ORDER : P. Velmurugan, J. The case of the revision petitioner is that he has been arrayed as an accused in the C.C.No.15218/2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 8, and alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 428 of IPC. The case was originally registered under the impression that certain officials of the railway were involved and hence, provision of Prevention of Corruption Act was invoked in the FIR. Now after investigation, the respondent police have removed all the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by saying no official was involved and filed charge sheet only u/ section 420 of IPC, arraying this petitioner as sole accused, alleging violation of contract conditions. He has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He has been arrayed as an accused in a false case, which was registered without any basis. The transaction between the petitioner and the railways is based on a contract and the said contract clearly spells out the penalty clause for violation of the terms of the contract and more particularly, in respect of over loading. Admittedly the allegations in the case are about over loading of parcel van (VPH) which was done in New Delhi, this is purely due to oversight and there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. The railways themselves had charged penalty for such overloading as per the terms of the agreement and the said penalty was also duly paid. Therefore, no criminal offence is committed warranting any criminal prosecution before the trial court to frame any charge against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner had filed the petition before the trial court praying to discharge him from the above case in Crl.M.P.No.222/2015 but the same was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 07.07.2015. Against the said order of dismissal of his discharge application, the petitioner herein prefers this revision petition to set aside the said order in Crl.M.P.No.222/2015 in CC.No.07.07.2015 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision mainly on the grounds that even assuming that entire materials available on records were taken to be true, the ingredients of the offence prima facie not made out. No case of criminal prosecution is made out as against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision mainly on the grounds that even assuming that entire materials available on records were taken to be true, the ingredients of the offence prima facie not made out. No case of criminal prosecution is made out as against the petitioner. The reading of the statements of all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, the documents that are listed and relied upon by the prosecution all would clearly show that there is no iota of material to proceed as against this petitioner for the alleged offence under section 420 of IPC. No wrongful loss was caused to the railways and there is no prima facie materials as against the petitioner herein to say that he has involved in any wrongful act and dishonest intention. There is no materials to frame any charge as against the petitioner. He is an innocent and law abiding citizen. He has been falsely implicated without any materials to be proceeded as against him. Therefore, this petition is liable to be allowed and the order passed in CRL.M.P.No.222 of 2015 in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008, be set aside. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railways for leasing parcel space in parcel vans in trains bearing Nos.16031/16032 for transportation of parcels from Chennai Central and Delhi and Jammu tawi and back for a period of 3 years commencing from 19.01.2014 to 18.01.2017 in Jammu Tawi Express. The purpose of the agreement is that a permanent parcel space in the parcel van of the above said train would be provided to the petitioner on three days of every week (i.e,) on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday in Train No.16031 from Chennai Central to Jammu Tawi and on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday in Train No.16032 from Jammu Tawi to Chennai Central. The security deposit of Rs.21,72,645/- was paid to the Railways (i.e.,) 17,72,645/- in the form of Fixed Deposits and Rs.4,00,000/- as EMD. The lump sum freight charge payable for leasing 23 tonnes parcel space in the train is Rs.4,34,529/- for a round trip. 4. On 03.06.2014, when a surprise check was done in the parcel van, it was found that there was a misdeclaration in the number of packages and its total weight. The lump sum freight charge payable for leasing 23 tonnes parcel space in the train is Rs.4,34,529/- for a round trip. 4. On 03.06.2014, when a surprise check was done in the parcel van, it was found that there was a misdeclaration in the number of packages and its total weight. The petitioner who signed the agreement with the Railway authorities for taking on lease a parcel van had cheated the Railway authorities by knowingly and deliberately overloading the parcel van (VPH) to an extent of 1.52 tonnes in excess of the permissible capacity of 23 tonnes which is against clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. In the charge sheet, it is also stated that the petitioner paid the penalty of Rs.2,06,576/-on account of overloading. Therefore, it shows that the petitioner had cheated the railway and committed the offence under section 420 of IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner alone by stating that no prosecutable evidence has come forth against any railway officials to prove their connivance in committing the said offences. Therefore, the charge sheet is only filed against this petitioner. There is a prima facie case to frame the charge against the petitioner. Therefore, the order dated 07.07.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2015 in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 08, need not be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the loading of goods at New Delhi is being loaded after by the staff of the petitioner at New Delhi. The staff would be in urgency to load the goods before the departure of the train and in such a situation, there is every chance of either overloading or underloading the goods at the time of loading the goods in the wagon in this short duration. In these circumstances, no malafide intention could be attributed for overloading of the goods in the wagon against the petitioner who resides in Chennai and the loading happens in New Delhi, in which, this petitioner has no role in the contract between the petitioner and the railway. It is clearly satisfied about contractual remedy for the railways in case of overloading of goods. It prescribes slab rates, in which, the overloading of goods could be charged and penalty could be levied. It is clearly satisfied about contractual remedy for the railways in case of overloading of goods. It prescribes slab rates, in which, the overloading of goods could be charged and penalty could be levied. It also says that only in case of violation of overloading clause, by 4 times the contract could be terminated. In the present case, the overloading of the goods is only for the first time and the penalty is levied by the railways and the same is paid by the petitioner. 