ORDER The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this revision seeking to set aside the order of the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI cases, dated 3.5.2007 made in Crl.M.P. No. 190 of 2007 in C.C. No. 33 of 2007. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrayed as A13 and he is facing trial for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B , 420 I.P.C., and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that absolutely no material is available on record to implicate the petitioner herein and the alleged offence under sections Sections 120-B, 420 I.P.C. and other offences are not at all made out against the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that as far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has only issued cheques and the same was utilsied by the other co-accused and as such, the petitioner is not in anyway responsible or liable for any offence, much less the offence under Section 120-B and 420 I.P.C. and other offences as mentioned in the charge-sheet. 3. The learned senior counsel further contended that in view of the absence of specific allegations constituting the offence alleged, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of discharge. 4. Per contra, Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI cases, contended that there are serious allegations levelled against the petitioner herein. It is submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the charge against the petitioner is that the petitioner as A13, opened fictitious current accounts, viz. 50193 in the name of Thirumagal Fabrics, Salem, with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Gugai and 1794 in the name of Southern Textiles, Coimbatore, with Central Bank of India, Coimbatore. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that a charge of conspiracy is also levelled against the petitioner herein. It is contended that in pursuance of the conspiracy, A8 to A13, dishonestly and fraudulently issued 110 cheques, aggregating to Rs. 5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that a charge of conspiracy is also levelled against the petitioner herein. It is contended that in pursuance of the conspiracy, A8 to A13, dishonestly and fraudulently issued 110 cheques, aggregating to Rs. 79,92,534/- drawn on the above said fictitious accounts in favour of A3 to A6 and in pursuance of the conspiracy A3 to A6, knowing fully well that A8 to A13 are none other than their own employees and the accounts are fictitious and opened for the purposes of cheating, Canara Bank, Erode, dishonestly and fraudulently presented the cheques and got discounted and the proceedings were credited into their respective accounts and subsequently, withdrawn the same by the accused persons. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there are sufficient materials available on record to implicate the petitioner herein. 6. The learned Special Public prosecutor also relied on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa AIR 1996 SC 1744 : (1996) SCC (Crl) 820 : (1996) MLJ (Crl) 513 for the preposition that at the time of framing the charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge and other materials available on record. 8. It is seen that the petitioner has been arrayed as A13 out of 13 accused in this case. At the outset, it is to be stated that there are definite and specific allegations made against the petitioner herein to the effect that the petitioner has issued cheques in favour of the other co-accused, namely A3 to A6, and those accused are said to have misused the cheques and ultimately withdrawn the amount by way of discounting the bills and taken pecuniary advantage, thereby caused loss to the Banks. It is also seen, as pointed out by the learned Special Public prosecutor that there are certain specific allegations made against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A13, to the effect that the petitioner opened fictitious current account viz. It is also seen, as pointed out by the learned Special Public prosecutor that there are certain specific allegations made against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A13, to the effect that the petitioner opened fictitious current account viz. 50193 in the name of Thirumagal Fabrics with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Gugai and also fictitious current account No. 1794 in the name of the Southern Textiles, Coimbatore with Central Bank of India, Coimbatore. It is further alleged, as per the charge-sheet, that A8 to A13 dishonestly and fraudulently issued 110 cheques aggregating to Rs. 79,92,534/- drawn on the above alleged fictitious accounts in favour of A3 to A6. Further, conspiracy charge is also levelled against the petitioner herein and other accused. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (supra) the relevant portion of which reads as follows: “The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probate consequence a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage”. 10. Therefore, in view of the overwhelming materials available on record, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge, dismissing the petition for discharge. Therefore, this criminal revision case is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to raise all these points before the learned trial Judge and this Court is not expressing any opinion in respect of the probative value of the materials available on record at this stage. The learned trial Judge should not carry out any of the observations made by this Court in this order. Petition dismissed.