ORDER : Ananda Sen, J. In this revision application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.6.2012 by which a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for discharge in connection with Sessions Trial No.422 of 2010 (G.R. No.1373 of 2008) corresponding to Govindpur P.S. case no.141 of 2008 has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge VII, Dhanbad. 2. Brief fact giving rise to the present case is that an FIR was lodged by the informant, namely, Parwati Kumari stating inter alia therein that on 12.5.2007 at about 7 a.m. in the morning when she went out of her house, the accused Chhotu Turi seeing her alone caught hold of her and tried to commit rape upon her after overpowering her. In the FIR, she states that because of all the hue and cry made by her, several persons gathered at the place, as a result of which, the accused fled away and could not commit rape. 3. On the basis of the statement, FIR was lodged under Sections 376/511, 341, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The court took cognizance and the accused was put on trial. 4. In course of trial, the victim Parwati Kumari (P.W.1) was examined on 7.10.2009 and her mother Guria Devi (P.W.2) was also examined on 9.3.2010. The evidence of the two witnesses disclosed that the case of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused petitioner which is exclusively triable in the court of sessions. Thus, the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 18.8.2010 committed the case under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the court of sessions. Thereafter a petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the accused for discharge which has been rejected by the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below could not have framed charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there is inconsistent statement of the victim. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the court below could not have framed charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there is inconsistent statement of the victim. He submits that in the FIR, the victim has not stated about the commission of rape upon her, rather she categorically stated that the accused tried to commit rape upon her but as she made hue and cry and people gathered at the place of occurrence, the accused could not commit rape and fled away. He further submits that in deposition, the victim and her mother improved their statement which suggests that rape has been committed. He states that on the inconsistent statement of the victim, charge could not have been ordered to be framed under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the Magistrate should have concluded the recording of the entire evidence and then only on satisfaction that offence triable exclusively by the court of sessions is made out, could have committed the case. He prays for setting aside the impugned order. 7. Counsel for the opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that sufficient material has been found to proceed against the petitioner and thus, the court below has rightly rejected the petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner for discharge. 8. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VII, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 422 of 2010 is the order by which petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed. The Magistrate during course of evidence found that two witnesses have been disclosed that a case of rape punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. As the offence punishable under Section 376 is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, he exercised the jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had committed the case to the court of sessions vide order dated 18.8.2010. The order dated 18.8.2010 passed under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been challenged by this petitioner in this application. The order dated 18.8.2010 passed under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been challenged by this petitioner in this application. Since the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 18.8.2010 under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, at the relevant point of time, he cannot now submit that the court below could not have committed the case to the court of sessions without examining the entire witnesses. 9. So far framing of charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is pertinent to quote Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads 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 Jude considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 10. From perusal of the provision of law, it is clear that only when the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, he shall be discharged. 11. In the instant case, since the evidence of the victim which is on record suggests that rape has been committed against her, the court blow had rightly rejected the petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and found that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. 12. The claim of the petitioner that there is inconsistent plea of the victim as in the FIR she had not whisper about commission of rape, cannot be looked into at this stage. What could be the effect of inconsistency of the statement of the victim, i.e, statement given by her at the time of lodging of the FIR and her deposition in the court, will have to be decided by the trial court during trial itself. This issue cannot be decided at this stage while deciding the petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. As it has been found from the record that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition. 14. I find no illegality in the impugned order and hence, this revision application is dismissed. 15. 13. As it has been found from the record that there are sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the petition. 14. I find no illegality in the impugned order and hence, this revision application is dismissed. 15. The Interim order passed on 4.3.2013 is vacated. 16. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned immediately so that Sessions Trial No.422 of 2010 can be disposed of at the earliest. Application dismissed.