JUDGMENT:- Heard Shri D.K. Hazare, learned Counsel for the revision applicant and Shri S.B. Ahirkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent. 2. Admit. In view of the order warranted to be passed in the matter, calling of record and proceedings is dispensed with. 3. By consent of the parties the Revision itself is taken up for final disposal. 4. By the present application in revision, the applicant - original accused no.1 I, facing Sessions Trial No. 82/2013 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Chandrapur for an offences punishable under Section 120B, 489A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E and 171, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 66(d) of the Information Technology Act, assails the order dated 07.08.2013 passed rejecting his application (Exh. 7)for discharge. 5. In short, said case has emerged out of an investigation of first information report filed by one Dr. Raju Bhujbal, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chandrapur on 03.04.2013 of having received a information that the original accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 in said case were at Chandrapur in Hotel Sushilka, and they were having fake currency notes and they were about to circulate it in the city. During the course of investigation, said accused were nabbed and the currency notes amounting to Rs.32 lacs. alleged to have been found with them were seized. According to the prosecution, during the course of investigation, names of other accused including the present applicant were transpired and accordingly they were arrested and charge-sheeted. 6. A careful perusal of the order impugned in the present revision, there appears all substance in the submissions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant, that though the prayer for discharging the applicant is rejected, the order does not give clue about the material in charge sheet against the applicant affording a reasonable ground for presuming that the applicant has committed the offences for which he is charge sheeted by the police. Such a conclusion is inevitable, as perusal of the order reveals that except making some observations about the nature of offence of conspiracy, hardly any material from the charge sheet against the applicant is depicted from which a conclusion can be arrived of there being a ground for presuming involvement of the present applicant in the offences for which he is charge sheeted. 7. 7. Since the order of rejecting prayer for discharge and/or order of framing of charge is an important stage in criminal trial, because the same denotes commencement of a criminal prosecution against the applicant, it was necessary for the Trial Court to point the material available against the applicant in the charge sheet which was prima facie sufficient enough for presuming his involvement in commission of the offences as alleged. As the order is wholly silent regarding existence of any such material, makes it difficult to examine the correctness of the said order without such a material being referred and/or such conclusions, inference being drawn by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of particular material. Needless to add that the order failing to reveal basis for arriving at conclusions cannot be legally sustained. 8. Resultantly, the order impugned dated 07.08.2013 below Exh.7 in Sessions Case No.82/2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur is hereby quashed and set aside. The application (Exh.7) preferred for discharge is, restored back to the file of the said Court with a direction to redecide the same in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge shall decide the said application as early as possible and in any event within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Revision allowed.