Judgment 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25-1-1999, rendered by the Court of Sessions Judge, ambala, vide which it discharged the accused, on the ground that no prima facie case was made out for framing the charge. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 10-10-1998 at about 11.30 p. m. a secret information was received by the Police party that the accused (now respondents) armed with iron rods and swords (Kripans), were sitting under the Kikkar trees, on the southern side of Jamitgarh road, near the land of one Gola ram Jhiwar and, if a raid was conducted, they could be caught redhanded. Thereafter, the Police party went to the disclosed place, and apprehended Balwinder Singh alias Vijay, armed with an iron rod (Sabbal), charanjit Singh alias Kala, armed with a stick (danda) and Naresh Pal, armed with a sword. Randhir Singh alias Dheera, accused, however, managed to escape. Rough sketches of the weapons, aforesaid, were prepared and the same were taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. All the accused, aforesaid, except Randhir singh alias Dheera, accused well arrested. Lateron, Randhir Singh @ Dheera, accused was also arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challared. 3. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused were supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. 4. On receipt of the case by commitment, the Court of Sessions Judge, on perusal of the record, and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion, that no prima facie case for the offences, punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the indian Penal Code, was made out, and accordingly discharged the accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the State of Haryana revision-petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents placed, on record. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, at the time of consideration of charge, the Court below was not required to go deep into the merits of the case. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents placed, on record. 7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that, at the time of consideration of charge, the Court below was not required to go deep into the merits of the case. She further submitted that the Court below, was only required to go through the report under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded during the course of investigation, to come to the conclusion, as to whether, a prima facie case, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out or not. She further submitted that even strong suspicion, against the accused, could be said to be sufficient, to frame charge. She, however, submitted that, in the statements, recorded under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, none of the witnesses, stated that the accused were planning to commit dacoity. She further submitted that even it was not mentioned in these statements, as to which offence, they were planning to commit. She further submitted that the order impugned, being perverse, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, warranting interference with the order impugned, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The accused, no doubt, were apprehended, on the basis of secret information. A stick (danda), a gandasi, an iron rod (sabbal) and a sword were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, when they were allegedly apprehended, while sitting under the Kikkar trees. Harbhajan Singh, Tarsem lal, Prem Pal, Sub Inspector and Puran chand, Assistant Sub Inspector, in their statements recorded under Sec.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not state even a single word, that the accused were planning to commit dacoity. It was also not mentioned, in any of the aforesaid statements, that the accused were over-heard by any member of the raiding party, while allegedly planning to commit a dacoity. Even there is no mention in these statements, as to whether, the accused were sitting there for the alleged commission of any other offence. It was also not mentioned, in any of the aforesaid statements, that the accused were over-heard by any member of the raiding party, while allegedly planning to commit a dacoity. Even there is no mention in these statements, as to whether, the accused were sitting there for the alleged commission of any other offence. The mere fact that they were found in possession of the aforesaid weapons, could not give rise to an inference that they were planning to commit dacoity. It is, no doubt, true that at the time of framing or otherwise of charge, the Court is not required to sift his material, placed before it, in the manner, as it is required to do, at the time of final decision of the case. It can, however, sift the material, to the limited extent, with a view to find out, as to whether, a prima facie case was made out or not. When the material placed on record, and referred to above, is sifted to a limited extent, as indicated above, it could be very well said that no prima facie case was made out, to frame the charge, for the offences, punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian penal Code. The possibility that they might have collected there, for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing some other crime, could not be safely eliminated. However, by no stretch of imagination, the statements, referred to above, constituted the prima facie commission of offences, punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. In Chaturi Yadav and others V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 Supreme court 1412 : 1979 Cri LJ 1090, eight persons, including the accused were found in the school premises, Which was quite close to the market at 1 a. m. , and that some of them were armed with guns, some had cartridges and others ran away. In these circumstances, it was held that their mere presence, with some weapons, in the school premises at 1 a. m. , did not, by itself, establish that they assembled there for making preparation, to commit dacoity. In Gholtu modi etc. V/s. State of Bihar, 1986 Crl. L. J.1031, some persons were found present, with weapons, in a house at night, which was under construction. In Gholtu modi etc. V/s. State of Bihar, 1986 Crl. L. J.1031, some persons were found present, with weapons, in a house at night, which was under construction. In these circumstances, it was held that their mere presence with weapons, at that place, at night, was not, by itself, sufficient to establish that they had assembled there, for the purpose of making preparation, to commit dacoity. In Brijlal Mandal and others V/s. State of Bihar, 1978, Criminal Law Journal, 877, the accused were found sitting in the waiting hall of a Railway Station, armed with various types of weapons. They were apprehended, but there was no proof, that they had assembled for making preparation, to commit dacoity and no other offence. In these circumstances, it was held that they did not commit the offences, punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. The order impugned, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. The order impugned, thus deserves to be upheld. 9. For the reasons, recorded above, criminal Revision No.674 of 1999, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Petition dismissed.