JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P for the respondent, State of Assam. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 28-9-2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 7 of 2010 framing charge against the petitioner under Section 120(B) / 471/409, IPC. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet filed in the above noted case against the petitioner. 2. One Sri Gaya Prasad Agarwal, ACS, Block Development Officer lodged a first information dated 24-6-2008 before the Officer-in-Charge, Tihu Police Station, Tihu, Distrit-Nalbari alleging that at the relevant time Sri Gopal Ranghang was the Block Development Officer of Tihu Development Block, who handed over charge on 9-4-2008. It was alleged in the FIR that the said Sri Gopal Ranghang had issued a fake supply order to M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwahati for supplying 1000 bundles of GCI Sheet and 12000 ft. Ridging to the Tihu Development Block. The said M/s. Allied Business Corporation had submitted a fake challan showing delivery of the aforesaid material, which was also shown received by the then BDO, Sri Gopal Ranghang but the said period was after the handing over of his charge. The said Sri Gopal Ranghang had collected a cheque book from the Central Bank of India, Nathkuchi of A/c No. 3593/21 and issued a cheque in favour of the said M/s. Allied Business Corporation, Guwhati, bearing Cheque No. 000876. The cheque book was collected from the bank and the cheque was handed over to M/s. Allied Business Corporation by Sri Gopal Ranghang after he had handed over the charge. The informant alleged that Sri Gopal Ranghang and M/s. Allied Business Corporation had a criminal motive and criminal intention of siphoning the aforesaid amount from the public exchequer. On the basis of the said first information, Tihu P.S Case No. 42 of 2008 under Section 120(B) / 420/468/477, IPC was registered. 3. The police investigated the matter and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against (1) Sri Gopal Ranghang, (2) Sri Sagar Samrat Gupta and (3) Sri Dipak Talukdar. 4. On the basis of the said first information, Tihu P.S Case No. 42 of 2008 under Section 120(B) / 420/468/477, IPC was registered. 3. The police investigated the matter and after conclusion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against (1) Sri Gopal Ranghang, (2) Sri Sagar Samrat Gupta and (3) Sri Dipak Talukdar. 4. The said case was thereafter registered as Special Case No. 7 of 2010 (State v. Gopal Ranghang & Ors.), in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam Guwahati. The learned trial Court by the order dated 28-09-2011 framed charge against the petitioner under Section 120(B) / 471/409, IPC. 5. this Court by order dated 21-11-2011 had issued notice of motion and thereafter the matter was heard at length on 8-12-2011. 6. Mr. Bhati, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been looking after the business carried on by his mother, Smt. Deba Bala Gupta under the name and style of M/s. Allied Business Corporation. According to the Learned Counsel, the police had recorded the statements of as many as 23 witnesses and had also obtained the expert opinion. He submits that from a perusal of the aforesaid materials, which have been placed on record by way of annexures to the petition, there are no ingredients to make out any offence under Sections 120(B)/471/409, IPC as against the petitioner. He submits that in such circumstances compelling the petitioner to face the agony and trauma of a criminal trial would be wholly unjustified. He, therefore, prays for quashing of the order framing charge against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions of law as well as the charge-sheet in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Gogoi, learned Addl. P.P., Assam submits that the case is at the very initial stage and at this stage it cannot be said without any degree of certainty as to whether the petitioner is guilty or not. That can only be ascertained at the conclusion of the trial. He further submits that the case of the petitioner cannot be segregated from that of the other accused persons at this stage and if the same is done, it may lead to collapse of the entire criminal trial. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. 9. The law regarding framing of charge has by now more or less crystallized. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties. 9. The law regarding framing of charge has by now more or less crystallized. The legal position is that at the time of framing of charge, it is not necessary to examine the merit of the case in great details. All that is required is to see as whether a prima facie case regarding commission of the offence alleged is made out against the accused or not and as to whether the materials on record would ensure that the case can go for trial. 10. In the case of State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 338 , the Supreme Court had expressed in no uncertain terms that if the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further, then a charge has to be framed. 11. In Soma Chakravarty v. State through CBI, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 403 , the Apex Court held as under : 10. It may be mentioned that the settled legal position, as mentioned in the above decisions, is that if on the basis of material on record the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage. Before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial. 12. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 , the Supreme Court stated as under : 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 12. In P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 , the Supreme Court stated as under : 11. At the stage of Section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In other words, the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. 13. Finally, in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 368 , the Supreme Court summed up the legal principles governing framing of charge. The Apex Court has stated as under : 21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge : (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227, Cr PC has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend upon the facts of each case. (ii) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (iii) The Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 14. Having noticed the broad legal principles, let us now examine the case in hand. Though the learned trial Court has not given detailed reasons while framing the charge and though a view can be taken that the order framing the charge could have been structured in a better way, it is however, clear from the impugned order that the learned Judge had considered the materials collected by the prosecution and thereafter come to the conclusion that the there are materials against the petitioner under Section 120-B/471/409, IPC. Accordingly, he framed charge under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner. 15. I have also perused the various documents annexed to the petition by way of annexures including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police. On a consideration of the said materials, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, he framed charge under the aforesaid sections against the petitioner. 15. I have also perused the various documents annexed to the petition by way of annexures including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police. On a consideration of the said materials, I am in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Court. 16. Whether such materials at the hand of the prosecution are sufficient or not to convict the petitioner is a matter for trial. In any case, whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal is immaterial. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and that discharge is the only remedy. 17. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the present is not a case for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482, Cr PC. Beyond this I refrain from making any further comment, lest the same be construed to be on the merit of the case. 18. In view of the discussions made above, I see no reason to interfere with either the charge-sheet submitted or with the order of the trial Court dated 28-9-2011 framing the charge against the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. Registry to send down a copy of this order to the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati at an early date. No cost. Petition dismissed