ORDER 1. All these five revision petitions are filed by the State against the order of discharge of accused Nos. 5 and 6 respondents herein in C.C. Nos. 8211/98, 8210/98 8212/98 by orders dated 14-2-2000 and 18-2-2000 passed by the 14th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore. 2. The main grounds urged by the State for discharging of respondents (accused Nos. 5 and 6) in respect of the cases are that there is no sufficient material placed on record by the prosecution to show that there is prima facie case to frame the charges against accused Nos. 5 and 6, who are responsible for misappropriation of foodgrains supply to various godowns without supplying those food grains weighing about 5672.13 quintals, worth Rs. 39,98,851-65, misappropriated by accused Nos. 1 to 5 with connivance of accused No. 6 viz., respondent in Crl. R.P. Nos. 337 and 360/00; the impugned order discharging of accused was illegal and erroneous. The materials collected by the prosecution show that there is material against accused persons and the trial Court erred in making a critical comment and saying that it is a cooked up matter. The accused No. 6 being the manager of K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore in connivance of accused Nos. 1 to 5 made accused persons to misappropriate and also directed to furnish fresh release order. Even though the earlier consignment entrusted to the accused Nos. 1 to 4 to transport the said consignment to the various godowns for distribution purpose was not done, the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in connivance with accused No. 6 committed misappropriation, thereby causing damage to the tune of Rs. 39,98,851-65. Hence this revision petition. 3. Brief facts leading to this case are that respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service Limited and accused No. 5 was working as an agent of accused Nos. 1 to 4 for getting a contract for transportation of food-grains from K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore. Whereas accused No. 6 was working as a District Manager of the K.F.C.S.C. for transportation of food-grains from the Food Corporation of India godown situated at White field and K. R. Puram to the sale points of K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore East. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for getting a contract for transportation of food-grains from K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore. Whereas accused No. 6 was working as a District Manager of the K.F.C.S.C. for transportation of food-grains from the Food Corporation of India godown situated at White field and K. R. Puram to the sale points of K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore East. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 in the connivance with accused No. 6 the respondent herein, with a dishonest intention of cheating the Corporation and misappropriating the rice entrusted to them for transportation, have lifted the stock of rice from the godown of Food Corporation of India at the instance of accused No. 6 and they have torn the truck sheets given by the F.C.I. and misappropriated the rice weighing about 5672.13 quintals worth Rs. 39,98,851-65 without delivering the said stock of rice to the whole sale points of K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore as per the contract of transportation and also they have furnished the false accounts to the Corporation and claimed the transportation charges and thus caused loss to the Corporation and thereby they have committed the criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the Corporation filed a complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 6, which includes respondents in the said five revision petitions. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint filed by the K.F.C.S.C., the S.J. Park Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 129/97 for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 407, 420, 477(A), 201 and 120(B) r/w S. 109, Indian Penal Code. 4. During the pendency of the said three criminal cases filed against accused Nos. 1 to 6, an application came to be filed by accused Nos. 5 and 6, Dhanpal and S. Nagaraja Murthy contending that they are in no way concerned with the alleged misappropriation of food grains entrusted to accused Nos. 1 to 4 to transport from K.F.C.S.C. godown to various distribution points. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the 14th Additional C.M.M., Bangalore discharged accused Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, the State has come up with this revision petition by stating that the impugned orders under challenge are illegal and incorrect. 5. Heard the arguments of learned High Court Government pleader for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondents. 6. During the course of arguments the learned High Court Government pleader submits that accused Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore, the State has come up with this revision petition by stating that the impugned orders under challenge are illegal and incorrect. 5. Heard the arguments of learned High Court Government pleader for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondents. 6. During the course of arguments the learned High Court Government pleader submits that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service Limited entered into a contract with K.F.C.S.C., Bangalore, to transport the food-grains and deliver them to the concerned godowns for distribution. He submits that though accused 5 being the agent of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in connivance with accused No. 6, with a dishonest intention cheated the Corporation and misappropriated, without delivering rice weighing about 5672.13 quintals and again approached accused No. 6 to issue fresh release order and accused No. 6 issued fresh release order. Therefore, the impugned order under challenge is nothing but a detailed discussion about merits and demerits of the case. While framing the charges, the learned Magistrate has to find out whether any prima facie case is made out to discharge the accused. In the instant case, no such attempt has been made by the trial Court to find out as to whether there is any material to proceed against accused persons framing the charges. There is prima facie materials placed on record. Hence, he prays for setting aside the orders of discharge made by 14th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore on 14-2-2000 and 18-2-2000. 7. