JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 6.12.2013 by which application for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected in case crime no.43/2012, criminal case no.646/13, under Section 419 ,420,467,468,471 IPC. 3. As per factual matrix of the case Mohd. Jubar moved an application before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code and by the orders of the Court first information report was registered under Section 419 ,420,467,471 IPC. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Prior to submission of charge-sheet, the circle officer concerned raised an objection and directed S.O. DariyaBad to supervise the investigation. In compliance of that order, the investigating officer further recorded statement of several witnesses and again submitted the charge-sheet. Court took cognizance and then the accused/revisionist moved an application for discharge. The discharge application was rejected vide impugned order hence this criminal revision. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is a licensee of fair price shop and is duty bound to distribute the commodities to the respective Ration card holders. The revisionist being fair price shopkeeper is not concerned with process of preparation of Ration Card and uploading list of Card Holders on the website of supply deportment. The most relevant thing is that nothing against the revisionist came during investigation to show that revisionist has played any role in making Ration Cards or made any irregularity in distribution of commodity to their respective card holders. But in haste the I.O. wanted to submit charge sheet against to revisionist therefore he recorded some fake statements of the card holders namely Suresh, Rang Nath, Ankit Kumar, Manoj, Raju and Shiv Ram and put some fake ingredients against revisionist which become disproved when other I.O.further investigated the matter thoroughly and collected concern Ration Cards. In view of material collected in subsequent investigation, none of allegation is being proved. 5. Learned AGA submitted that no doubt certain witnesses and Card holders were won over by the fair price shop owner but he could not win over Ration Card holder named Suresh son of Dhiru and his statement before the investigating officer is intact. 6. In view of material collected in subsequent investigation, none of allegation is being proved. 5. Learned AGA submitted that no doubt certain witnesses and Card holders were won over by the fair price shop owner but he could not win over Ration Card holder named Suresh son of Dhiru and his statement before the investigating officer is intact. 6. A perusal of the FIR reveals that there was allegations that there was some manipulation and whitener was used on the Ration Cards. 7. A perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that Mohd. Juver, Suresh, Rangnath, Ankit Kumar, Manoj, Raju, Shivram, who are the persons who have given statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. levelling allegation against the revisionist. When a charge-sheet was send to the Circle Officer, he raised certain points and directed that matter be investigated in light of those points. The investigating officer in compliance of the order, recorded statement of Shiv Ram, Ankit and Raju. A perusal of the record reveals that the investigating officer has after instructions from the investigating officer not recorded statement of Suresh son of Dhiru so the statement of Suresh son of Dhiru is intact against the revisionist. 8. While framing of the charge, the Court has to decide as to whether in his opinion there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence or not. 9. In the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368 the Apex Court has given some guide lines about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, which are reproduced below: - "On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Section 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge: - (i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. 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. 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. (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 discloses 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. 10. (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. 10. The procedure of framing of charge has been given in Chapter 18 of the Cr.P.C. Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. lays down that when the accused appears, or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of a case under Section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what offence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: - "227. Discharge.- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows: - "228. Framing of charge.- (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 11. Judging the evidence on record collected by investigating officer, on the above principles laid down by the Apex Court, it cannot be said that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application for discharge. There is no illegality and perversity in the order. The criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.