JUDGEMENT 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, have prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.8.1999 passed by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, motihari in Sessions Trial No.142/1993. By the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition, which was filed on behalf of the petitioners under Sec.227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioners are accused in Sessions Trial no.142 of 1993 on an accusation of murdering the father of the informant. In the case, the informant had categorically disclosed that due to old enmity, the occurrence had taken place and petitioner no.2 Ram Pravesh Singh had brought one Mintu kumar, who fired in the occurrence and witnesses had also seen the petitioners, while fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 3. Sri V. R. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no material on record even to create suspicion regarding involvement of petitioners. He submits that several witnesses have come forward to support the petitioners and they had even sworn affidavit. In affidavit, some of the witnesses have suggested that these petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to annexure-5 to the petition, which is Test Identification Chart. He submits that witness Dukhiya Devi during Test Identification parade failed to identify both the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to several enclosures to the petition, which are either copies of affidavits or copies of the statements recorded under Sec.164 of the Code of Criminal procedure. While referring to those documents, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in any event there is no chance of conviction of these petitioners in the case and accordingly, he has prayed for quashing of the order of rejection of discharge petition. 4. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that the materials can not be looked in isolation, but evidence is to be seen in its totality. She further submits that by way of looking into certain statements and affidavits, this Court cannot record a definite finding that the petitioners were innocent or petitioners were directly or indirectly not involved in the case. She submits that the materials can not be looked in isolation, but evidence is to be seen in its totality. She further submits that by way of looking into certain statements and affidavits, this Court cannot record a definite finding that the petitioners were innocent or petitioners were directly or indirectly not involved in the case. She further submits that while exercising power under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure it is not advisable for this court to examine all those evidence. Accordingly, she has prayed for rejection of the present petition. 5. I have examined the impugned order as well as the materials available on the record. I do not find any defect in the order dated 25.8.1999, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions judge has rejected the discharge petition. 6. At the stage of charge it is not advisable for this court to appraise the evidence and scrutinize the same in detail. The impugned order itself categorically indicates that there were sufficient materials for proceeding against the petitioners and, accordingly, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the discharge petition filed by the petitioners. The only thing is required to be seen as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. If there is even strongest suspicion regarding commission of offence, then it can be considered that prima facie case is made out. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that after being satisfied, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the discharge petition by assigning reasons. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any defect in the order of rejection of discharge petition and accordingly petition stands rejected. 8. On 7.3.2000 , this petition was admitted for hearing and while admitting the case for hearing, this Court had directed that pending disposal of this application, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.142 of 1993 pending in the court of 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Motihari , shall remain stayed. 9. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. In this case, earlier in view of the order of this Court, lower court record and case diary of the case were received and the same are lying with this file. In view of rejection of the present petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. In this case, earlier in view of the order of this Court, lower court record and case diary of the case were received and the same are lying with this file. In view of dismissal of this petition the office is directed to remit back the lower court record as well as case diary to the court below forthwith.