JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.1. 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 application filed 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. It is further alleged that aforesaid accused persons had fraudulently and dishonestly received aforesaid amount, by manipulating records of wages section and Computer Deptt. of FCI, Sindri Unit, in excess to their salaries. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the company had directed them to deposit the excess payment received by them. Thereafter, a fixed some of money was regularly deducted from their salary. The company had issued another letter to the petitioners directing to them to pay 17% interest on the excess amount paid to them. The petitioner moved before this 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 the petitioners 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. Dayal has further contended that the trial court has mechanically passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind. According to the allegation made in the First Information Report no criminal case is made out against them. Furthermore, none of the petitioners were from the accounts department or wage section nor it was their duty to prepare Input Attendance Adjustments, Basic Pay Adjustments, DA Adjustments and P.F. Adjustments. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioners have forged any documents to get the excess salary. 7. Mr. Furthermore, none of the petitioners were from the accounts department or wage section nor it was their duty to prepare Input Attendance Adjustments, Basic Pay Adjustments, DA Adjustments and P.F. Adjustments. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioners have forged any documents to get the excess salary. 7. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submits that the materials available or record shows that the petitioners have received excess payment for quite a long period i.e. January, 90 to August, 97 which shows that they were also parties to the criminal conspiracy and result of which F.C.I., Sindri Unit was cheated to the tune of Rs. 10,02,325.04. He 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 filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C. for discharging them from the charges leveled against them. 8. Mr. Kumar has further 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. 9. In this regard Mr. Kumar has relied upon a case reported in 2007(1) S.C.C. 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:- "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 Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused. 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. or illegality to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this revision application is dismissed. .