JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Private Respondent. 2. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 26.7.2010 in G.R. Case No. 516 of 2008 /Trial No. 759 of 2010, arising out of Gomia P.S. Case No. 68 of 2008. by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, has been ejected. 3. It appears that a FIR was lodged against the petitioners which was registered as Gomia P.S. Case No. 68 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 518 of 2008, by the O.P. No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar, wherein there is allegation that two trucks were financed to the petitioners on the basis of hire-purchase and though thereafter some installments were given to the financier, but according to the F.I.R., Rs.2.84. the interest, whereas the hire-purchase agreement had already expired on 30.8.2005 and on 100/- was due against the petitioners, which included the principal as well as 15.2.2005. It has also alleged that both the trucks were made to disappear by the petitioners and accordingly the FIR was lodged against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 420 arid 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat and the case was transferred to the Court of learned SDJM, Dhanbad for disposal, where the application for discharge was filed by the petitioners. The Court below has taken into consideration the material brought on record during investigation and has come to the conclusion that there was sufficient material for framing the charge against the petitioners for the offences under Section 406, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. and has rejected the petition for discharge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the FIR clearly shows the period of the hire-purchase agreement had already expired and the case is purely civil in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the FIR clearly shows the period of the hire-purchase agreement had already expired and the case is purely civil in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that though there is allegation against the petitioners to have made trucks to disappear, but in fact the financer himself had taken away the trucks and this fact has been stated in paragraph-12 of the Revision Application. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that no, offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and it is a fit case in which the petitioners ought to have been discharged. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent-O.P. No. 2 on the other hand has submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioners to have made the trucks to disappear and thereby, to have misappropriated the trucks and accordingly, the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, LP.C., is made out against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the case was also found true upon investigation and on the basis of the material available on record, the Court below has come to a definite conclusion that the offence is made out against the petitioners on the basis of allegations made in the FIR as also the material collected during investigation and has rejected the application for discharge of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and this application is fit to be dismissed. 6. After having heard learned counsel for both the sides and upon going through the record. I find that the FIR itself shows that there is clear allegation against the petitioners to have made the trucks to disappear which was taken in Hire-Purchase Scheme. Had this allegation not been there against the petitioners, the case, as the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, was of civil nature, but in view of the allegation that the trucks have been made to disappear, this argument is not available to the petitioners. Had this allegation not been there against the petitioners, the case, as the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, was of civil nature, but in view of the allegation that the trucks have been made to disappear, this argument is not available to the petitioners. So far as the statement of the petitioners made in paragraph-12 of the revision application that the trucks in question have been taken away by the financier himself, is a question of fact and the defence of the accused, which cannot be looked into at this stage. 7. It is well settled principle of law that if on the basis of allegation made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation by the police, the offence is made out against the accused, the accused cannot be discharged at the initial stage and he has to face the trial, during which the questions of fact and the defence of the accused can be looked into. I find that on the basis of the specific allegations against the' petitioners to have made the trucks to disappear, which was entrusted to them, the offence is dearly made out against the petitioners and there is no illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Court below refusing to discharge the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision application, which stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.