11 e would further submit that the railway itself still continues the business with the petitioner by continuing the contract and still leasing out the wagon to the petitioner in this said train. Further, he would submit that the issues of excessive load can only be dealt with in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and the petitioner has paid the fine levied as per the terms of the contract. The contract is still in force and both the railways and petitioners are continuing with their business and further, he would submit that the prosecution itself would submit that no railway official is involved. Then, malafide intention and mensrea would be attributed as against the petitioner and this overloading of goods is purely an act of negligence on the part of the staff of the petitioner, who leaves after the work of loading of goods in New Delhi. The essential ingredients of cheating as defined under section 415 IPC is that the offender should have made any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to the person so deceived to deliver any property. Thus, the essential ingredients to make out an offence under section 420 IPC is that there should be a fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property at the inception of the transaction. There is no criminal intention of this petitioner. Therefore, he is liable to be discharged. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was an overloading and misdeclaration in the number of packages and their weight and that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently had done the above act. The petitioner cheated the railway authorities. There is specific allegations against this petitioner in the charge sheet and further, there is enough materials available in the prosecution documents. The petitioner cheated the railway authorities. There is specific allegations against this petitioner in the charge sheet and further, there is enough materials available in the prosecution documents. The petitioner himself admitted that there was overloading and they have paid the penalty and mere paying of the penalty will not observe a criminal case. Since there is incriminating materials against this petitioner, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and there is no illegality or impropriety found in the order passed by the trial court. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Hoard both sides and perused the records carefully. 8. On perusal of the records, admitted facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railways, for leasing a parcel space in parcel VAN in Train No.16031/16032 for transportation of parcels from Chennai Central to Delhi and back for a period of 3 years commencing from 19.01.2014 to 18.01.2017 in Jammu Tawi Express. The purpose of the agreement is that a permanent parcel space in the parcel van of the above said train is provided to the petitioner on 3 days of every week i.e., on Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday in Train No.16031 from Chennai Central to New Delhi and on Thursday, Friday, Saturday in Train No.16032 from Jammu to Chennai Central. A security deposit of Rs.21,72,645/- was paid to the railways (i.e.,) Rs.17,72,645/-in the form of Fixed Deposit and Rs.4,00,000/- as EMD. A fixed lump sum freight charge payable for leasing 23 tonnes parcel space in the train is Rs.4,34,529/-for a round trip and further petitioner paid a penalty of Rs.2,06,576/- on account of overloading. The disputed facts are that according to the prosecution on 03.06.2014 when a surprise check was done in the parcel van, it was found that there was a misdeclaration in the number of packages and its total weight. The petitioner who signed the agreement with the railway authorities for taking on lease a parcel van had cheated the railway authorities by knowingly and deliberately overloading the parcel van (VPH) to an extent of 1.52 tons in excess of the permissible capacity of 23 tons which is against the clause 15 of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and the petitioner also had paid a penalty of Rs.2,06,576/-on account of overloading. Therefore, he had cheated the railway and committed offence under section 420 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under section 420 IPC. Therefore, there is a prima facie material to proceed as against this petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. According to petitioner, the case was originally registered under the impression that certain officials of the railways were involved and hence, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act was invoked in the FIR, now after investigation, the respondent police have removed all the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by saying no official was involved and filed charge sheet only against this petitioner under Section 420 of IPC. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution in the contract between the petitioner and the railways. It is clearly specified about the contractual remedy for the railways. In case of overloading of goods, he prescribed the slab rates, in which, overloading of cases would be charged and penalty could be levied. It also says only in case of violation of overloading clause, fourth time, the contract would be terminated. In this present case, for overloading of the case for the first time, the penalty is levied by the railways and the same is paid by the petitioner and the railway itself still continues the business with the petitioner by continuing the contract and still leasing out the wagon to the petitioner in the said train. Therefore, when the entire case is purely on the basis of the terms and conditions of the contract and the parties to the contract had been acting and still doing their business as per the terms and conditions of the contracts, any violation to the terms of the contract in a single journey would not give rise to criminal prosecution unless any malafide intention or mens rea on the part of the petitioner could be attributed. There is no prima facie material as against the petitioner herein to say that he has involved in any wrongful act with dishonest intention. The issues of excessive load can only be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the contract and the petitioner has paid the fine levied as per the terms of the contract. There is no prima facie material as against the petitioner herein to say that he has involved in any wrongful act with dishonest intention. The issues of excessive load can only be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the contract and the petitioner has paid the fine levied as per the terms of the contract. The contract is still in force and both the railways and petitions are continuing with the business. Therefore, no charge can be framed against this petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be discharged. 