Judgment : 1. K.S.R.Selvarajan, who has been arraigned as accused No.14 in C.C.No.3 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai is the petitioner in the revision. On information that large quantity of potassium chloride was dealt with by various persons without licence and against licence conditions in and around Madurai and Pollachi in violation of clause 25 (1) and (2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, a case came to be registered by the CBI, Essential Commodities Wing, in R.C.6/E/2011, based on which the Inspector of Police attached to the said wing conducted the investigation. The investigation resulted in the submission of a final report against 15 persons. The revision petitioner herein has been shown as 14th accused as per the final report. The said final report was taken on file by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on his file as C.c.No.3 of 2012. 2. When the matter was under consideration for the framing of charges, the revision petitioner herein who figures as 14th accused in the said case, filed a petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C praying for an order discharging him from the said case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took it on file as Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2013 in C.C.No.3 of 2012. 3. The said petition was resisted by the prosecution and after enquiry, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 31.12.2013, dismissed the said petition holding that the case was not one in which the 14th accused/revision petitioner could be discharged without making him to face trial after framing the charges. Aggrieved by the same and challenging the said order, the revision petitioner (14th accused) has preferred the present Criminal Revision Case on various grounds set out in the revision petition. 4. The respondent is represented by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases. The Criminal Revision Case is resisted by the respondent raising serious objections as to the desirability of discharging the revision petitioner without making him to stand for the trial. 5. This Court heard the arguments made by Mr.N.Anandapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases on behalf of the respondent. The Criminal Revision Case is resisted by the respondent raising serious objections as to the desirability of discharging the revision petitioner without making him to stand for the trial. 5. This Court heard the arguments made by Mr.N.Anandapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases on behalf of the respondent. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers, additional typed set of papers and also the records sent for from the Court below were perused and this Court paid its anxious consideration to the same. 6. According to the final report, the investigation revealed that M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti (A1) is engaged in manufacturing of Potassium Chloride and other chemical compounds with its registered office at Kovilpatti of which, A2- A.X.Xavier Jayapaul is the Managing Director, A-3-Rajavel, A4- P.M.T.Srinivasan, A5-R.Paulraj Manuel and A-6-R.Shenbagarajan are other Directors. However, the Company is exclusively manufacturing potassium chloride and the same is supplied as raw materials to its sister concerns M/s.Niram Enterprises owned by A2-A.X.Xavier Jayapaul, M/s.Rajam Match Works owned by A3-Rajavel and M/s.Jayam Match Works, owned by A-5-R.Paulraj Manuel and the said sister concerns of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti(A-1) are involved in manufacturing of crackers and matches. Besides such supply to the sister concerns, a few other manufacturers were also supplied with potassium chloride by M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti. It should have imported or have purchased potassium chloride from industrial dealers but there are no industrial dealers of potassium chloride in the State of Tamil Nadu. The searches conducted on the premises of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti resulted in the seizure of invoices showing purchase of subsidised fertilizer from 2006 to 2009 for which period they did not take permission for purchasing potassium chloride from Indian Potash Limited (IPL). Only from 2010, M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti (A-1) had taken permission for such purchase from the above said company. A heap of Potassium chloride weighing approximately 10 tonnes was found in the premises of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti and it was claimed to have been purchased from Indian Potash Limited. But the same was not supported by invoices of Indian Potash Limited or other physical evidentiary material like jute bags or package materials. A heap of Potassium chloride weighing approximately 10 tonnes was found in the premises of M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti and it was claimed to have been purchased from Indian Potash Limited. But the same was not supported by invoices of Indian Potash Limited or other physical evidentiary material like jute bags or package materials. Samples were drawn and on analysis in the Fertilizer Control Lab, it was confirmed to be 60% potassium chloride which confirms to the qualities of MOP (Muriate of Potash). The absence of invoices and the investigation revealed that the same was purchased from unauthorised dealers. Similarly, the investigation revealed that several dealings were made with such unauthorised dealers for the period 2006 to 2009. The further investigation revealed that A1-M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti, A7-S.Lakshmanan, A8-V.Karthikeyan, A9-K.M.Ravindran, A10-K.Rajapandian, A11-K.Ravichandran, A12-G.Murali and A15-Mohammad Omar were the traders who indulged in diversion of MOP which was meant for sale to farmers on subsidised rate with proper licence. 7. The investigation further revealed that one K.Chandrasekar-A-13 was indulged in supplying potassium chloride to M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti (A-1), C.N.Ramamurthy, and M.Srinivakumar who turned approvers helped M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti(A-1) in procuring MOP from Kerala based firms and supplied the same to Madurai based suppliers for supplying the same to M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti(A-1). The investigation revealed a conspiracy among the accused 2 to 15 to divert the potassium chloride meant for supply to the farmers at a subsidised rate to the crackers and match industries and they executed the object of the conspiracy by actually diverting them after purchasing them without invoices or with fake invoices from unlicenced firms or in violation of the licence. Thereby they caused a loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs.80,68,337/- and committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with 420 IPC, Section 7(1)(a)(ii) and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 25(1) and (2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Substantive offences thereof. 8. Thereby they caused a loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs.80,68,337/- and committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with 420 IPC, Section 7(1)(a)(ii) and 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 25(1) and (2) of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 and the Substantive offences thereof. 8. The revision petitioner (A14) preferred Crl.M.P.No.51 of 2013 in C.C.No.3 of 2012 before the trial Court on the ground that the charge against him was not specific and that the materials collected and produced along with the charge sheet, even if admitted to be 100% correct, would not be enough to support a conviction and that in such circumstances, the Court should have sifted the proposed evidence and arrived at a conclusion that there was no ground for proceeding against the revision petitioner in the said case and should have allowed the Crl.M.P. filed by him under Section 239 Cr.P.C and discharged him. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that since the scrutiny period was 2006-2009, the CBI ought to have collected and marshalled the evidence for the said period and that in the absence of any record with regard to that particular period, no charge could be framed in law and on the sole ground of vagueness, the charge sheet is liable to be rejected. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in the final report it had been stated that 786 tonnes for MOP had been purchased by M/s.Royal Chlorates Private Limited Company, Kovilpatti(A-1) from unauthorised firms of A-7 to A-12, but the name of the revision petitioner was not found and some how or other his name came to be included in the charge sheet as 14th accused. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the alleged statements of Ramamurthy and Dhanasekaran recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC were not sufficient to implicate the revision petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the alleged statements of Ramamurthy and Dhanasekaran recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC were not sufficient to implicate the revision petitioner. