Order Jaya Roy, J.--Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. 2. The petitioners have filed the instant revision application against the order dated 24.7.2009 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner's application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is rejected. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that a credible information has been received through a reliable source that during January 90 to August' 97 the petitioners alongwith other persons of the Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), Sindri Unit entered into a criminal conspiracy amongst themselves to cheat the FCI, Sindri and its officials in pursuance to which they cheated to the tune of Rs. 10,02,325.04 with corresponding wrongful gains to aforesaid accused persons and corresponding loss to FCI, Sindri Unit. 4. Mr. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that the court below has passed the impugned order mechanically without application of judicial mind. There is no material to show that the petitioners have their hands in any manner in the matter of excess payment to the co-accused. It is further contended that even no departmental inquiry was made against the petitioners. 5 It is also submitted that the other co-accused who had received the excess payment were directed by the company to deposit the said amount and accordingly some money was regularly deducted from their salary. The company had also issued another letter to the said co-accused directing them to pay 17% interest on the excess amount paid to them. The said persons moved before the Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 908 of 2008 challenging the aforesaid letter. Ultimately when they moved before the Hon'ble Apex Court in this matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court disposed their case, holding that no interest shall be recovered from them on the excess amount paid to them which admittedly refunded to the corporation. Thus, the interest part is waived by the Apex Court. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that the trial court after perusal of the materials, has found that during the period from January 90 to August 97 the petitioners were posted in their respective capacities in FCI, Sindri Unit, District-Dhanbad on the following post:- (i) Sinoy Shushan Prasad Singh-The then Jr. Accounts Officer (W), in the wages section of F.C.I., Sindri. (ii) Udbir Singh-The then Asstt. Accounts Officer (W), in the wages section of F.C.I., Sindri. (ii) Udbir Singh-The then Asstt. Accountant in the wages section of F.C.I., Sindri. (iii) Sraj Kishore Prasad-The then Asstt. Office Supdt., in the wages section of FCI, Sindri. (iv) Prashant Kumkar Choudhary-The then Technical Grade-I/Operator Grade-III/II Power House, in the wages section of FCI, Sindri. 7. It has further come the aforesaid petitioners including other co-accused were parties to criminal conspiracy and the petitioners by abusing their respective official position during the aforesaid period i.e. January 90 to August 97, by way of manipulating the record of the wages section and the computer section of FCI Sindri, cheated the Fertilizer Corporation of India (FCI), Sindri Unit to the tune of Rs. 10,02,325.04/-. 8. Mr. Kumar has further submitted that the trial court after considering the materials available on record has come to a finding that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners and rejected the petitioner's application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the charges leveled against them. 9. Mr. Kumar has argued that according to the Section 239 Cr.P.C. Magistrate shall record his reason only when he will consider the charge against the accused to be groundless and discharge the accused. In this regard Mr. Kumar has relied upon a case reported in 2007(1) SCC 49 [: 2007(1) JLJR (SC)224], Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar through CBI (AHD), Patna in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:- "E...The question relating to forming of an opinion at the time of framing of charge is different from a case of recording of reasons on the basis of which an order of discharge of the accused may be passed. The moment the order of discharge is passed it is imperative to record the reasons. But for framing of charge the court is required to form an opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence. In case of discharge of the accused the use of the expression "reasons" has been inserted in Sections 227, 239 and 245 Cr.P.C. At the stage of framing of a charge the expression used is "opinion". The reason is obvious. If the reasons are recorded in case of framing of charge, there is likelihood of prejudicing the case of the accused put on trial. The reason is obvious. If the reasons are recorded in case of framing of charge, there is likelihood of prejudicing the case of the accused put on trial. The Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused. But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge. But where the question of jurisdiction is raised and the trial court is required to adjudicate that issue, it cannot be said that reasons are not to be recorded. In such a case reasons relate to question of jurisdiction and not necessarily to the issue relating to framing of charge. In such a case reasons dealing with a plea relating to jurisdiction have to be recorded... (Paras 13, 15 and 16)." 10. On an overall consideration and on appreciation of the materials on records, I do not find any error on illegality to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly this revision application is dismissed.