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court was right in discharging accused No. 6 since he being the Manager of the K.F.C.S.C. was in no way connected with misappropriation. Further he submits that accused Nos. 1 to 5 being the transporters entered into an agreement with K.F.C.S.C. to transport food-grains from main godown to distribution points and there is no material to frame the charges against accused No. 6 for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 407, 420, 477(A), 201 and 120(B) r/w S. 209, Indian Penal Code. Further he contended that the statements of P.Ws. 11 to 13 are quite contrary to the further statement made by them. There is no whisper or any allegation made against accused 6 viz., S. Nagaraja Murthy, the manager of the K.F.C.S.C., that he had with the connivance of accused Nos. Further he contended that the statements of P.Ws. 11 to 13 are quite contrary to the further statement made by them. There is no whisper or any allegation made against accused 6 viz., S. Nagaraja Murthy, the manager of the K.F.C.S.C., that he had with the connivance of accused Nos. 1 to 5, and with a dishonest intention to cheat the Corporation, issued the alleged fresh release order to lift the food-grains once again from the godown of K.F.C.S.C. for transportation to various distribution points. He contended that the trial Court was right in recording the statements and further statements of P.Ws. 11 to 13 and other materials. Further, he submits that the statement made by co-accused is admissible in evidence and it cannot be made use of to frame charges against the co-accused. It is further submitted that K.F.C.S.C. has approached the arbitrator and accused Nos. 1 to 4 have already deposited the substantial amount towards cost of food-grains alleged to have been misappropriated without supplying food-grains to the distribution points. He further submits that in the instant case no such evidence has been placed on the complaint filed by the prosecution to show that accused No. 6 S. Nagaraja Murthy in connivance with the other accused persons dishonestly cheated the Corporation and misappropriated rice to the tune of 5672.13 quintals worth Rs. 39,98,851-65. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the criminal revision petition as there is neither incorrect nor illegal findings recorded by the trial Court in discharging the accused Nos. 5 and 6. 8. I have carefully examined the materials placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that accused No. 6 S. Nagaraja Murthy is none other than the manager of K.F.C.S.C. at the relevant point of time. It is also undisputed fact that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the partners of M/s. Vijayalakshmi Lorry Service Limited, whereas accused No. 5 is an agent of accused Nos. 1 to 4. In the instant case the agreement was entered into between accused Nos. 1 to 4 and the Corporation for proper supply of food-grains from K.F.C.S.C. to various distribution centers. It is a fact that 5762.13 quintals of rice worth Rs. 39,98,851-65 has not been delivered at all to the concerned distribution centers. Whereas accused Nos. 1 to 5 approached the Corporation for transportation charges. 1 to 4 and the Corporation for proper supply of food-grains from K.F.C.S.C. to various distribution centers. It is a fact that 5762.13 quintals of rice worth Rs. 39,98,851-65 has not been delivered at all to the concerned distribution centers. Whereas accused Nos. 1 to 5 approached the Corporation for transportation charges. At that point of time, it was brought to the knowledge of the complainant that accused Nos. 1 to 6 misappropriated 5672.13 quintals of rice entrusted to them. Since accused No. 5 was acting as an agent of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused No. 6, at whose instance only loaded the said rice weighing about 6572.13 and lifted from central godown of K.F.C.S.C. to the distribution centers. But in the instant case, accused Nos. 1 to 4 with a dishonest intention and in connivance with accused No. 6 tried to settle the first release order from the office. Even though earlier stock has not been distributed but claimed the transportation charges. Of course further statements of C.Ws. 11 to 13 disclose that at the relevant point of time accused No. 6 was a manager in K.F.C.S.C. godown, whereas accused No. 5, Dhanpal was acting as an agent of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and accused No. 6. The further statements of C.Ws. 11 to 13 disclose that accused Nos. 1 to 5 actually lifted the said quantity of rice worth Rs. 39,98,851-65 but not delivered. The prima facie evidence discloses that accused Nos. 1 to 5 in connivance with accused No. 6 who being the responsible officer of the K.F.C.S.C. allowed the accused to transport food-grains, again accused Nos. 1 to 4 tried to secure fresh release order of food-grains. Further statement of witnesses discloses that there is prima facie case to frame charges against accused persons. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, reported in 1979 Crl LJ 154 : ( AIR 1979 SC 366 ) held as follows (para 10) : The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under S. 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. 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. 9. Detailed discussions need not be made while framing the charges. Of course the benefit of doubt arises only when there is serious suspicion with regard to the case of the prosecution. In the instant case the subsequent payment, if any, made by accused Nos. 1 to 6 on the basis of the agreement entered into between the K.F.C.S.C. authorities will not absolve the criminal liability. When there is prima facie material to proceed against accused persons to frame the charges, if there is any variation in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses before the I.O. that need not be elaborately discussed. The prosecution is allowed to prove the guilt of the accused during trial. The strong suspicion against the accused if not properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. But if there is strong suspicion it leads the Court to think that there are grounds to assume that the accused has committed offences. Accused No. 6 being the responsible officer of K.F.C.S.C. directed the subordinates to issue fresh release order in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 5 to transport the food-grains. 10. Therefore, the material placed on record clearly discloses that the trial Court has wrongly come to the conclusion that disregarded the evidence. The impugned order under challenge is in the form of judgment/order. Therefore, it can be said that the impugned order is illegal and incorrect. Accordingly, the order of discharge passed by the 14th Additional C.M.M. in C.C. Nos. 8211/98, 8210/98, 8212/98 dated 14-2-2000 and 18-2-2000, discharging accused Nos. 5 to 6 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to frame the charges against all the accused persons in the aforesaid case. 11. Accordingly, revision petitions are allowed. It is further directed that the trial Court shall dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order shall not influence the Court while disposing of the criminal cases filed against the accused persons. 12. Petitions allowed