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, besides the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C being inadmissible as primary evidence, a conjoint reading of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation and the documents produced along with the final report and an evaluation of the same to find out whether a prima facie case has been made out, will undoubtedly lead to the conclusion that no case for proceeding against the revision petitioner has been made out and that the revision petitioner is entitled to an order of discharge. 11. Per contra, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI cases would contend that there was large scale violation of the provisions of the Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985 in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched out among the accused 2 to 15, as a result of which the Government of India was cheated of its funds to the tune of Rs.80,68,337/-; that the same was unearthed by the CBI in the investigation in this case and that such economic offences should not be lightly dealt with by discharging the accused on minor technical defects. It is the further contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that it is not his contention that there are technical defects but on the other hand, his contention is that even if there exists minor discrepancies that should be left to the realm of consideration in the trial and that it shall not be in the interest of justice to evaluate the evidence at the time of framing of charges and discharge the accused even without framing of the charges. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would also contend that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after meticulously considering the entire materials produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet, came to a correct conclusion that it could not be held that there was no ground for proceeding further against the revision petitioner and rightly dismissed the petition filed by him for discharge. 12. 12. It is the further contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that the mere fact that the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for discharge before framing of the charge has been dismissed will not take away the right of the revision petitioner to challenge the framing of the charge on the ground of absence of sufficient material to support the framing of the charge or on the premise a wrong charge has been framed. 13. In this regard, learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the orders passed in the following cases:- “(i)In Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another reported in (1979) 3 SCC 4 ; (ii) In P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 ; (iii) In Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 552 (SC) and (iv) State represented by SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai Vs.Kiran Machines, Chennai rep., by its Managing Partner P.Mohanraj and others reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 363” 14. In the first of the judgments cited above, it has been stated that in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Special Judge cannot act merely as a post office or mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmity appearing in the case and so on. Besides making such an observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court advocated cautious approach that no roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter should be made at the time of framing of charges or considering the petition for discharge and that the weighing of evidence should not be made as is done at the trial of the case. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the Court, at the time of consideration of the case for framing charges, 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. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the second of the judgments cited supra. 15. In the third of the judgments cited supra, namely Sajjan Kumar Vs. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the second of the judgments cited supra. 15. In the third of the judgments cited supra, namely Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 552 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed the view that at the stage of framing of the charges or while considering the discharge petition, the Magistrate or the Judge concerned is not expected to analyse all the materials including the pros and cons, reliability or acceptability of such evidence and that the appreciation of the same shall be left to be made at the trial. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that 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 the offence by the accused was possible. It has also been held that the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken on their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence and that for such limited purpose, the Court shall 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. It has also been opined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to a suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, the trial Judge shall be empowered to discharge the accused and at that stage, he is not expected to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. 16. The same view was expressed in State represented by SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai Vs. Kiran Machines, Chennai rep., by its Managing Partner P.Mohanraj and others reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 363, an order passed by myself while sitting in the Principal Bench of Madras High Court. 17. There cannot be any quarrel over the preposition of law as enunciated in the above said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Kiran Machines, Chennai rep., by its Managing Partner P.Mohanraj and others reported in (2011) 3 MLJ 363, an order passed by myself while sitting in the Principal Bench of Madras High Court. 17. There cannot be any quarrel over the preposition of law as enunciated in the above said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The question is when those principles are applied to the case on hand, whether the revision petitioner shall be entitled to an order of discharge. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, it cannot be said that there is no material providing sufficient ground for presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offences alleged in the final report and on the other hand, the materials on their cumulative value will not cause a simple suspicion but will cause a grave suspicion that he committed the offences and the same will justify framing of charges presuming that the revision petitioner has committed the offences alleged in the final report. There are confession statements of the accused persons and the approvers recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, which are capable of corroborating the statements of other witnesses implicating the revision petitioner herein. There are materials collected by the investigating agency and such materials are sufficient to raise grave suspicion that the revision petitioner indulged in shady transactions in fictitious names without actually transporting Potassium chloride to Pollachi and creating records as if they were sent to Pollachi. The agents have also given statements to the effect that such bogus dealings were made besides transportation of the materials without proper invoices while considering the application for discharge, the Court shall not be justified in evaluating the evidence by entering into a discussion and consideration of the proposed evidence to find out whether such evidence are trust worthy, genuine or believable. The Court has to accept the evidence sought to be adduced on their face value and consider whether such evidence are enough to make out a prima facie case against the accused. 18. The Court has to accept the evidence sought to be adduced on their face value and consider whether such evidence are enough to make out a prima facie case against the accused. 18. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on proper application of the principles enunciated above, acted within the scope of consideration needed while dealing with the petition filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C and arrived at a correct conclusion that the revision petitioner herein could not be discharged and that the discharge petition was liable to be dismissed. 19. For all the reasons stated above, this Court finds no defect, infirmity or discrepancy in the impugned order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai warranting interference by this Court. This Criminal Revision Case is bound to fail and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.