JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the impugned order dated 08.06.2016, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) / First Addl. Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.S.T. no. 01 of 2013, State vs Om Prakash, whereby the court below has framed charges against the applicants. 2. There is no denying the fact that the applicants were public servants at the time of alleged commission of offence. Charge sheet has admittedly been filed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After submission of charge sheet and after hearing the applicants, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against the applicants vide order dated 08.06.2016, aggrieved against which, the applicants have preferred present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The limited scope for consideration of this Court for applicant’s discharge is –whether a prima facie case for the offences, for which the applicants have been charged, is made out against them or not? 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has taken an exception to the framing of charge under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only, and not under different provisions of Indian Penal Code. 5. Designated court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is although an additional Sessions Judge, but he acts as a Magistrate while trying such cases. Chapter XIX Cr.P.C. deals with trial of warrant-cases by Magistrate. Section 239 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “239. When accused shall be discharged. –If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.” [Emphasis supplied] 6. Chapter XVIII deals with trial before a Court of Sessions. Section 227 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “227. Chapter XVIII deals with trial before a Court of Sessions. Section 227 of Cr.P.C. provides as under: “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.” [Emphasis supplied] 7. At the stage of framing of charge, the Magistrate / Special Judge has not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal, he or she has to exercise his or her judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for proceeding against the accused / trial has been made out by the prosecution or not. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of offence recorded by the police or documents produced before the court which ex facie discloses that there were sufficient grounds against the accused. 8. In the instant case, the Special Judge has framed charges under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). 9. Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, provides, inter alia, that if he (accused) dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates…..any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do. 10. Likewise, Section 13(1)(d) of the Act provides, inter alia, that if he (accused) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains …… for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains …… for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest, the same are punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be said that the charge has been framed by the court below without application of judicial mind. 11. 11. Needless to say, that at the stage of framing of charge or discharge, the trial court is not required to look into the factum of sufficiency of evidence so as to convict the accused, the trial court has only to see, on the basis of material collected by the Investigating Officer, as to whether such charge, as suggested by the Investigating Officer, can be framed or not, which has been done in the instant case. There is catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the law governing the field. This Court is not discussing those decisions for the sake of brevity. 12. The order impugned by which charges were framed against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 120B IPC and Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not warrant any interference. 13. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., therefore, fails and is dismissed.