ORDER Seth, J.--1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 4.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Damoh in Special Case No. 2/2016 whereby application filed under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected and charges under sections 420 r/w 120-B, 468 r/w 120-B, 409 r/w 120-B, 471 r/w 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been framed against the applicant. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that at the relevant point of time, applicant was posted as Chief Municipal Officer at Nagar Parishad, Tendukheda, District-Damoh. Applicant is a Government servant and as such he is a public servant. A complaint in writing was made by one Shobharam alleging that applicant along with other co-accused persons embezzled an amount of Rs. 13,80,223/- in purchase of Auto Rikshaw, Containers with Hydraulic system, Generator 40 KVA and Kenopee by making excess payment over the market price as per letter of M.P. Laghu Udhoyog Nigam dated 19.11.2013. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered against the accused persons and investigation followed. 3. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Learned Special Judge framed charges against the applicant for the offences mentioned above. Hence, this criminal revision. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no material to connect the applicant with the alleged offence and learned trial Court should have discharged him. Thus, according to counsel for the applicant, the trial Court committed grave illegality in framing charges against the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that applicant was involved in the alleged offence, hence no fault can be found with the impugned order framing charges against the applicant. 6. We have heard submissions at length and perused the material placed on record. On a careful consideration, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of counsel for the applicant. 7. Court, at the stage of framing charge, is not required to hold a mini trial and come to the conclusion that material produced warrants conviction. On a careful consideration, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of counsel for the applicant. 7. Court, at the stage of framing charge, is not required to hold a mini trial and come to the conclusion that material produced warrants conviction. At this stage, the probative values of the material submitted along with charge sheet are not required to be examined or evaluated under a microscope. That stage would come later. Prior to it, the Court has only to see that material does make out a prima facie case. 8. At the stage of framing charge, Court is required to consider only the material placed by the prosecution and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 giving right to the accused to place material in defence at the stage of framing of charge. That stage would come later in the trial at the time of defence. We find no fault with the view taken by the trial Court. 9. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, reported in [ (2017) 3 SCC 198 ], Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under : "The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt is to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure." The Supreme Court has further held that- "The object of section 397 of CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding." 10. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, we do not find force in the contention of the applicant. 11. Thus, after considering all the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant, we find no error or illegality with the order impugned. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the statement of law, we do not find any merit and substance in the present petition under section 482 of CrPC, therefore, the same being devoid of any substance is hereby dismissed. 13. Ordered accordingly.