JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by accused petitioner Ramswaroop against the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by learned Special Judge, Decoity Affected Area, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 77/2006 whereby charges for the offences under sections 395, 396, 397, 302 & 460 IPC were framed against the accused petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the charge-sheet papers placed during the course of arguments. 3. It was inter alia contended that there is no iota of evidence against the accused petitioner and 'police filed the charge-sheet only on the basis of the manufactured statement of co-accused Rajkumar which alone cannot be made the basis of conviction of the accused petitioner. Reliance was placed on Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra, reported in JT 1998(6) SC 371 . It was then contended that trial court at the time of framing of the charge has not taken into consideration any material available on the record nor indicated in the impugned order as to what is the material against the accused petitioner for framing the charge. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that keeping in view the evidence collected by the investigating agency the trial court has rightly framed the charges. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is true that at the time of framing of the charge, it is not required for the trial court to minutely evaluate the material and evidence collected by the investigating agency but simultaneously it is also the duty of the court to take into consideration the material for arriving at the conclusion that there is grave suspicion and prima facie case is made out against the accused. The trial court while framing the charges, passed non-speaking order which reads as under: " fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd mi0A vfHk;qDrx.k jktdqekj o jke Lo:i oj tekur e; odhy mi0 cgl pktZ lquh x;hA izFke n`"V;k /kkjk 395] 396] 397] 302 ,oa 460 Hkk0n0la0 ds vijk/k dk vkjksi fojfpr fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj izdV gksrk gSA vr% mDr vkjksi fojfpr dj vfHk;qDrx.k dks 'kqekj o vifBr ryc gks] vfHk;qDrx.k us vijk/k vLohdkj dj vUoh{kk pkghA xokg 11] 12] 13] fn0 17-5-07 ds fy, rFkk lk{khx.k la0 15 o 19 dks fnukad 18-5-07 ds fy, lEeu ls ryc fd;s tkosA i=koyh okLrs lk{; vfHk;kstu fn0 16-5-07 dks is'k gksA " 6. From the impugned order, it does not appear that what material and 5 evidence inspired the court to frame the charges age 1. the accused petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of framing the charges against the accused petitioner Ramswaroop is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court with a direction to pass a fresh order in regard to framing of the charges against him in accordance to law.Revision allowed. *******