Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Munir, learned Additional P.P., Assam, appearing for the respondent State. 2. By filing this application, the petitioner is praying for quashment of the order dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati in G.R. Case No. 5211/1995 framing charge u/s 365/379 IPC against him. 3. The first informant Sri Hareshwar Deka lodged an FIR on 03.12.1995 with the Officer In-Charge Fatasil Ambari Police Station to the effect that his brother Sri Rajesh Deka was kidnapped forcibly by some unknown persons who came in two Maruti Vans bearing No. AS-01-0044 and AXK - 1891. At the time of kidnapping, the informant's brother was talking to his friend Sri Santanu Lekharu at Swahid Binod Sarma Path and the said unknown persons snatched away a gold chain, silver locket etc from Santanu Lakharu at about 12.15 P.M. 4. The present accused petitioner was arrested by the police on 03.12.1995 at 12 O' Clock(noon) in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No. 177/1995. Alongwith the accused petitioner other two persons, namely, Parama Kalita and Munna Das were also arrested. The police, after completion of the investigation, laid charge sheet against the present accused petitioner and Sri Parama Kalita. At the time of framing charge, the accused Parama Kalita was discharged and by the impugned order charge has been framed against the present accused petitioner. 5. I have gone through the records as made available to-day. 6. The I/O examined some witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 CrPC. The victim Sri Rameshwar Deka @ Rajesh Deka in his statement never implicated the present accused petitioner in connection with the aforesaid kidnapping case. He has implicated one Sachin Choudhury and Milik Khan, who are known to him. There is no other material on record implicating the present accused petitioner in the said case. In a case where a victim was allegedly kidnapped by some persons who could recognize the culprits involved and disclose their names, it is difficult to believe that he would not name the present accused petitioner if he really saw the petitioner alongwith accused persons. In the impugned order there is no hint at all on the basis of what materials the present accused petitioner was found prima facie involved. In the impugned order there is no hint at all on the basis of what materials the present accused petitioner was found prima facie involved. Charge can be framed against an accused person only when prima facie case is found against him and not otherwise. 7. In view of the above discussions, I am not inclined to sustain the impugned order framing the charge against the present accused petitioner and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. Petition stands allowed. 8. Return the LCR forthwith.