9. On perusal of the records placed before this court, the revision petition filed by the petitioner, charge sheet and other statement of witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., it is seen that the case of the prosecution is that as per the agreement, the petitioner who was the lease holder, was not permitted to load the parcel van beyond 23 tonnes and that, in case overloading is detected beyond the permissible carrying capacity, penalty will be recovered from the petitioner during the surprise check when the weight is loaded as VPH i.e., SC 06829 lease to the petitioner was taken. It was found that the gross weight of the VPH was 57.88 tons and the inventory of the contents of VPH was also taken, which showed that there was misdeclaration in the number of packages and in the total weight. The manifest showed that the total weight was only 21 tons in which, freight of Rs.2,29,830/- was paid. After unloading the weight of the empty VHP was taken, it was found to be 33.36 tons and therefore, the net weight of the content was 24.52 tons as against the permissible limit of 23 tons. The petitioner had overloaded the VPH by 1.52 tons. The buffer and heights of one of the buffers of the said loading VPH was below 1030 mm. If the buffer weight is beyond the limit of 1030 mm, the VPH should be rejected and not attached to the train. The overloading was detected during the surprise check conducted jointly by the CBI and railway authority which was based on the reliable information and that till the surprise check, the overloading and misdeclaration in the manifest would have gone unnoticed causing wrongful loss to the railway and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. The overloading was detected during the surprise check conducted jointly by the CBI and railway authority which was based on the reliable information and that till the surprise check, the overloading and misdeclaration in the manifest would have gone unnoticed causing wrongful loss to the railway and corresponding wrongful gain to the petitioner. The petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently misdeclared the weight and number of packages and thereby deceived Indian railways, the owner of the wagon and in that process, caused damages to the reputation of Indian Railways in the form of wear and tear of the wagon and endanger the safety and security of the passengers and there is a prima facie material from statements of the prosecution and material documents collected by the prosecution during the investigation. Therefore, other aspects regarding payment of penalty and continuing the contract with the railways and ingredients of Section 415 of IPC made out or not and it can be gone into only after the trial and not at the stage of framing the charge. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the trial court by dismissing the discharge application and therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed . 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the FIR. The statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., by the investigation officer during the investigation, the documents submitted by the prosecution and the charge sheet reveal that there are incriminating materials as against this petitioner and there is a ground to proceed further against the petitioner in this case. 11. As already stated, it is an admitted fact that there was a overloading and fine was levied for the overloading and petitioner had also paid the penalty for the overloading and the investigation also reveals that the petitioner for VPH 1.52 tons was levied penalty and he also paid the penalty and alleges that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently misdeclared the weight and number of packages and thereby deceived the railways, the owner of the wagon and in that process, caused damages to the reputation of the railways. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as already stated from the admitted facts and on perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that there are certain allegations against the petitioner under section 420 of IPC. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as already stated from the admitted facts and on perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that there are certain allegations against the petitioner under section 420 of IPC. Further, from the report filed by the prosecution under section 173 of Cr.P.C., there are prima facie materials available to proceed the case against this petitioner. Further if one sees Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C, if the court comes to the conclusion that the case put up against the accused is groundless, if unrebutted, it would not warrant conviction, there is no sufficient materials to frame the charge, to put it simply, there is no prima facie case as against the accused, the court has to discharge the accused. But, if it is otherwise that there is a ground to proceed further, the court has to frame the charge. 13. In the instant case, as already stated that there are materials to show on that there was a overloading and fine was levied for the overloading and petitioner had also paid the penalty for the overloading and the investigation also reveals that the petitioner for VPH 1.52 tons was levied penalty and he also paid the penalty and alleges that the petitioner dishonestly and fraudulently misdeclared the weight and number of packages and thereby deceived the railways, the owner of the wagon and in that process, caused damages to the reputation of the railways. 14. At this stage, the court can have the impression that the petitioner might have committed the offence and the probative value of the materials cannot be tested all the defences can be taken during the trial and not at this stage of framing charges and further, the payment of penalty will not dissolve the criminal prosecution. 15. No doubt, the benefit of doubt always goes in favour of the accused but at the same time at this stage framing of charges under section 239 of Cr.P.C., the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the prosecution. Even suspicion drawn on incriminating material is enough to frame a charge against the accused. The court can frame the charge probatively value of the materials cannot be tested. 16. Even suspicion drawn on incriminating material is enough to frame a charge against the accused. The court can frame the charge probatively value of the materials cannot be tested. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court bear in mind the important facts that as far the present stage is concerned, there are enough materials to implicate the petitioner in this case. Further, the charge sheet laid down in' the present case in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 for offence under section 420 of IPC cannot be ignored and this court has come to the conclusion that there is enough material in the form of records to bring home the rule pleaded by this petitioner. Therefore, the petition filed by the revision petitioner before the trial court seeking to discharge him from the case in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed. Further on perusal of the entire orders passed by the trial court, it is seen that it has elaborately discussed about that what are the incriminating materials against the petitioner to frame charge and dismissed the petition. 17. Under the above said circumstances, the dismissal order passed by the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2015 in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 dated 07.07.2015 does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent legal infirmity in the eye of law. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court and also there is no merit in this revision petition and the grounds raised in this revision petition are not sustainable under law. All the grounds raised by this petitioner in this revision petition can be agitated during the trial but not at this stage. Therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.222 of 2015 in C.C.No.15218 of 2014 dated 07.07.2015 is confirmed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.