ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Accused-petitioners have preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned order dated 23.05.2017 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Balotra (for short, learned trial Court) framing charge against them for offence punishable under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this revision petition, are that one Pukhraj Meghwal conveyed telephonic information to ASI Police Station Pachpadra camp Mandapura, District Barmer that a dead body of unknown person is lying at Mandapura Sajiyali Fanta. On the basis of information FIR No. 224/2016 was registered at Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer. Pursuant to investigation into FIR, at the threshold, one Ganga Ram was arrested and upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against three accused persons including the petitioners before Judicial Magistrate, Pachpadra. In due course of time, concerned Magistrate, while resorting to Section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case to learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, thereafter heard arguments on charge and framed aforesaid charges against accused-petitioners and one more accused Gangaram. 3. Assailing the impugned order, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that learned trial Court, while framing charges, has not recorded definite finding in adherence of Section 228 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted by learned counsel that learned trial Court has prima facie not discussed available materials showing possibilities about commission of offence by the petitioner. Learned counsel would contend that no endeavour was made by the learned trial Court to conclude that accused petitioners might have committed offence for castigating them. Learned counsel further submits that the charges are foundation of the entire trial and, therefore, at that stage, it was desirable from the learned trial Court to have prima facie examined requisite materials, more particularly, when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the revision petition. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that learned trial Court, after hearing arguments, has rightly resorted to framing of charge against the accused petitioners. It is further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. Mr. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that learned trial Court, after hearing arguments, has rightly resorted to framing of charge against the accused petitioners. It is further argued by learned Public Prosecutor that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, has also argued that learned trial Court has examined all the pros and cons while framing the charges and, therefore, there is no infirmity, much less legal infirmity in the impugned order. 6. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused impugned order in conjunction with materials available on record. 7. With a view to appreciate the afflictions of the petitioners against the impugned order, it would be just and appropriate to examine the impugned order on the touchstone of available material collected during investigation. While it is true that the learned trial Court has opined that there is ground for presuming that accused persons have committed offence but the order impugned is not spelling out the requisite reasons for framing charge. At the stage of framing charge, it is not necessary for the Court to discuss material brought before it threadbare but then the Court is required to see as to whether the material brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. The Court, while acting under Section 228 Cr.P.C. need not consider the materials meticulously but definitely with some deeper forensic angles so as to find out as to what offence was constituted on facts. After examining the impugned order in that perspective, unhesitatingly, I feel persuaded to interfere with the same. 8. In view thereof, the impugned order is upset and the matter is remanded back to learned trial Court for de novo hearing arguments on charge for passing appropriate order afresh in accordance with law, qua the petitioners. 9. Before parting, it is clarified that learned trial Court while passing order afresh may not be influenced by the observations made in this order.