our view, may or may not be sufficient to bring home the charge of conspiracy but that by itself would not authorize the Court to call it a day in regard to the charge of conspiracy in the wake of the factual matrix of the situation at this stage of proceedings, Criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean harassment and in the event prosecution of this nature is allowed to be continued, it would not be in out view a travesty of justice or any undue prejudice or even otherwise prejudicial, since ultimately in the event of charge not proved, he would be acquitted. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents herein does disclose some material for scrutiny against the appellant, as such, we are unable to render any assistance to the appellant herein”. In the third cited decision the Supreme Court held that at the stage of framing charges evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Para 10 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “In all these cases, there were either statements of witnesses of seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence. Para 10 of the judgment needs to be noted and it is thus: “In all these cases, there were either statements of witnesses of seizure of illicit distilled liquor which factors cannot be said to be without relevance. Whether the material already in existence or to be collected during investigation would be sufficient for holding the accused persons concerned guilty has to be considered at the time of trial. At the time of framing the charge it can be decided whether prima facie case has been made out showing commission of an offence and involvement of the charged persons. At that stage also evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence Charge can be framed, if there are materials showing possibility about the commission of the crime against certainty. That being so, the interference at the threshold with the FIR is to be in very exceptional circumstances as held in R.P. Kapur and Bhajan Lal Cases, (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)”. 5. In the last cited case, it has been held by the Supreme Court that at the stage of framing charge, trial Court is not required to marshal materials on record but only has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient materials against accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent-A-3 submits that the certificate issued by the Respondent-A-3 is noway concerned with the construction of the school building for which grant in aid has been allowed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi. A further submission has been made that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and recorded a finding that there is no material to proceed against respondent-A-3 and accordingly discharged him and therefore the order passed by the trial Court is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered. A further submission has been made that the trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and recorded a finding that there is no material to proceed against respondent-A-3 and accordingly discharged him and therefore the order passed by the trial Court is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered. Much emphasis has been laid on para-6 of the impugned order, which reads as under:— “It is most important to note that in para-2 of Page-4 of the charge sheet, it is mentioned A-1 entered into Criminal Conspiracy with A-3 and in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy, A-3 had dishonestly and fraudulently given a false certificate to the effect that the proposed construction of RCC roof residential building for physically handicapped in the name of “Cripples Paradise situated in Kankipadu”. Krishna District was progressing and “proposed estimate of the construction was R-5 lakhs”. Total cost of construction and material purchased as on date was Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is clear from the said allegation even as per the prosecution, the certificate is for the proposed construction of RCC roof residential building for physically handicapped in the name of “Cripples Paradise situated in Kankipadu”, but they have not stated that A-3 has given certificate estimating the cost for construction of the school building at Punadipadu for which grant-in-aid was sought for by A-1. Further it is also most important to note that in the same para it is mentioned that the Cripples Paradise situated in Kankipadu, Krishna District and in the very next para of the same Page-4 of the charge sheet it is mentioned that there was no construction of school building at the land measuring 0.38 cents situated at Punadipadu Gram Panchayat Revenue jurisdiction under Survey No. 290/8B. That there is a 3 roomed basement level construction having 3 feet height from the land, which was evaluated as Rs. 25,644/- by the C.P.W.D. authorities. So according to the prosecution Cripples Paradise situated in Kankipadu as mentioned in para-2 at page-4 of the charge sheet and in para-3 of the same page of the charge sheet, they have stated that no construction of the school building in the land situated at Punadipadu. 25,644/- by the C.P.W.D. authorities. So according to the prosecution Cripples Paradise situated in Kankipadu as mentioned in para-2 at page-4 of the charge sheet and in para-3 of the same page of the charge sheet, they have stated that no construction of the school building in the land situated at Punadipadu. The certificate given by the Petitioner/A-3 relates to proposed construction of R.C.C. Roof residential building for physically Handicapped in the name of Cripple Paradise situated in Kankipadu, Krishna District and not at Punadipadu, where there was a three roomed basement level construction for which the C.P.W.D. authorities valued as Rs. 25,644/- and both are entirely different. One is nothing to do with the other School is at Kankipadu and 3 roomed basement level constriction is at Punadipadu and the certificate given by the Petitioner/A-3 shows it relates to the construction of the residential building is at Kankipadu.” 7. The accusation made against the respondent A-3 is that the issued a false certificate, which has been made use of by A-1 to claim grant-in-aid for construction of a School Building. The fact that the certificate issued by the respondent-A-3 has been used is evident from the statement of L.W. 53, who is a Chartered Accountant. He has specifically stated before the C.B.I. he issued utilization certificate based on the certificate issued by the respondent A-3. Much argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent A-3 that the said certificate relates to residential building and therefore, it cannot be connected to the School Building for which grant has been sanctioned by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. New Delhi. 8. The material placed on record disclosed that the certificate issued by the respondent A-3 had been used by A-1 to secure utilization certificate from L.W. 53. It is the specific case of the prosecution that no construction has been made on the premises in respect of which certificate had been issued by the respondent A-3. It is a matter to be gone into during the trial, whether the certificate issued by the respondent A-3 relates to the school building or a residential building. The charge sheet averments are clear that the certificate issued by the respondent A-3 has been pressed into service by A-1 to claim grant-in-aid. It is a matter to be gone into during the trial, whether the certificate issued by the respondent A-3 relates to the school building or a residential building. The charge sheet averments are clear that the certificate issued by the respondent A-3 has been pressed into service by A-1 to claim grant-in-aid. The averments of the charge sheet further reveal that there was no construction in respect of which the respondent A-3 had given certificate. The trial Court proceeded on the ground that the certificate issued by respondents A-3 relates to some other premise. There is no justification for the trial Court to draw such a conclusion. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court in discharging the respondent A-3 from the charges leveled against him is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order 12-12-2002 passed in Crl.M.P. No., 19 of 2002 in C.C. No. 16 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for CBI cases, Visakhapatnam and consequently Crl.M.P. No. 19 of 2002 filed by A-3 stands dismissed.