ORDER : Challenge in this revision application is to the order dated 22.11.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case no. 61 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has framed charge against the petitioners under Section 270, 272, 273 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. 2. A brief reference of the factual aspects would suffice the issue involved in this case. On the basis of the self-statement of the Officer in-charge, Jamtara Police Station, the present case was lodged on 10.03.2014 with the allegation that while the informant with police personnel was on patrolling duty, he received secret information that illegal wine has been stocked in Riya Electric Shop belonging to the petitioner no.1 and in the hotel of one Shiv Kumar Mandal and the same is being sold. Whereafter raid was conducted in the shop of petitioner no.1 Pintu Mandal @ Dinesh Mandal and foreign liquors were seized and similarly on conducting raid in hotel of petitioner no.2 Shib Kumar Mandal @ Shibu Mandal, wine were recovered but the owners of the said shop and hotel after seeing the police party fled away. 3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet under the aforesaid sections and, accordingly, the cognizance of offence was also taken by the court concerned and by the order impugned dated 22.11.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charge as indicated above. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Sarkhel appearing for the petitioners seriously contended that even if the allegation made in the prosecution case is accepted on its face value, still on the basis of the materials brought on record, no offence under Section 270, 272, 273 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code are made out against the petitioners and that the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence in the aforesaid sections are completely lacking but even though the court below has framed charges under those sections in mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind. It was also submitted that the petitioners have no objection on the charge framed by the court below under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. It was also submitted that the petitioners have no objection on the charge framed by the court below under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act. It was seriously contended that Section 272 of the Indian Penal Code deals with Adulteration of Food or Drink intended to sell but there is no allegation of any adulteration in the entire prosecution case and even there is no whisper that the petitioners were found selling any adulterated food or drink rather certain liquors were seized from the shop and hotel of the petitioners respectively. Similarly, Section 290 of I.P.C., which deals with the public nuisance, has also no application and none of the ingredients responsible to constitute the offence is available on record. As such framing of charge under Sections 270, 272, 273 and 290 of the Indian Penal is bad in law and a futile exercise on the part of the prosecution to harass the petitioners. 5. Contrary to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel representing the State submitted that the court below finding sufficient evidence, prima facie case and strong suspicion on record framed charge against the petitioners. Learned counsel thus submitted that the court below has not committed any illegality in framing the charge. 6. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the learned counsels, I would like to examine the scope and ambit of powers of the court as provided in Chapter- XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”). In the case State through Inspector of Police Vs. A. Arun Kumar and Anr.; 2015(1) East Cr.C. 450 (S.C.), the Hon’ble Supreme Court on consideration of several authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code and other provisions dealing with framing of charge held as follows: (i) “The Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Cr PC 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 materials 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, to 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. 7. Apparently, in the above case, a mandate has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the court while framing charge 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. 7. Apparently, in the above case, a mandate has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the court while framing charge 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. It is true that at this initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion, which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to show that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but the court has to apply its judicial mind on the materials placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. I have gone through the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials on record and I find that the court below while framing charge has not applied its judicial mind and has accepted the prosecution case as gospel truth. Apparently, there is absolutely no allegation or even evidence to show that there was any adulteration rather it is a simple case of seizure of beer and foreign liquors besides the country made liquor. There is sufficient evidence to proceed against the petitioner under Section 47(A) of Excise Act but no ingredients responsible to constitute the offence under Sections 270, 272, 273 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code are available on record to prima facie satisfy the court and to proceed to frame charge. 8. Hence, the order impugned by which the court below has framed charge against the petitioners under Section 270, 272, 273 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code are, hereby, set aside. But, the charge framed against the petitioners under Section 47 (A) of the Excise Act does not require any interference. The court below is, accordingly, directed to proceed with the charge under Section 47(A) of the Excise Act against the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid modification and observation, this revision application is partly allowed. Application partly allowed.