JUDGMENT 1. This criminal revision under sections 397 and 401 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 22.6.2018 passed by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in S.T. No. 235/2017 framing charges against the petitioners under sections 467 and 468 read with section 109 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of framing char.ge is cryptic and there is no specific application of mind as is mandated in the light of the law laid down by this High Court in case of Hemraj and ors. v. State of M.P. as reported in 2003(4) M.P.L.J. 198, wherein it has been held that while framing charges against the accused trial Judge is suppose to consider case of each and every accused individually to find out whether any offence has been committed on the basis of material brought on record. 3. Placing reliance on such judgment of this High Court it is submitted that impugned order reveals that there is no application of mind and therefore, petition deserves to be allowed and the order framing charge be quashed and matter be remanded back to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri to apply mind to case of each individual petitioner. 4. When learned counsel for the petitioners is asked to elaborate as to what are the charges against the petitioners, then he submits that petitioners have been accused of purchasing Government land. It is submitted that there are as many as about 40 accused persons and therefore, the order taking cognÁance and framing charge is arbitrary. 5. In case of Hemraj (Supra) in para 6 judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [ AIR 1977 SC 2018 ], has been referred to. It reads as under : "It is not obligatory for the judge at the stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code.” 6. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code.” 6. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar, [ AIR 1979 SC 366 ], has been referred, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated the test and duty of the Court while considering the question of framing charges under sections 226 and 228 of the Code. Which reads as under : “1.That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purposes of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. 2. 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. 3. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 4. That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 7. This however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” 7. Thus, it is apparent that the trial Court was required to appreciate the material placed before it as to whether it disclose grave suspicion against the accused or not to determine the prima facie case. 8. In the present case, it is apparent that a prima facie case has been made out by the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, inasmuch as it is an admitted position that petitioners are purchaser of property belonging to the Government and if as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners trial Court would have shown indulgence of revealing the material available and discussing the merits of that material, then there would have been another charge that trial Court has already formed its opinion and, therefore, trial is vitiated. 9. Thus, it is apparent that powers conferred under section 228 of the Code words used are that the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence and that opinion is to be drawn after considering and hearing the parties. It is nowhere provided that Judge framing charge under section 228 of the Code will give reasons and the supporting evidence available on record because it is also settled principle of law that elaborate enquiry at the stage of framing charge is not permissible and only prima facie case is to be seen as has been held by this Court in case of Tulsabai v. State of M.P., as reported in 1993 CrLJ 368 . 10. In view of such facts, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.