( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against order dated 6. 8. 2007 passed in crl. M. P. No. 68 of 2007 in S. C. No. 339 of 2006 on the file of Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast track Court) at L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 227 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the accused No. 1 in S. C. No. 339 of 2006. He along with the another accused person was charge sheeted for the offence under Sections 489 (B) and 420 IPC. The case against the petitioner/a-1 is that he purchased Ac. 3-16 guntas of land from A-2 for Rs. 3,00,000/- and paid certain amount as advance. He paid Rs. 2,00,000/- on 28. 8. 2005 and Rs. 1,50,000/- on 25. 9. 2005. Accused no. 2-Ashok Reddy opened the S. B Account No. 22988 in Andhra Bank, B. N. Reddy Nagar branch and deposited the amount. On verification, the currency deposited by him was found to be fake. Thereupon, the Branch Manager presented a report before s. H. O. , Vanastalipuram P. S. The S. H. O received the report and registered a case in Crime No. 544 of 2005 under Sections 489 (B) and 420 IPC and took up investigation. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayatnagar. The learned Metropolitan magistrate committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Ranga Reddy district. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file as S. C. No. 339 of 2006. The petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 68 of 2007 under Section 227 Cr. P. C seeking to discharge. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the petitioner, before the Sessions Court, that the material brought on record is not sufficient to frame charges against him for the offence under Sections 489 (B) and 420 IPC, and therefore, he is entitled to be discharged. It was also contended before the learned Sessions judge that except the confessional statement of A-2, there is no other evidence to frame charges against him. The learned Sessions Judge did not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioner and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 6. 8. 2007. It was also contended before the learned Sessions judge that except the confessional statement of A-2, there is no other evidence to frame charges against him. The learned Sessions Judge did not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the petitioner and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the petition by order dated 6. 8. 2007. The said order is under challenge in this revision. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-A-1 and the learned additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that except the confessional statement of the co-accused, i. e. , A-2, there is no other evidence against the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner deserves to be discharged for the offences under Sections 489 (B) and 420 IPC. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on a decision of Madras High Court in selvan @ Rathinapandian v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, 1996 (4) Crimes 186 and a decision of the apex Court in State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/sit v. Nalini and others, 1999 (2) Crimes 59 (SC)In the first cited decision, the Madras High Court held that it is unsafe to frame a charge against an accused solely upon the basis of a confession made by one of the co-accused during investigation. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is enough material against the petitioner-A-1 to frame charges under Sections 489 (B) and 420 IPC and therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge. ( 8 ) IT may be mentioned that the settled legal position in Union of India v. Major J. S. Khanna, 1973 SCC (Crl.) 94 state of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, 1996 SCC (Crl.) 820 and L. Chandraiah v. State of A. P,2005 SCC (Crl.) 825. is that, if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can be decided in the trial. ( 9 ) THE accusation made against the petitioner is that he gave fake currency to Ashok Reddy/a-2 towards sale consideration, and A-2, in turn, deposited the said currency into the bank. Ultimately, the bank officials detected the notes as fake currency and initiated proceedings. The statement of bank officials would show that it is A-2, who deposited the fake currency. It is the statement of A-2 that he received the money from A-1 towards sale consideration. ( 10 ) IT is not disputed by the petitioner at this stage with regard to the sale transaction between him and A-2. The statement of witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. P. C and the other material brought on record give rise to grave suspicion with regard to the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offences for which he has been challaned in Crime No. 544 of 2005. Therefore, it is not a fit case to discharge the accused. The trial court considered the material brought on record in the right perspective and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 227 Cr. P. C. ( 11 ) I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the order of the trial Court warranting interference under Section 397 (1) and 401 Cr. P. C. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission.