Order Jaya Roy, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this revision application against the order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court-VI, Ranchi in S.T. No. 298 of 2008 whereby the petitioner's application for discharge for the offences under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the. petitioner submits that after the examination of four prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has filed a petition before the trial court of Judicial Magistrate mentioning therein that there is sufficient evidence on record to make out an offence under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code which is exclusively triable by the court of sessions and prayed for that the trial court should exercise his power under Section 323 of Cr.P.C. and commit the case to the court of sessions. The trial court after _ hearing the said petition rejected the same by its order dated 21.6.2006. The prosecution had challenged the said order in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 2008 which was allowed by the Judgment dated 22.5.2007 directing the Judicial Magistrate to pass an order fresh. The trial court .after reconsideration passed a fresh order and opined that there are sufficient materials available on record to make out an offence under Section 364(A) of I.P.C. and he committed to the case to the court of sessions under Section 323 Cr.P.C. by its order dated 12.6.2008. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order before this High Court in Cr. Revision No. 688 of 2008. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties by its order dated 9.2.2009 observed:- "The matter has already been committed to the court of sessions and the petitioner will be at liberty to raise all those points at the stage of framing of charge before the Sessions Court by an application of discharge. With this observation, this application is disposed of". 4. With this observation, this application is disposed of". 4. According to the aforesaid observation the petitioner has filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge the petitioner from' the offences under Section 364(A) of LP.C. It is contended that the Section 364(A) LP.C. is' applicable when kidnapping will be for some ransom as the sections says:- "Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." 5. He has further submitted that the witnesses namely Awadhmani Pathak the informant, Snehlata Pathak mother of the victim boy and Rashmi who is the eye witness of the kidnapping has not stated anything regarding the demand of any ransom or any threat during the investigation of the case even Gaurabh Pathak the victim boy has also not stated in his statement during the investigation. Md. Shahid who was driving the Maruti Car in which Gaurabh was kidnapped has also not stated any thing regarding the demand of the ransom @r about any threat or hurt in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case the trial court has only on the strength of the statements of P.W. 3 the victim boy, at Paragraph-4, who had heard that the accused were talking about ransom and were saying that they would kill him if the said amount is not paid. Thus, on the basis of developed version of the victim boy which is stated before the court for the first time, the court should not rely on such statement and reject the petitioner's application. 7. Thus, on the basis of developed version of the victim boy which is stated before the court for the first time, the court should not rely on such statement and reject the petitioner's application. 7. The learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution case in brief is that a case has been registered under Sections 363 and 366(A) of I.P.C. on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant wherein he has stated that he has received an information from his wife, who in turn had received information from neighborhood girl Rashmi that his son Gourabh Pathak aged about 8 years had been kidnapped by unknown person and was taken away by Maruti Van bearing Registration No. BR-42 2937. The said fardbeyan was recorded at about 4.30 P.M. on 9.12.96 and in the night of the same day, the victim Gourabh Pathak alongwith two kidnappers was recovered by Balumath Police. 8. It is further contended by the State Counsel that P.W. 3 the victim has stated in Paragraph-4 of the examination-in-chief that both the accused persons were talking amongst themselves that they will kill the victim if the ransom amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not paid to them. Furthermore, P.W. 4, who is father of the victim boy, has stated that his son had told him about the aforesaid demand. Thus, there are sufficient materials available on the record not only in the form of the material collected in course of investigation but also in the form of evidence by the prosecution witnesses in course of the trial before the Magistrate. Therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the petitioner's application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. 9. In my opinion, the scope of Section 323 Cr.P.C. is very wide. The guiding factor in committal proceedings are that it should appears to the Magistrate at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The section does not say even that reasons should be given by the Magistrate. 10. From the impugned order, I find after perusing the materials on record and also considering the submissions made by the parties rejected, the petitioner's prayer for discharge. In my opinion, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen whether case is beyond reasonable doubt it not to be seen at this stage. 10. From the impugned order, I find after perusing the materials on record and also considering the submissions made by the parties rejected, the petitioner's prayer for discharge. In my opinion, at this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen whether case is beyond reasonable doubt it not to be seen at this stage. At the time of framing the charge it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish all reasonable doubts that the acquisition which they are bringing against the accused persons is bound to be brought home against him. The purpose of the Sections 227 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code is only to ensure that the court should be satisfied that the acquisition made against the accused is not frivolous and there are some materials for proceeding against him. 11. 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.